need help with wikipedia 11 September liars

[chadj2]

I must admit that I have a bit more respect for the ACLU because some of their recent challenges to the power of the government. I used to have a completely negative view of the organization when I used to be more of a right wing type person. I agree with you that this republican admistration will be out of power soon (I dont really go so far as some who say we will have another attack and elections will be cancelled) but, I realize that the problem goes much farther than Left vs Right. I beleive there are varying degrees of tryanny right now I think we are in a lite form. You cant tell me that you feel as free now as you did before 9/11. Examples, right after the 9/11 attacks what do you think would have happened to you if you went to work and started handing out anti-Bush and anti-government literature? In my geographical area I think I would have lost my job. Now you can say a bit more but you still have quite a few limits. Have you heard of free speech zones? That is not the traditional meaning of freedom of speech. There are severe limits on what you can do to protest President Bush in Crawford Texas now. I hate to post links because I know they are tedious to read but if you want to look ( http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/26399 ). That is a link of regular American citizens being put on no fly lists for being critical of Bush or the government. I am an airline pilot by trade so I have the opportunity to fly with many people that come here from other countries. I was talking to a guy I was flying with a few months ago from the former Soviet Union. Since the Soviet Union was in a more heavy form of tyranny that we were I asked him what would they do to people that were overly critical of the government officials or government itself. He said they would typically punish them economically. He gave the example that if you were a teacher they would possible switch your job to street sweeper. They wouldn't arrest you or hang you from your toenails. There are of course more hardcore forms of tyranny for example the Nazis where if you handed out anti Nazi flyers during the war there was a good chance you would be put to death. Im not saying we are there by any stretch yet, but we are moving in that direction. We dont have freedom of the press. With all the major media outlets owned by a few ultra-powerful coorporations how can you expect to get the real story when it would damage their other financial interests. An example of this is the "embedded" media that rode with our troops into Iraq. How can you possibly be objective when you are attached to a unit on one side that is responsible for protecting you? You are correct that they wont go after every blogger that is critical of the governement but things are getting worse. BTW are you a believer in free energy or overunity? I would like to hear some of you views on whether the government is covering up or not some significant energy discoveries over the last century.

[gaby de wilde]

Even Noam Chomsky, the famous liberal and one of the most vehement critics of the current administration, thinks the 9.11 conspiracy theories are bunk:

Look, the situation is a mass grave. People want to know what is happening, the bush administration does not release the facts so all we have is an unofficial story.

People who find it necessary to attack other investigators while discussing such mass grave are real fascists. The subject is not at all the sanity of the person having the alternative theory. You don't win a scientific argument by slandering peoples research with generalisations. The situation is a mass grave, the people investigating should be allowed to report their findings. You are always free to disprove each and every fact.

But investigating mass murder by calling people names is of the most indecent behaviour. We should lock people up for that. If you use the word bunk as some kind of rationalising argumentation while in court as if this is a self evident fact you will be corrected. It's just considered indecent, and that's a good example of what kind of things fascism stands for.

All previous civilisations collapsed though mass ignorance, all wars where bloodbaths that didn't serve any purpose of any kind. And after millions of years of that stuff you come tell us that Fascist Bush who hacked your elections and killed a million Iraqi civilians is not a problem of any kind. In fact you insist upon hunting down the conspiracy untermensh. Yeah sure, You didn't learn anything in millions of years. How laughable.

This topic is about having the alternative facts on the wiki page. Are you for or against the suppression of information? Do you like to hear nothing and bath in ignorance or can you judge things by yourself? I don't really care what your view is on the subject.  I just want both versions on the page, that seems more honest for a historical record. You want that to? Do you want to learn from the wiki about everything? Others should also not have access to information? yes? It should not just be called bunk by your nanny representative. You don't need some one to pre chew your food for you.

We have a million dead people. The soldiers all went there thinking 11 September was a terrormuslim attack with all the evidence hidden and everyone asking questions miraculously disappearing. So they follow order and kill a million civilians thinking it's those boogyman from the terrormuslim squad. While there is no evidence of any kind to support this.

And no evidence at all is very far away from something that is fully proven as the unmistakable truth? Don't you agree? But lets kill those million people anyway, just to be sure? WTF?? You really think civilian genocide is going to do your national security any good? I have to disagree...

Biggest lie in the history, this is in fact the biggest problem on this world. How embarrassing for Americans it really is to share a country with those in denial.... The whole world is upset and some would excuse the bushterror and say " oh it will all go away it 2 years or so "

It will not, the last elections where fake.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8112825559202389150

Besides 911 attack 1 and 2 other big US bomb blasts have one thing in common. Outside experts where never allowed to look at the buildings remains. Even their valid questions was no reason to let them on the walled off terrain. They are so obvious in what they do!!And you apologise though the thing all the way like a madman!!!

Why did the air-force stand down?

Why didn't the planes have any passengers?

Why the weird flight path?

How did the jet fuel melt the reinforced steel core?

How did the building slump into it's footprint?

Why was there a 5000 megawatt afterglow?

Why are there pre collapse explosion victims from the basement?

