Is Wikipedia subject to "Information Operations In Support of Special Operations"?

An article by Professor James Fetezer (co-founder of 9-11 Scholars for truth , titled "Wikipedia: What it Doesn't Say about Scholars for 9/11 Truth" makes interested reading and is thought provoking considering the treatment of the 9/11 truth movement by Wikipedia, or the unseen hands and minds which control it. Wikipedia claims to be a non-biased searchable knowledge base, a "wiki", that is essentially a website that allows users to easily add, remove, edit available content. Wikipedia is a tremendous source of factual information, however we must always question the information and validate information independently of Wikipedia. If the general public feel that Wikipedia is a great source of "factual" information, you can be assured that the government has also realised and acted on this. If "REBUILDING AMERICA’S DEFENSES - Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century" is to be taken as a terms-of-reference for all that has transpired since September 11th 2001, then surely the statement "The Internet is also playing an increasingly important role in warfare and human political conflict" (page 69), needs to be taken as seriously as the often quoted "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor" (page 63).

Documents published by the Pentagons inner cabal of warfare planners such as "Information Operations In Support of Special Operations" by Lieutenant Colonel Bradley Bloom, U.S. Army Informations Operations Officer, Special Operations Command Joint Forces Command, MacDill Air Force Base, Florida must be taken seriously. The content is unambiguous - it reads simply "information warfare".

Professor Fetzer states that after entering an article describing the Scholars for Truth organization on wikipedia, it was immediately edited. The editing made the article read as not intended, or questioned the very validity of the work done by 'scholars for truth'. Further a statement which questioned the neutrality and validity of the article was posted as a bold heading, at the top of the article. This forced Professor Fetzer to post the article "Wikipedia: What it Doesn't Say about Scholars for 9/11 Truth" on the scholars for truth website. The kind of categorical heading statements that appeared on the article such as "The neutrality or validity of this article is disputed" will create doubt in the minds of casual or as yet undecided readers.

The article on the Loose Change video, is a case in point of "Information Operations In Support of Special Operations" and is nothing more than an all out hit-piece. Simply the Loose Change article on Wikipedia is an attack on the documentary via the regurgitation of the Popular Mechanics mythology. Recently I noticed that edits made to the article so that there was an inclusion of the seminal research paper by Professor Steve Jones describing the mechanism of the collapse of the twin towers and building seven, were very quickly removed. The article initially didn't mention the February 13th 1975 fire that broke out in the North Tower on the 11th floor. An edit was made to the article to correct this, obviously stating the truth about this fire. However this edit was quickly "corrected" to make this raging inferno of 1975 sound like a barbecue that distorted the steel trusses. However no mention is made of the lack of a sprinkler system in 1975 or the fact that none of the effected trusses were replaced as a result of that fire.

All 9/11 Truth related material on Wikipedia must be treated with extreme caution, and it then follows that any articles that are published by this movement on Wikipedia will be unfairly edited and are beyond the control of the truth movement.

In conclusion, this is the government that feels it necessary to spend $1.3 billion ($1300,000,000) on false news articles, false blogs, false comments on blogs, false letters to the editor, false comments to news stories on news websites, false radio talk shows, false calls to radio talk shows, false calls to television shows, false television documentaries, false scientific & false engineering reports etc. From experiences of various 9/11 truth seekers in respect to Wikipedia we must assume that "Information Operations In Support of Special Operations", extend to Wikipedia.


9/11 article

Look at how closely guarded the 9/11 article is on wikipedia.. Cheney could have written it himself. Anything critical of the official story is quickly deleted, often within minutes. There's a small section mentioning conspiracy theories, but other than that there is no side-by-side comparison of different viewpoints as one might see in other controversial articles. So much for NPOV.