Monday, October 03, 2011

The Truth about SourceWatch


SourceWatch is a propaganda site funded by an extreme left-wing, anti-capitalist and anti-corporate organization, the Center for Media and Democracy. Just like the untrustworthy Wikipedia the content can be written and edited by ordinary web users. Users who all conveniently share an extreme left-wing bias. SourceWatch is frequently cited by those seeking to smear individuals and organizations who do not share their extreme left-wing bias since they cannot find any legitimate criticisms from respected news sources.

SourceWatch (Discover the Networks)

A project of the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD), [...]

SourceWatch also seeks to expose what it calls the "propaganda activities of public relations firms" and the activities of organizations working "on behalf of corporations, governments and special interests." These "exposes," which tend to be critical of their subjects, deal predominantly with conservative entities. [...]

As with the online reference Wikipedia, the contents of SourceWatch are written and edited by ordinary Web users. Says SourceWatch: "You don't need any special credentials to participate -- we shun credentialism along with other propaganda techniques." While stating that it seeks to maintain fairness in the profiles and articles appearing on its website, SourceWatch does acknowledge that "ignoring systemic bias and claiming objectivity is itself one of many well-known propaganda techniques." [...]

...The perspectives are mostly leftist; the entries rely heavily on leftist and far-leftist sources.

Center for Media and Democracy (Discover the Networks)
An anti-capitalist, anti-corporate organization that seeks to expose right-wing "public relations spin and propaganda".

Established in 1983, the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) aims to "strengthe[n] participatory democracy by investigating and exposing public relations spin and propaganda" -- focusing largely on what it views as the transgressions of political conservatives. Another CMD objective is to assist liberal and leftist "grassroots citizen activism that promotes public health, economic justice, ecological sustainability and human rights." [...]

In CMD's view, capitalism generally, and corporations in particular, are the principal root causes of societal ills in the U.S. and abroad. The Capital Research Center, which rates the ideological leanings of nonprofit organizations, places CMD near the extreme far left of the spectrum. [...]

Members of the CMD Board of Directors include: Joseph Mendelson, a former Director of Friends of the Earth and co-founder of the environmental organization Center for Food Safety; Anna Lappe, co-founder of the social justice organization Small Planet Institute [...]

The most notable CMD Board member is Ellen Braune, whose leftist affiliations are extensive and longstanding. She currently serves as Vice President of Communications at the Ms. Foundation for Women, and was formerly a Senior Vice President at Fenton Communications and a Communications Director for the Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador (CISPES). Part of the Soviet-controlled World Peace Council, CISPES was established in America in 1980 by high-ranking members of the Salvadoran Communist Party and Cuban intelligence to support El Salvador's murderous guerrilla bands and to influence American public opinion through protests and one-sided disinformation.

CMD was founded by the leftist writer and environmental activist John Stauber, who continues to serve as the Center's Executive Director. Stauber began his activism in high school when he organized anti-Vietnam War protests and early Earth Day events. The co-author (with SourceWatch founder Sheldon Rampton) of six books, Stauber created the now-defunct website Vote2StopBush.org. He is also an unpaid advisor to several organizations, including the Action Coalition for Media Education, the Center for Food Safety, the Liberty Tree Foundation, the Media Education Foundation, and the Organic Consumers Association. [...]

An April 2001 commentary in the liberal publication Village Voice said of Rampton and Stauber: "These guys come from the far side of liberal."

Center for Media & Democracy (Activist Cash)
The Center for Media & Democracy (CMD) is a counterculture public relations effort disguised as an independent media organization. CMD isn’t really a center it would be more accurate to call it a partnership, since it is essentially a two-person operation.

Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber operate, as do most self-anointed progressive watchdogs, from the presumption that any communication issued from a corporate headquarters must be viewed with a jaundiced eye. In their own quarterly PR Watch newsletter, they recently referred to corporate PR as a propaganda industry, misleading citizens and manipulating minds in the service of special interests. Ironically, Rampton and Stauber have elected to dip into the deep pockets of multi-million-dollar foundations with special interest agendas of their own.

Their books Mad Cow U.S.A. and Toxic Sludge Is Good for You! were produced and promoted using grant monies from the Foundation for Deep Ecology ($25,000) and the Education Foundation of America ($20,000), among others. Along with the more recent Trust Us: We’re Experts, these books are scare-mongering tales about a corporate culture out of control, and each implies that the public needs rescuing. Guess who the heroes in this fantasy are?

