Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:39, 3 April 2006

An event mentioned in this article is a September 11 selected anniversary.

Template:FormerFA

Template:FACfailed is deprecated, and is preserved only for historical reasons. Please see Template:Article history instead.

This article (or a previous version) is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination did not succeed. For older candidates, please check the Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Template:TrollWarning

Archive this Page

Here are a list of headings that have nothing to do with improving the article. I suggest we archive, tell people to move this "debate", if it can be called that, to the conspiracy page.

"allegedly" - refers to hijacker's culpability

Someone put this in the article--Railsmart 17:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC) - Loose Change

Description of conspiracy theories

Conspiracy Video

Culpability

Conspiracy Video by Alex Jones

need these photos

Re: Collapse. Some really push their POV in the guise of fact.

Conspiracy theorists.

The Controlled Demolition Fairy Tale

Explain these anamolies

84%!

Lost conspiracies

Asymetrical POV

Favor Archiving

C. Nelson - This seems to me like a no brainer. Discussion is off track.

Oppose

Or perhaps someone wants to refactor? If people are still debating this during the summer, I'd be happy to refactor the archives... perhaps move all the conspiracy discussions to one archive.

I moved all the discussion to Archive 15, aside from this one and the latest thread.--MONGO 09:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Breath of fresh air. nice. --Mmx1 15:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Biased and Non-Standard Section Title "Conspiracy Theories"

Hello. I'm new here at the Misplaced Pages. But, when reading this article, I noticed that instead the typical "Controversy" sub-secction found in many of this Enciclopedia's articles, there's one called "Conspiracy Theories". This name is itself biased and in my opinion should be replaced by the typical and unbiased term "Controversy". I tryied to change this, but my edit was removed, what is the right procedure to do this?

Normal nick 00:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

This is the right procedure, bringing it to the talk page. :) --Golbez 01:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

And will this lead anywhere? After this, what should be done? Normal nick 02:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

People will respond. A compromise will be found. If not, then you go to the next step, with is a Request for Comment from the community. --Golbez 02:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this pov wording is supported by many editors who prefer marginalizing independent researchers and critics of official 9/11 stonewalling, by stretching the meaning of npov beyond all recognition. Thank you for bringing the point up for discussion. The 'official' accounts have continued to lose credibility (along with most every aspect of the Bush administration), not simply because of the conflicts of interest and whitewashing that characterized the 9/11 commission, but also because new answers about what really happened have lent additional credence to alternative scenarios. Yes, it is time for an RfC. Ombudsman 02:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Meaning of "Controversy"

Controversies sections exist where there are some common facts and opinions differ on their interpretation and significance. So the decision to drop the bomb on Hiroshima is controversial. Use of steroids in baseball is controversial. The gap between the facts according to the 9/11 commission and the conspiracy theories is too large to be considered a controversy. patsw 05:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Patsw, although I also don't think that "Conspiracy theory" has such negative conotations that it will become a problem. I think we all agree that the claims are "theories" (in the colloquial sense) about "conspiracies." If a "controversy" section had anything in it, would be about whether the gov was incompetent in not stopping the attacks or something like that. JoshuaZ 05:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

There is controversy over the whole thing. I havent heard so much controversy about anything.

"Controversy on the diccionary". There are several different views about the topic and there are arguments based on facts on both sides. There is a public dispute between sides holding oposing views. I don't understand why don't you want to use the regular word for the name of this secction, I continue to believe that oposing to this change is biased. I can try to explain why: The set of words "conspiracy theories" has a bashing effect on the credebility of one of the sides of the dispute, and by using it, you're yourself taking part on the dispute as one that agrees with one side. You seem to deny there is a controversy here, but it's quite obvious there is one. If there wasn't, then there wouldn't exist movies about it nor this talk page would be so full. By other mean, not all the controversy about this happening has to do with conspiracies, and much of it is about simple isolated facts.Normal nick 12:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Refusing to use the word controversy and insisting on using the tag 'conspiracy theorist' unquestionably has an undeserved credibility bashing effect on anyone who expresses ideas or views that may contradict the 'official story' or mainstream media. I think this is intentional in many cases. And there are many credible sources outside of these. SkeenaR 19:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there's a controversy, but it's of the Earth is Round vs. Flat Earth type -- there may be people that believe that the Earth is flat, but it's not a credible theory that merits serious consideration. Morton devonshire 19:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