Why did people who worked in the WTC hear demolition workers at work weeks before? The building was even sealed off for 2 days.

Why was Silverstein & co the owner for only 30 days but had 4 000 000 000 insurance per building?

Why did Silverstein & co lease a building for 99 years they couldn't afford for 6 months? And the market was moving in the wrong direction .

Where has all the basement gold disappeared to?

Why is there no plane at the pentagon but does the official story talk of a plane?

How did building 7 collapse even tho flight 77 never reached it?

Why the 3 buildings have all the characteristics of controlled demolition.

Why non of the characteristics even looks like collapse.

Why is there there no plane at the pentagon.

Why was the small pentagon building is not vaporised by the jet fuel?

Why no flight recorder records of any flight?

Why the massive stock trade before the event?

Wikipedia doesn't mention any published fact that casts doubt it's been edited out. You are not asked to cast doubt on any of those questions, we all have our doubts about events. You are asked if this should not be mentioned at all in the wiki. My point of view on the topic is irrelevant in this. All I ask is for an objective side by side article with both official stories that doesn't compliment the war vs Iran. Seems a rather good start towards honesty? no? Wikpeidia forbids forking articles over POV.

If you want my point of view:

There is this interesting $4.5 billion options bet on catastrophe within four weeks. Earn your terror millions today!

Thats POV.

[shruggedatlas]

This topic is about having the alternative facts on the wiki page. Are you for or against the suppression of information?

I am against the suppression of information.  You are free to express your opinion on whatever medium is willing to accept it, and I am all for that.  The key point here is that the Wikimedia Foundation has not found your point of view worthy enough to appear alongside the mainstream theory.  Keep in mind that the 9/11 conspiracy has a topic all its own, so if someone was searching for 9/11, he or she would probably find it. 

Also keep in mind that there is literally no end to possible theories that could be expressed, many of them impossible to disprove to the satisfaction of the parties making the claims.  For example, I could preach the brain-in-the-vat theory all my life, claiming that I am the only being in existence, and everything I see, feel, smell, taste and hear are simply false sensations being fed into my brain.  No one and nothing else exists, just my brain sitting in a vat being life-supported and fed false information.  There is no way you could disprove the theory to my satsifaction - I will have an answer to every objection.  Should I get up in arms and  demand that the Wikipedia add my theory to every single topic?  Under my theory, nothing exists, and I think the people of the world should be aware that they do not exist, so they can stop taking everything to seriously.  Therefore, every Wikipedia topic needs a mention of my very important "alternative" theory.

The bottom line is Wikimedia Foundation has the right to make a decision about what is topic-worthy and what is not.  Sorry, you did not make the cut, but this is Wikimedia's website, not yours. Your freedom of expression does not trump their ownership rights.  If you want to make your own wikipedia wesbite, no one is stopping you.  Until then, be happy that your fringe view appears in the Wikipedia at all, even if under its own topic.

[gaby de wilde]

I am against the suppression of information.

Where you say it's up to wikimedia you are 100% wrong. Are you familiar with the wikipedia rules?

It's up to the effort of the public to supply well sourced information and discuss the structure of the page by further rules. Supression of discussion and removal of links without motivation is not part of the deal.

The wikimedia rules say you cant delete well documented information from the page to make it fit your point of view. The rules are extreamly acurate on that and every edit that remotely looks like that is deleted.

Wikipedia is not about publishing the truth, it's about documenting well established facts, no original research only quality resources are allowed.

If you are perfectly cool with people pushing a story that incriminates half the planet as terrorists in a time of genocidal war. Then thats your right!  But the actual rules say you cant push your opinion as facts untill you supply decent evidence. This vandalism is only allowed on the wiki as long as everyone agrees with it. That means it's up to you. As long as people like yourself don't care if others suck up war propaganda the page will stay the way it is.

If there is no court of law incriminating the person and the FBI says there is no link.

That's why I ask you if building 7 is worthy of no more as a footnote?

And if you get attacked from all sides when you suggest something as simple as this then what does it mean?

It not easy to change a page into such propaganda gallery you know? You can see that takes a lot of effort.

And the excuse that there are other pages on wikipedia where the references are allowed is nonsense.

This is the page about the event, this is the NR 1 search result on google, and it's one big heap of lies.

You really have to be damn stupid if you cant see that.

You are not going to post anything on the page rather crap all over my topic ah???

Please piss off if you are such a nihilist.

[hartiberlin]

I think Gaby de Wilde has really a point here !
Why do we allow to have wikipedia , the no1 in Google search
spreading lies ?

What kind of people are we, if we do not stand against lies
and let the bad people go on with their lies ?

There is a very important sentence:
"When the good do nothing the bad will always win.."

So, how can we maybe register a simular domain like wikipedia name
and bring it to number2 in google search engine and have the truth displayed there...

Some asked me to stop these "politics thread"
but surely politics always will play a role, when we have a free energy machine
that will go into the market.

Politics was always the "bad man" that our kind of research is not funded
and must be done on a shoestring hobbist budget and is
laughed at and being ridiculated...
I am so tired of the politicians, who are responsible for this, that I think
this must be changed...

Regards, Stefan.