Despite his wild claims that federal agencies have covered up U.S. mad cow disease cases, John Stauber has become a quotable celebrity on the subject. In 1997, at the height of the initial mad-cow panic, a CMD press release warned: Evidence suggests there may already be a mad-cow-type of disease infecting both U.S. pigs and cattle. Rampton and Stauber have never provided any documentation to back up this reckless claim; no cases of mad-cow disease have ever been documented in U.S. livestock. John Stauber was one of only four mad-cow experts offered to reporters by Fenton Communications’ media arm, Environmental Media Services.
Read the rest of this entry »

Sunday, September 11, 2011

Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

The Internet allows ignorance to blossom as it has for the 9/11 Truth movement. To the naive their arguments can seem compelling but when you actually analyze their claims with hard science and facts, they completely fall apart. I was not only trained in computer information systems but also architecture. This is why absolutely nothing about any of the building collapses looked suspicious to me. I have nothing but contempt for the "truthers" who push propaganda on the naive. Their claims are just ignorant: "the WTC fires were not hot enough to melt steel" (they didn't have to be, just hot enough to weaken it's load bearing ability); "WTC 7 fell at free fall speed" (it didn't - it fell 40% slower); "WTC 7 was a controlled demolition" (zero evidence to support this); "Aircraft hitting buildings should leave a cartoon cutout" (hollow aluminum aircraft hitting high-strength, load-bearing perimeter steel columns will leave no such shape) and on and on. I literally laughed out loud the first time I saw "Loose Change" and that idiot Dylan Avery claimed pressure releases from the weight of the WTC towers collapsing on themselves were a controlled demolition. Only someone absolutely ignorant of structural design and engineering would believe these ridiculous claims. Unfortunately this appears to be a significant number of people which compelled me to write this. I give the utmost praise to those fighting this insanity and the cult like movement that is "9/11 Truth". Without their hard work knocking down one conspiratorial claim after the next this whole situation could be much worse. What I have done here is compile a simple reference debunking the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories. Please share the real truth.

Bullshit! - 9/11 Conspiracy Theories (9min) (Penn & Teller: Bullshit!) (2005)


The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 (60min) (BBC) (2007)


The 9/11 Conspiracies: Fact or Fiction (90min) (The History Channel) (2007)


9/11: Science and Conspiracy - Fire Melts Steel (10min) (National Geographic) (2009)


9/11: Science and Conspiracy - Thermite (10min) (National Geographic) (2009)


Building the World Trade Center (18min) (The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey) (1983)


Why the Towers Fell (60min) (NOVA) (2002)


World Trade Center - Anatomy Of The Collapse (45min) (The Learning Channel) (2002)


References:
9/11 Conspiracy Theories: The 9/11 Truth Movement in Perspective (Skeptic Magazine)
Debunking The 9/11 Myths (Popular Mechanics)
Fahrenheit 2777: 9/11 has generated the mother of all conspiracy theories (Scientific American)
Nutty 9-11 Physics (Steve Dutch, Ph.D. Professor of Natural and Applied Sciences)
Panoply of the Absurd (Der Spiegel)
Purdue creates scientifically based animation of 9/11 attack (Purdue University)
Q&A: What really happened (The Conspiracy Files)
The Physics of 9/11 (Manuel Garcia, Ph.D. Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering)
The Thermodynamics of 9/11 (Manuel Garcia, Ph.D. Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering)
Unraveling Anti-Semitic 9/11 Conspiracy Theories (PDF) (The Anti-Defamation League)
Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation (Thomas W. Eagar, Professor of Materials Engineering and Engineering Systems, MIT)

Reports:
Federal Building and Fire Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (National Institute of Standards and Technology)
- NIST Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster FAQs (National Institute of Standards and Technology)
- NIST Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster FAQs - Supplement (August 30, 2006) (National Institute of Standards and Technology)
- NIST Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster FAQs - Supplement (December 14, 2007) (National Institute of Standards and Technology)
Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities before and after the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001 (U.S. Congress)
The Pentagon building performance report (PDF) (National Institute of Standards and Technology)
The 9/11 Commission Report (PDF) (National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States)
World Trade Center Building Performance Study (Federal Emergency Management Agency)


WTC 7

The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 - The Truth Behind The Third Tower (60min) (BBC) (2008)


Why the Building (WTC7) Fell (4min) (NIST) (2009)


References:
6 Debunked 9/11 Conspiracy Claims From NIST's New WTC 7 Report (Popular Mechanics)
9/11 demolition theory challenged (BBC)
9/11 third tower mystery 'solved' (BBC)
A Critical Analysis of the Collapse of WTC Towers 1, 2 & 7 from an Explosives and Conventional Demolition Industry Viewpoint (PDF) (Brent Blanchard, Implosion World)
How the Loss of One Column May Have Led to the Collapse of WT7 (PDF) (Structure Magazine)
NIST WTC 7 Investigation Finds Building Fires Caused Collapse (National Institute of Standards and Technology)
The Fall of WTC 7 (Manuel Garcia, Ph.D. Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering)
World Trade Center Building 7 and the Lies of the 9/11 "Truth Movement" (PDF) (Mark Roberts, 911 Researcher)