That argument is funny, because if there had been a Misplaced Pages at that time, then, at the earth talk page many would mention the uncredability of the possibility of the earth beeing round. Every theory deserves consideration, as long as you can't prove it wrong. And even wrong theories deserve a page here at the wikipedia, as long as you mention they are wrong.Normal nick 19:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. The conflict is from amateurs looking at a photograph and trying to put their random guesses on an equal footing with the professional assertions of the people who designed and built the towers or who analyzed the collapse scientifically. The conspiracy theories are mentioned in the appropriate articles. If a particular theory gains credibility (in the professional engineering sense), then it might in future be moved to this article. Peter Grey 20:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The conflicts regarding what the true circumstances are behind this event are far more wide ranging than the collapse of the World Trade Center SkeenaR 20:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I partialy agree with Peter Grey. Even though, there is no reason that justifies the biased and unstandard use of terminology. You guys couldn't sill explain me what justfies to remove an edit from "Conspiracy theories" to the regular "Controversy". I remember you that not all the controversy about this issue has to do with any kind of conspiracy. Remeber also that much of the info reported in this article has the United States government as the only source, wich is clearly an highly biased source. Now, please justify the use of the title "conspiracy theories" instead of the regular "controversy". Normal nick 20:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

A few people chiming in here with a sole intention of adding nonscientific mumbo jumbo to this article, are POV pushing. There simply is zero proof of either U.S. Government involvement or controlled demolition or actions by Israeli operatives that has any basis in fact. It is all simply wide eyed conspiracy theory rhetoric. That is why the section is noted as Conspiracy Theories and that is why this junk science is all in subpages. If you want to fill Misplaced Pages up with junk science, then do so over in those articles, not here. Thanks.--MONGO 03:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Motivations for the Change

I think it is up to you to show why conspiracy theory is not suitable for a title. Tom Harrison 21:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not a matter of not beeing suitable, but of beeing worse. It's simple:

• Misplaced Pages is suposed to be the more neutral possible when exposing controversial issues. Any natural language words are non-neutral by themselves, Misplaced Pages is made of those. If the expression "Controversy" is more neutral than "Conspiracy theories", then it's use improves Misplaced Pages quality comparing to the use of the current title, because it makes[REDACTED] to be more neutral.
• By other mean, the word "Controversy" is used in many other Misplaced Pages's articles. Then, using it here for the same sort of content will improve Misplaced Pages's Orthogonality as a Human-Machine Interface, making it easier for the users to find the information they look for.
• Finally, the word "Controversy" is much more general than the expression currently beeing used. By making the change I propose, references to controversy about conspiracies and controversy about simple and isolated facts can be adequatly separated inside this section.Normal nick 22:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Er, abrangent? I'm not familiar with that word. JoshuaZ 22:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Ups.. Sorry, it was suposed to be "more general"Normal nick 22:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I've heard that argument before, and I don't find it persuasive. Conspiracy theory is a perfectly correct term. Calling them anything other than what they are is just inaccurate. Tom Harrison 03:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The matter here is not if it is correct or not, but if it is best than "Controversy". By your non-arguments i see it's not.

It's much more accurate and more neutral than "controversy". "Controversy" implies a legitimacy and an air of serious debate which the 9/11 conspiracy movement does not have. The movement is a tiny group who can't even make up their mind about which theory to support. Ignoring the vast amount of evidence supporting the official account, they allege that members of the U.S. government conspired to murder thousands of U.S. citizens and somehow kept it a secret. There is no better term than "conspiracy theory" to describe these unsupported beliefs. Rhobite 04:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

They aren't a single group, with a single theory, and many of them don't even say nothing about any conspiracy. The this is: There are people who disagree with the officaly presented facts, and that as to unbiasely be refeerd on this article. "Controversy" don't implies legitimacy, and "legetimacy" is way too subjectif.

