Help get Disputed Tag Placed on Wikipedia 9/11 Article

If you want something to do in your free time, you could help get a disputed or POV tag placed on the 9/11 Wikipedia article. Why should we do this. It is often one of the top two results in a Google search for 9/11. This article is guarded by three or four admins, who don't seem to have a understanding of what Wikipedia was created for. Everytime a change is suggested, and evidence and reasons for the change is given, they won't respond to dispute the evidence. They just say they are not interested. They say that this is a stable article, which clearly goes against the idea of a wiki.

Here's some things to do. Create a Wikipedia account. Agree that the article should be unprotected or that a disputed tag should be placed on the article because it it is being protected because of the clear disputes. Read the September 11th attacks article, and find mainstream sources that can be used to dispute information in it. Make it clear on the talk page what parts of the article are under dispute, create a new header for each section that is under dispute, and state your gripes with sources. Be bold in your arguments. Sign post to the talk page using your user name, by placing four tildes after your comments (~~~~).

Here's some things not to do. Don't be a troll. Don't vandalize the site.

Vandalizing and trolling is not the problem at Wikipedia.....

Their game is about psy-op. Reverting trolls and vandals is push-button easy.... Wikipedia has developed to almost a fine art, the Hear No Evil-See No Evil-Speak No Evil strategy of manipulating the information presented to it.

It's great for truly benign factoids... like Pokimon, Brittany Spears, and Sport Stats.... but high-powered politics, international policies, economy.... and ESPECIALLY sciences approaching alternative energy consumption paradigms.... forget about it.

Wikipedia is just about as rigged as they come. You can present, offer, suggest, point out, reference, cite, politely argue or offer intelligent debate, and follow "The Rules" to a "t".... yet the 'Admin' at Wikipedia has proven itself IMPERVIOUS to such things.... the set-up is completely stuffed with sycophants (using highly coordinated revolving doors and tag teams designed to avoid and foil accusations of 'cabal', manipulation, and ultimately... accountability.) The place is darn near 'fool'-proof.... and a mind-fuck waist of time. Best wishes.


P.S. Please forgive my grumpiness... I 'invested' a tremendous amount of time and material into that wiki... only to be finally banned when I confronted one of the worst offending admins in that place. A polite and diligent "rule follower" up to the last minute.... the scum whom actually 'own' the place... just waited me out till I called them exactly what they are.... lying "play-dumb" mother-fuckers.

I really do wish you the best of luck succeeding where so many well intentioned people have failed.... Wikipedia IS a major front in the information war.... hack away, dear sir.

"The truth shall make you free." Why not make the truth free? We live on a priceless blue pearl, awash in a universe of fire and ice. Cut the crap.

I understand what you mean.

I was banned by the Pilots_for_Truth Forums without warning. I had learned a lot there but just could not accept the fact that they still are pushing that Flight 77 crashed into the pentagon.
They were good for getting links to sources like Pilots Flight manuals and technical info regarding transponders. I had learned from the massive amount of technical material they suggested that I read and when I posted my thoughts that resulted and asked "How am I doing?". I couldn't access it anymore.

I had originally joined that forum in an attempt to try and locate where it could have landed so the hijackers could get off.

It is my opinion that they know more than they are telling and aren't interested in the truth after all. They just want to lead people in circles and sell them DVDs.

I also lost a lot of information because a was able to go back to view prior postings. I couldn't get back in to print any of my postings.

My posting was something along the lines of the following for the four flights (this was before I learned that the two American Airlines flights did not exist.
1) United 93 - landed in a Cleveland Airport - news article posted on 9/11/01 - source of the report was the Mayor of Cleveland. After the article was made known on a national radio broadcast in 2004. They retracted the article. I believe the article was correct. Reinforced by the lack of an airplane at the Shanksville alleged "Crash site". And testimony recorded by the local TV recorders. My current status - missing in action.
2) Flight 11 - Since the Flight Transponders are controllable manually in the cockpit and the flight signal that is transmitted is the result of manually entering a specific code number. And that the video 9/11 In Plane Site points out that the flash from the second plane crash that did not have windows, has a very visible pod underneath, has the engines distance from the fuselage adjusted to offset the weight imbalance as pointed out by a Spanish investigative reporter from the picture that was on the cover of Newsday magazine, that some of the hijackers were found alive in Saudi Arabia and other countries My mind tends to think that Flight 11 landed someplace else also. But again that was before I learned that Flight 11 was not scheduled for 9/11 to start with and there is a discrepancy regarding that it boarded from two different gate numbers. My current belief is that it didn't exist and that the 1st plane that crashed was not a flimsy passenger airplane at all. It was a specially made military aircraft. Boeing refused to answer any questions about the aircraft.
3) United Flight 175 - second plane crash into tower. Clearly a military reinforced specialty built aircraft similar to Flight 11. The United 93 article mentions Flight 175.
4) American Airline Flight 77. My original theory at the time was that the Transponder was turned off while it was in the air and another Aircraft that was already in the air entered the Code for Flight 77. I learned that Air Controllers wouldn't be able to tell of a switch if one piggybacked the other. But that also was before that I learned that Flight 77 was not scheduled for that day and did not exist.