Reports:
Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 (PDF) (National Institute of Standards and Technology)
Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation (September 17, 2010) (National Institute of Standards and Technology)



Conspiracy Theory Videos


Fahrenheit 911: (2004)

FahrenHYPE 9/11 (1hr 20min)

Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 911 (Independence Institute)


Loose Change: (Original: April 2005, 2nd Edition: December 2005, 2nd Edition Recut: June 2006, Final Cut: November 2007)

Screw Loose Change - Not Freakin' Again edition (2hr 58min)



911 In Plane Site: (2004)

Not in Plain Sight (14min)



9/11 Mysteries: (2007)

Screw 9/11 Mysteries - Clunkity Clunk Edition (2hr 35min)



September Clues: (2007)

September Clues - Busted! (28min)




Debates

Dylan Avery, Jason Bermas (Loose Change) vs. James Meigs, David Dunbar (Popular Mechanics) (59min)


Dylan Avery, Jason Bermas (Loose Change) vs. Mark Roberts (9/11 Researcher) (1/2) (30min)


Dylan Avery, Jason Bermas (Loose Change) vs. Mark Roberts (9/11 Researcher) (2/2) (30min)


James H. Fetzer (Scholars for 9/11 Truth) vs. Mark Roberts (9/11 Researcher) (1/3) (30min)


James H. Fetzer (Scholars for 9/11 Truth) vs. Mark Roberts (9/11 Researcher) (2/3) (30min)


James H. Fetzer (Scholars for 9/11 Truth) vs. Mark Roberts (9/11 Researcher) (3/3) (30min)


Ace Baker (No-Planer) vs. Steve Wright (Video Effects Expert) (1/2) (30min)


Ace Baker (No-Planer) vs. Steve Wright (Video Effects Expert) (2/2) (30min)


Richard Gage (Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth) vs. Mark Roberts (9/11 Researcher) (1/2) (30min)


Richard Gage (Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth) vs. Mark Roberts (9/11 Researcher) (2/2) (30min)




Books

Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts (The Editors of Popular Mechanics, 2006)
Fahrenheit 9-12: Rebuttal to Fahrenheit 9/11 (Aaron Reichel, 2004)
Fahrenhype 9/11: Unraveling the Truth About Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 (Lee Troxler, 2004)
The 9/11 Commission Report (National Commission on Terrorist Attacks, 2004)
World Trade Center Building Performance Study (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2002)


Conspiracy Books:

"Debunking 9/11 Debunking" (David Ray Griffin, Ph.D. Religion)

- On Debunking 9/11 Debunking: Examining Dr. David Ray Griffin’s Latest Criticism of the NIST World Trade Center Investigation (PDF) (313pgs) (Ryan Mackey, Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories, Volume 1, Issue 4)


Peer-Reviewed Papers

Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation (PDF)
(JOM Journal of the Minerals, Metals and Materials Society, Volume 53, Number 12, pp. 8-11, December 2001)
- Thomas W. Eagar, Christopher Musso


Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? - Simple Analysis (PDF)
(Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Volume 128, Number 1, pp 2-6, January 2002)
- Zdenek P. Bazant, Yong Zhou


- Addendum to "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis"
(Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Volume 128, Number 3, pp. 369-370, March 2002)
- Zdenek P. Bazant, Yong Zhou


- Closure of "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis"
(Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Volume 129, Number 7, pp. 839-840, July 2003)
- Zdenek P. Bazant, Yong Zhou


How did the WTC towers collapse: a new theory (PDF)
(Fire Safety Journal, Volume 38, Issue 6, pp. 501-533, October 2003)
- A. S. Usmani, Y. C. Chung, J. L. Torero


Stability of the World Trade Center Twin Towers Structural Frame in Multiple Floor Fires
(Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Volume 131, Number 6, pp. 654-657, June 2005)
- A. S. Usmani


Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions (PDF)
(Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Volume 133, Number 3, pp. 308-319, March 2007)
- Zdene P. Bazant, Mathieu Verdure


- Closure of "Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions"
(Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Volume 134, Number 10, pp. 917-923, October 2008)
- Zdene P. Bazant, Mathieu Verdure


Media Use, Social Structure, and Belief in 9/11 Conspiracy Theories (PDF)
(Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, Volume 84, Number 2, pp. 353-372, Summer 2007)
- Carl Stempel, Thomas Hargrove, Guido H. Stempel III