Some of the unofficial theories appear to have supporting evidence while others appear to have none. Many claims of the official account seem to be legitimate while others seem unsubsantiated. But one thing is certain, and that is there is much controversy - obviously. SkeenaR 04:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Controversy shouldn't be allowed

I dispute that the numerous Controversy sections which appear in articles are helpful. It's a method used by POV-pushers to assign more weight to critics regarless of their credibility. Other encyclopedias through the ages didn't see a need for them. patsw 22:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you are right about that, but that ain't a thing to be discussed here on this particular talk page.

Try Misplaced Pages's first page talk for that, but i remember you that those sections can be seen as a tool for both POV and NPOV pushersNormal nick 22:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Normal nick, if your recent entries are appropriate to be discussed on this particular talk page, my replies to you are as well. patsw 00:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry by the way I replied, I should have justified why I said that. That problem you are talking about is something that guives respect to the whole wikipedia, then, it should be discussed in some page related to the wikipedia's policies, and not on this one. Continuing that argumentation you started is off-topic and leads nowhere. You are saying Misplaced Pages's polices wrong. Particularily, you are argumentating against something that is clearly defined as necessary for NPOV in Misplaced Pages's rules. Normal nick 03:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

"You are saying Misplaced Pages's polices wrong." What policy do you mean? Tom Harrison 03:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

From NPOV:

"All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one."

"NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each."Normal nick 03:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

There is a link to the 9/11 conspiracy theories article. That is the due weight that fairly represents the viewpoint that 9/11 may have been one of serveral different conspiracies described in the linked article. patsw 05:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Using the expression "conspiracy theorists", you are putting all people that opose to the official version in the same bag: The ones that simply speculate and the ones who realy investigate. This is inacurate and highly biased. It resembles propaganda tactics.Normal nick 11:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

In Favour of Moving This Talk Section Somewhere Else

Normal nick 03:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

In Favour Archiving This Talk Section

Normal nick 03:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Opose To Any Of The Last

Validaty of facts

The points of view Normal nick speaks of have no basis in fact...they are just nonsense...and that is why they are not in this article.--MONGO 03:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Some of them are based on facts. It's a fact that outside the pentagon there were no airplane debris. And it's a fact that the way the towers have fallen it's weirdly similar to implosion demolitions. About the others, i can't tell if they are facts or no. I didn't see them.Normal nick 03:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

No, zero of this nonsense is based on facts...you didn't see them...I did...no aircraft parts at the Pentagon?...examine this image...see those folks in the white hazmat suits near the orange crane...to the right slightly is some of the remains of the aircraft...they are in hazmat outfits due to the biohazard from the people that died on the plane and in the building. There is zero proof of controlled demolition...when some one can prove it, then it can go in this article....got it?--MONGO 03:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• No wings nor any other big parts. This is fact..
• There is no proff about controled demonition, you are right, but there are proffs it looked like a controled demolition.

You are wrong...they did find a lot of aircraft parts at the Pentagon. You're a conspiracy theorists and you have no facts...the buildings at the WTC were not imploded. There is no evidence that proves implosion.--MONGO 04:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• I don't know whether a plane realy crashed against the pentagon, neither do you. But there are no big parts of any plane at that photos or movies. This is a fact.
• I don't know if there was a controled demolition, neither do you. But the fall of the buildings looks like one. And this is a fact.Normal nick 04:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I do know a plane hit the pentagon...I work for USDHS. The fall of the buildings at the WTC may look like controlled demolition...but that doesn't mean that it was...do you have proof of controlled demolition?...oh, I see, I didn't think so.--MONGO 04:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand that the fact of "had been a controled demolition" is different from the "it looked like a controled demolition". Strange that you saw it, because there are other witnesses that say they didn't. And... working for the USDHS don't makes you way too biased for having anything to do with the edition of this topic? Editors are suposed to be neutral.Normal nick 04:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theories Article and This One

Then go put that junk in the conspiracy theory page...saying how something looked is a bit POV, no? Gee...sure looks like controlled demolition...is not encyclopedic. I'm not neutral? How do you figure that? If I know the facts and a bunch on nonsense oushing POVer's come here and I do what I can to keep their nonsense out of an encyclopedic article, then I am ensuring a close following of the undue weight clause of WP:NPOV. Do you have proof of controlled demolition? Okay...see you around then.--MONGO 04:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

From NPOV:

• "A POV fork is an attempt to evade NPOV guidelines by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. This is generally considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and majority Point of Views on a certain subject are treated in one article."