Please note that there were abnormalities with each flight, both with the transponders "turned off by the hijackers" and Flight Data recorders such as Flight 77. NIST released a video of a simulation that the did from Flight 77's. I learned in Pilots for Truth that the Altitude was 400 ft higher than the "crash".

I'm a little confused...

... are you saying that "Pilots_for_Truth is pushing that flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon"? (simply not true).... and that you could not accept that (which I could understand, if the first part was in fact true).... got banned without warning (did you ever write to JDX? He's a rather clear headed guy)... gave an example of your postings (filled in the middle with lots of speculation.... something that Pilotsfor911truth specifically avoids participating in, thus the most likely reason for any restrictions placed upon your participation at that site).... then in your last sentence, state that you learned (from PFT) that the reported FDR (by FOIA filed by PFT) released an altitude that did not jive with the OCT that that FDR could have ever hit the Pentagon.

Take a minute and give some thought to what you're talking about. I'm a registered participant at Pilots For Truth (all pilots)... and have not encountered this conflicting information you speak of....

When you're participating at that site (contact JDX directly about returning, and make it clear to him your new commitment to) separate efforts at clarifying factual points, records from differing agencies and press releases... far afield from ANY speculation. PFT is trying very hard to sift and winnow who's-what's details... from speculation, confusion and simple bad reporting.


P.S. This blog was about Wikipedia... Pilots For Truth (and JDX) is actually being blogged about just two entries previous to this one. Say hello to him there.


"The truth shall make you free." Why not make the truth free? We live on a priceless blue pearl, awash in a universe of fire and ice. Cut the crap.

I realize the original blog was about Wikipedia but

my response was meant to apply to your reply to that blog. Since you mentioned that you were banned, my reply was intended to relate my experience about being banned by Pilots For Truth.
The person who did it did not give me any warning or even tell me what I had done wrong. I went to log in and kept getting error messages. It took me a long time to figure out what had happened.

By the way Pilots For Truth was first posting experience,

Falsehood is never so successful as when she baits her hook with truth and no opinions so fatally mislead us as those that are not wholly wrong. - Charles Caleb Colton


Best of luck getting back into PFT, and having a better time there...

btw, I was just in the middle of a conversation about that subject where bits of tasty truth is needed to flavor up at shit stew. I have yet to find a good method for sifting it all.... as I suspect many others have likewise struggled. Welcome to our ship of wayward rubrics.


"The truth shall make you free." Why not make the truth free? We live on a priceless blue pearl, awash in a universe of fire and ice. Cut the crap.

I have had so many problems

I have had so many problems with the Wiki net-traffic wardens/meter maids. Once you try to talk sense to any of them they dig their heels in a just keep trying to justify their actions, not listen to reasonable debate!!

A little power in the hands of some people can be so dangerous.


I put up a tag like that once

It was reverted in less than two minutes.

If the article would get hit with a lot of '9/11 truth' edits.. they'd probably lock it down for a while too. A lot of dedicated people would have to commit to this over time, to make it more than just annoyance for them. But I guess that's what you're calling for. Power in numbers.

"They say that this is a stable article, which clearly goes

against the idea of a wiki."

The facts about 9/11 are anything but stable. The story evolves on nearly a daily basis as new truth is revealed.

Wikipedia needs a LOT of work

The page on the truth movement is a piece of crap.

If I had the time I would help. I hope someone does. 

Check the Village Pump on US Authorities on Wikipedia

Here's the link.

I posted two comments. The second is slightly more interesting... They are below...

I don't believe that Wikipedia gives any undo authority to government officials, but when I read stories that say the military is tightening rules on military bloggers and then I read the Pentagon creates a rapid response team, and then I look at the discussion pages mentioned here, I start to wonder if US authorities are on Wikipedia. In fact, I'm sure they are, and that isn't really bad. What would be bad is if people, in the government or not, are paid to guard or edit articles.—Slipgrid 22:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's even a better article. It says, "the Pentagon's latest recruits are not soldiers, spies or scientists but spin doctors, bloggers and YouTube DIY filmmakers as it prepares to launch a vigorous new media campaign in support of its ongoing military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan." Now, stopping the troops from blogging is one thing; recruiting people to covertly blog or create YouTube films is another thing. And, if they are doing this, it isn't a far stretch to think they are recruiting, and perhaps paying, people to edit Wikipedia. And, if this is happening, that's a problem. And, if it's happening, then it's would be on the mentioned articles that this would happen. Wacky? I hope! But, when I look at the archived talk pages on the mentioned articles, it seems that some admins are not acting in good faith. I've had some users, who may or may not be admins, tell me that homeland security is monitoring the pages, and I'd end up in Gitmo for suggesting some changes. And, I think if I've ever said anything outlandish, it's only after dealing with admins that are not acting in good faith.—Slipgrid 22:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)