Engineering Perspective of the Collapse of WTC-I (PDF)
(Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, Volume 22, Issue 1, pp. 62-67, February 2008)
- Ayhan Irfanoglu, Christoph M. Hoffmann


Progressive Collapse of the World Trade Center: Simple Analysis (PDF)
(Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Volume 134, Number 2, February 2008)
- K.A. Seffen


What Did and Did Not Cause Collapse of World Trade Center Twin Towers in New York? (PDF)
(Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Volume 134, Number 10, pp. 892-906, October 2008)
- Zdenek P. Bazant, Jia-Liang Le, Frank R. Greening, David B. Benson


- Closure of "What Did and Did Not Cause Collapse of World Trade Center Twin Towers in New York?"
(Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Volume 136, Number 7, pp. 934-935, July 2010)
- Zdenek P. Bazant, Jia-Liang Le, Frank R. Greening, David B. Benson


9/11 Conspiracy Theories on the World Wide Web: Digital Rhetoric and Alternative Epistemology (PDF)
(The Journal of Literacy and Technology, Volume 9, Number 3, pp. 2-25, December 2008)
- Charles Soukup


Failure Analysis of the World Trade Center 5 Building (PDF)
(Journal of Fire Protection Engineering, Volume 19, Number 4, pp. 261-274, November 2009)
- Kevin J. LaMalva, Jonathan R. Barnett, Donald O. Dusenberry


Unanswered questions: A preliminary investigation of personality and individual difference predictors of 9/11 conspiracist beliefs
(Applied Cognitive Psychology, Volume 24, Issue 6, pp. 749–761, September 2010)
- Viren Swami1, Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic, Adrian Furnham


Government secrecy and conspiracy theories
(Research in Social Problems and Public Policy, Volume 19, pp. 91-100, 2011)
- Kathryn S. Olmsted


Why the Observed Motion History of World Trade Center Towers Is Smooth
(Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Volume 137, Number 1, pp. 82-84, January 2011)
- Jia-Liang Le, Zdenek P. Bazant



Websites

911 Myths
Debunking 911
Journal Of Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
Links for 9/11 Research
NIST and the World Trade Center
Screw Loose Change Blog


"There is a distinct difference between having an open mind and having a hole in your head from which your brain leaks out." - James Randi
Read the rest of this entry »

Wednesday, June 01, 2011

Origin of the Popular Technology.net Peer-Reviewed Paper List


There are various myths floating around online about where the Popular Technology.net peer-reviewed paper list originated, falsely giving credit to people who copied earlier versions of my list and published it as their own. The following is a brief history,

Back in February 2007 I began compiling 'The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource'. The resource originally had a section dedicated to "peer-reviewed papers" where I would add various papers as I found them. Some basic categories existed and by the end of the year it had just less than 200 papers on the list. However it was effectively a rough draft that was not ready for publication. There were various reasons for this including that not all the journals were confirmed to be peer-reviewed. For instance, papers only published at arXiv.org are not peer-reviewed.

In April of 2008 the list was copied verbatim from the Popular Technology.net forums without my permission to Pete's Place in an article titled, 'Peer-Reviewed Articles Skeptical Of Man-Caused Global Warming'. At first I assumed he would give proper credit to myself and this site but when it quickly began showing up around the Internet as his I briefly commented asking for recognition as the source. I received no reply and his post was not updated to correctly recognize the source. Instead Peter apparently lied to and fooled the Heartland Institute into posting my list as "Compiled by Peter Risdon",

Scores of Peer-Reviewed Studies Contradict Global Warming Alarmism (The Heartland Institute, July 1, 2008)
More Peer-Reviewed Studies Contradict Global Warming Alarmism (The Heartland Institute, August 1, 2008)
Still More Peer-Reviewed Studies Contradict Global Warming Alarmism (The Heartland Institute, September 1, 2008)

I could not believe it and thus set out to compile a larger more inclusive list for publication at Popular Technology.net. When the paper count reached over 450 it was published in October of 2009. The irony here is I was quickly attacked by some as copying the Heartland Institute's list (this false claim is still being repeated to this day). Thanks to the dishonesty of Peter Risdon ripping off my own work, I was now being falsely accused of the same thing. To this day Peter has never updated his plagiarized post.

The only main third party sources initially used to compile the Popular Technology.net list were,

1. Dr. Khandekar's Bibliography of Peer-Reviewed Papers
2. CO2Science's Subject Archive

While I have received some submissions from scientists and skeptics, the bulk of the papers came from hundreds of hours of independent research searching online databases, websites and books.

When you spend enough time on a project you would like the proper credit for doing so.
Read the rest of this entry »