With this I'm not saying these pages are some kind of POV fork. What I'm saying that - as in any other article in the Misplaced Pages - this article should treat all facts and the majority Point Of Views in the same way: With Neutral Terminology.Normal nick 14:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Changing the title from conspiracy theories to controversies makes the title inaccurate. Conspiracy theories is the accurate description of these speculations. This particular collection of conspiracy theories is about 9/11. 9/11 conspiracy theories is entirely correct for an article title, and for the section that points the reader to that article. Tom Harrison 15:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I partialy agree with you. This change should only be made to this article and not to the "Conspiracy Theories" one. I note you that section can give more information than just point to the conspiracies page. It should at least refer the 9/11_Truth_Movement. Normal nick 15:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The description of "conspiracy theories" is accurate and broadly used. It is what you need to type into a search engine to find them. The "nutjob" quality of the name is also well-earned. No one takes the conspiracy-theory articles seriously except believers. This article is very different. 69.228.101.155 16:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The expression "conspiracy theorists"is higly inacurate. With it you are putting all people that opose to the official version in the same bag: The ones that simply speculate and the ones who realy investigate. This is inacurate and highly biased. It resembles propaganda tactics.

I agree with keeping the title "conspiracy theories" primarily for it's relationship with the article 9/11 conspiracy theories. To change the title of this section would mean to change the title and inference of that page. --Zleitzen 15:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Endorese

I endorese Normal nick suggestion and arguemnets for renaming the section to "controversy". Many of the points are based on facts, such as the facts mentioned by Kevin Ryan. Such as the fact of firefighters reporting explosives. Such as the fact that the fireball could not have traveled 1100 feets down to the lobby, and even if it did, it could not create the damage there was there. Such as the fact that no steel framed building have collapsed before or after that. Such as the fact that wtc7 was no hit by a any airplain. Such as the fact that the only three steelframed buildings that collpased in history due to supposed fire, collpased on the same day and where owned by the same guy. Such as the fact that no airplain engines where recovered from pengagon. Such as the fact that pentagon has no released the photo of any plane. Such as the fact that NORAD stood down. Such as, aaah who cares, MONGO does not care for facts, he is not even reading this, he will just repeat i have "zero facts"... --Striver 18:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

You got People questioning the official American 9/11 account, and you say there is no controversy? All those people are not conspiracy theorist, many of them just dont buy the 9/11 Commissions account and whant a new and independent investigation. --Striver 18:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

You have zero facts.--MONGO 19:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

MONGO, read this: . Here is a few quotes to you:

The paper (below) has undergone modifications and a second set of peer reviews

• NIST contracted with Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. to conduct tests to obtain information on the fire endurance of trusses like those in the WTC towers…. All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for approximately 2 hours without collapsing… The Investigation Team was cautious about using these results directly in the formulation of collapse hypotheses. In addition to the scaling issues raised by the test results, the fires in the towers on September 11, and the resulting exposure of the floor systems, were substantially different from the conditions in the test furnaces. Nonetheless, the results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11. (NIST, 2005, p. 141; emphasis added.)

  "the fires in the towers on September 11, and the resulting exposure of the floor systems, were substantially different from the conditions in the test furnaces" exactly...they were substantially different and didn't involve the impact of high speed wide body jets..a force in the hundreds of millions of foot pounds.

• The 110-story towers of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand as a whole the forces caused by a horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft. (Bazant and Zhou, 2002, p. 2.)

  The were designed to withstand a LOW SPEED impact at approximately 120-180mph...not 490 and 590 mpph as the jets were actually doing.

  Source?

• MIT’s Thomas Eagar also concurs “because the number of columns lost on the initial impact was not large and the loads were shifted to remaining columns in this highly redundant structure” (Eagar and Musso, 2001).

  No one in the north tower was able to get down to lower floors...all the elevators and stariwells were in the center...no one knows how much damage was sustained by the impacts in the center of the buildings, but only 2 dozen people above the point of impact in either building survived.

The second tower was hit on a angle, the plane did not even touch the main support columns. --Striver 18:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• NIST report that: “The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes” and office material fires would burn out within about 20 minutes in a given location. (NIST, 2005; p. 179, emphasis added.)

  That is a misquote of the NIST reports and is an obvious incorrect miscue as both buildings were on fire the entire time they were standing and it took 3 months to fully extinguish the flames...did you not watch even one minute of the events on TV?

The towers where on fire for the entire duration, but the fire on a given place of the tower did not last for more than 20 minutes according to the NITS report. So, according to the NITS report, the maximal temperature was reached and past after "a few minutes", and after that, you had on any given space nothing more than furniture fire for 20 minutes. Dispite this, the towers did not collapse on the 25:th minute, hence, on any given place, the maximal heat was reached and past after the 25:th minute. Still, the towers collapsed after an hour, obviously not due to some maximal temperature being reached, in the contrary, the temperature could nothing else than drop after the 25:th minute - this is supported by the black hole of the impact zone, it is compleetly devoided of fire, and it is logicly the most heated zone.

• Bazant & Zhou do not explain how “more than half of the columns in the critical floor suffer buckling” at the same time to precipitate the complete and nearly symmetrical collapse observed. There were 47 huge steel core columns in each Tower, and 24 such support columns in WTC 7 (NIST 2005; NISTb, 2005).

  Parts of airplane were ejected more than 6 blocks from the WTC and sections of the extior shething of the building were blown even further. The steel columns were interlocked with the floors...as the mounting couplets were bent at the support points, the fire simply did the rest.

As the NITS report states, the building was higly redundant, and a few sections missing was well within the reach of the redundancy. It is still no explained how max 1 minute jet fuel and 20 minutes furniture fire can acount for acollapse more that a houre later in a building with 600% redundancy. 1 minute jet fuel and 20 minutes fire does not even begin to weeken, not say bend, a solid steel column, not that it mattered, since they where 6 times more than needed.

• NIST notes that office materials in an area burn for about 15-20 minutes, then are consumed away (NIST, 2005, pp. 117, 179). This is evidently not long enough to raise steel column temperatures above 800oC as required in the Bazant & Zhou model, given the enormous heat sinks of the structures.

  Again, the steel colums were interlocked with the couplings on the floor sopprots...once the floors gave way, the enire complex was doomed.

Again, not even one single floor is supposed to give away, there was not enough heat to do anything, the fires where out on any given place after 20 minutes, the fires where of funiture type, 600% redundancy, the whole explanation is stupid and insulting to anyone contemplating it. And just for kicks, check out a video of the collpapse, the collpase starts 3-4 floors above the impact Zone and fires, totaly inconsistent with the fire theory.

• the Final NIST report on the Towers admits: Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250ºC… Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 ºC. ... Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC. (NIST, 2005, pp. 176-177; emphasis added.)

  Still talking about the melting point of steel...I want someone to find one piece of evidence of explosives...it is easy to detect...where is that evidence? There is no evidence of explosives becuase there weren't any explosives.

• Early news reports had indicated that a high pressure, 24-inch gas main was located in the vicinity of the building ; however, this proved not to be true." (FEMA, 2002, chapter 5; emphasis added.)

Im not talking about melting metal, im quoting the columns not even reaching 600 degrees, forget about melting or even bending temperatures. Only three columns examined reached puny 250 degrees!

This article is pov, NPOV it!--Striver 12:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Don't know why I bothered to even answer any of these stupid points, but I'm not going to bother again...it's a waste of time to point out the obvious.--MONGO 12:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

No, dont, keep saying "fire made them fall on freefall speed".... --Striver 18:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I will point out the obvious: What makes this a conspiracy theory and not a controversy is that if the items alleged above were true and provable, there is no explanation for how thousands of people would be able to coordinate a single "lie", i.e. that the collapse of the towers were caused by the aircraft, and how they all benefit from that lie. patsw 16:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Thousands of people did not coordiante that lie, almost all stated that the house fell due to explosives the first days, it was first after the official lie was put on the news that people started to parrot it. --Striver 17:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Homeland Security?

Mongo, I'm curious about a couple of things and was wondering if you could enlighten me a bit. I assume by USDHS you mean Homeland Security. I noticed that the Popular Mechanics article on 9/11 was written by Ben Chertoff, the cousin of Secretary Chertoff of Homeland Security. Of course I can't say for sure that there is a connection here, but what I was wondering is if it is a policy of Homeland Security to maintain a presence in spaces such as this one, or if you are operating here in a professional capacity. It would be interesting to hear about this from you if you work for Homeland Security. SkeenaR 23:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

No, I am not an investigator. I am not paid or endorsed by anyone. The government does not in itself sponsor any contributions to any articles. I have tried to enlist park rangers and related friends of mine to assist in land management articles due to their knowledge base. I was not solicited or am paid to work on anything related to[REDACTED] and the vast majority of my edits have nothing to do with my current occupation. There was ofcourse the political wbspammin being done to a few Misplaced Pages articles from the U.S. Capital, but these were in articles about politicians. I had nothing to do with that and don't even know many of the details. I don't think I have even read the popular science article, and did not know that the writer was related to a government official.--MONGO 07:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean with "does not in itself sponser any censorship to the articles"? Do it does it in some sort of indirect way?Normal nick 12:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess MONGO used the rollback function to eliminate any evidance of him writing "does not in itself sponser any censorship to the articles"? Is it only me seeing a problem when a employee of the homeland security is using his weight as a admin in order to prevent a article from expresing other views than endorsed by the USA government?--Striver 12:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Should a glaciologist not edit articles about glaciers...? You make no sense again...if anything, complete nonexperts like yourself should be the ones editing elswhere. No the feds don't pay or endorse anyone to edit...oh...just think, someone who actually knows something about these events may have something to say about what is fact and what is fiction. Does your comments have the slightest thing to do with improving this article? I didn't think so...just more of the same.--MONGO 12:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Dont pretend you are more qualified than anyone else to edit on this topic.--Striver 18:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay...what do I know anyway...I mean, compared to you...--MONGO 20:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Anyone with some commonsense knows that substituting what use to be called "Controversy" by "Conspiracy Theories" is nothing but neutral. Millitary people don't have nothing to do with releasing information correctly. They just have to do with keeping information safe and distorting it presenting it in propaganda form. The use of that expression puts things in a disthorted Black-and-White fashion, like if all the people that don't agree with the official version are togheter and don't have disagreements between themselves. Insisting in the use of that expression is insisting in having a propagandish (black and white) FALLACY in a Misplaced Pages page, What should unacceptable for all this community.Normal nick 19:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

"Military people"? I presume you're referring to DHS and MONGO? DHS is pretty un-military (peek at my user profile to see where I'm coming from). I don't know if you're an American, so FYI, they've folded a lot of stuff into DHS, including the immigration and customs service, FEMA, and of course, TSA. Besides, what do we care about information except to help us do our job? Our job is to win wars, not to shoehorn information. We're not the ministry of truth. It just so happens that it helps us win wars if the other side doesn't know our plans and technology, just like it helps you make money if your competitors don't know your industry secrets and business plan. Nice use of the double negative, btw. --Mmx1 20:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I think we can all read the comments made here on the talk page, examine the edits made to this article and to others, and determine for ourselves who is writing an encyclopedia and who is promoting an agenda. Tom Harrison 19:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Here, here. Morton devonshire 20:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Si, si.--MortonsSockpuppet 20:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Oui, Oui. --Mmx1 20:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Hooah, hooah Tom Harrison 20:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

What, me worry?--MONGO 20:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages featured article candidates (contested)
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics