Support 911Blogger


TruthAction Thread: Wikipedia editors livid over new [Active Thermitic Material] paper

Activist editors at Wikipedia have changed the name of the "World Trade Center Controlled Demolition Hypothesis" page to "World Trade Center Demolition Conspiracy Theories", are removing all links to the paper "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe" recently published in the refereed Open Chemical Physics Journal (including from the 9/11 Truth Movement page and even Dr. Steven Jones' page), and have banned and/or restricted some users that re-add the links and question their policy.

See the discussion thread at TruthAction.org- many links to relevant pages at Wikipedia; the "Talk" page is very revealing of their bias, hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty:

Wikipedia editors livid over new paper
http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5195&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

The new paper has pulled the rug out from under the wikipedia front lines defending the official story and they have now suddenly changed the title of the demolition page from --

Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center

to --

World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories

Here is their discussion. They are clearly on the defensive. They removed the link to the paper, claiming it is an "unreliable source". It's been reposted and removed again. Consider joining in . . .

DNotice.org's Wikipedia Story

Based on my experience, Wikipedia editors are indeed tough, but that is their job. I should know. I had one hell of a time in September 2008 defending and then winning them over with revisions to Wikipedia's article on NORAD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Aerospace_Defense_Command), in particular the section of the article titled 'September 11, 2001' (also the section titled 'Post-Cold War'). The Wikipedia editor overseeing that page infuriated me at first when he persisted in removing my edits. He explained the articles I found published on NORAD before 9/11 that contradicted the official narrative on NORAD's monitoring capabilities (the articles all confirmed that NORAD did, indeed, monitor aircraft flying within American airspace) were dated, and that I needed something more current. I screamed and pulled my hair, thinking to myself how am I going to find something more current when, as of September 11, 2001, the government/media forgot that NORAD monitored within America?

I was lucky. Several months before I attempted to edit the article on NORAD at Wikipedia, I did one final Google search on NORAD for my research. I came upon an interesting Air Force instruction on American air defense dated April 2000 (http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/shared/media/epubs/AFI13-1ADV3.pdf). Chapter 3.1 of the instruction affirmed: "The First Air Force Commander (1 AF/CC), in his role as the CONUS NORAD Region Commander, provides CINCNORAD/Commander US Element NORAD with TW/AA, surveillance and control of the airspace of the United States and appropriate response against air attack." A light went off in my head. Could this instruction have been current on 9/11, I asked? I contacted Air Force e-Publishing and asked them about the April 2000 Air Force instruction. The Air Force promptly replied that the instruction was STILL current! When I informed the editor at Wikipedia of this and presented him with the email address of Air Force e-Publishing so he could check this fact out for himself, the next thing I knew was that my revisions on Wikipedia were no longer removed, and the editor kindly tidied-up my citation links. To this day, my revision on NORAD at Wikipedia remains.

On the topic at hand, my guess is that the Wikipedia editors want something more substantial than a web-based peer reviewed journal. They want an established journal that one pays for. Good luck!

By the way, military instructions are orders. One of the more important instructions the 9/11 Truth Movement is familiar with, if not by name/title, is the June 1, 2001 Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff instruction that altered the Air Force protocols on how to handle hijacked aircraft (http://74.125.93.104/search?q=cache:PcpUyOKYpXAJ:www.dtic.mil/doctrine/j...)!

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

...

Dean, you say, "On the topic at hand, my guess is that the Wikipedia editors want something more substantial than a web-based peer reviewed journal. They want an established journal that one pays for. Good luck!"

That looks right.

I am hoping that some well-established European scientific or engineering journal will publish related papers. It seems more possible in Europe.

Fantastisch!

Student, I didn't think of Europe. Fantastic idea!

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

...

It still requires qualified people willing to submit papers. Jones, et al., probably did look into publishing their two papers in European technical journals. But, in case they did not, maybe our idea here will reach them.

Don't guess, read

The same online journal has been on wikipedia since 2008 when the Fourteen Points paper was published, so there is no actual basis to remove an article that is from Bentham. They literally are hand-waving -- to say that a science journal is not worthy of wikipedia because it is online or because of a blogger post about it is meaningless. Online journals are all over wikipedia, and wikipedia itself is an online encyclopedia. That claim is only used to buy time while blocking relevant information.

On top of that, the fact that the exact title ("Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe") on google returns, now, 23,300 hits, in a little over one week. No matter how imperfect Bentham were -- and there is no evidence it is not -- the paper is "news".

The english subtitled version of the coverage of the first author now has 59,656 views just over one weekend == news.

They have no case against the paper and their job is to block it for as long as it is important for people to see it.

That's exactly what happened when the CIA was caught destroying videotapes -- the story was removed from the CIA page with all kinds of reasons why it couldn't be on there, and then it was moved to an orphaned page which was given a false title by an administrator, etc. Today, good luck finding anything on the CIA's destruction of the video tapes on wikipedia, search the page, nothing. Was this a newsworthy item in the history of the agency? Apparently not. And if you look at CIA page and find that you can hardly stand to look at it because it is so dry and categorized, you should realize that is for a reason - - it is designed to turn you away by it's very difficulty in reading it.

That's what the actual job of certain editors is on there -- it's called propaganda, perception management, information warfare, not just harmless editing of an online encyclopedia.

That's what wikipedia is all about. Making sure you see what they want you to see.

Tipping their hand

Is wanting something 'more substantial' an explanation for going out of their way not just to alter the title of the CD hypothesis article, but to resort to the propagandistic use of the term 'conspiracy theory' in doing so--whereby only rejections of the official story are maligned as 'conspiracy theories'?

misprison of felony?

Could these gatekeepers at Wiki be setting themselves up as accesories to the coverup of a mass murder? just wondering--I'm not a lawyer-just a guitar player.

This is infuriating...

Nuff said.

I am Livid too

about Wikipedia.

For a number of reasons.

Too much blatant cowardly censorship going around.

Free Encyclopedia?

More like Free Propoganda.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CONSTITUTION is NOT going to "collapse" into pulverized dust no matter how much thermate/explosives or planes they throw at it

Beating-Up On Wikipedia

constitutional911, don't knock Wikipedia. Wikipedia will post material if the source of the material is established. In my example, Wikipedia posted my revision on NORAD. What other encyclopedia would do that? None, of course, since other encyclopedias don't allow such revisions from the public. They have professional researchers/academicians write the articles.

Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC

One approach may be to scour Wikipedia

and find another citation based on a peer-reviewed paper published in a free online journal.

That said, Wikipedia has shown its bias long ago and is clearly acting as gatekeeper for the internet generation, so I don't have much confidence that we'll make much headway on this issue.

EDIT: As of 18:40 on 4.14.09 the paper is cited and linked (in the notes) in the Wikipedia article on Dr. Jones.

Fear not, brothers and sisters, the truth will out!

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

wikipoopdia allows bentham cites for other articles-

--just not when they support conclusions the anal editors don't like being drawn

http://911reports.com

Just five random examples:

Weaselpedia?

It looks like Wikipedia are the latest addition to "The War on Science" Club by demonstrating that they don't know the difference between a peer-reviewed scientific study and a conspiracy theory. Just wow. And they have the nerve to called themselves an (encyclo)pedia??? Is this a concerted attempt to out-do the current holders of the "Clueless Klutz" award, the so-called "experts" at NIST, who recently told the world that they don't know the difference between "velocity" and "acceleration"?

Yikes.

One thing that has always

One thing that has always bothered me about the "controlled demolition hypothesis" entry on wikipedia, even before the title change, is the comment "The controlled demolition hypothesis has been dismissed in the structural engineering literature." At this point there are probably MORE experts who have explicitly expressed support for the controlled demolition hypothesis then the official one. The wiki entry makes it appear as if the few shills from NIST in addition to Eagar, Blanchard etc. represent the entire scientific community.

But in the past, I did think the title was very fairly well put: "Controlled Demolition Hypothesis for the Collapse of the World Trade Center." I even thought to myself "how fortunate we are to live in the age of information and the internet!" Today's bullshit really serves to piss me off.

"The truth will set you free. But first, it will piss you off."

I registered a "kameelyun" account at wikipedia

So far on the article's discussion page, here is what I've said:

"When I was in 5th grade, I was taught that a "hypothesis" was an "educated guess." Not just a guess, but an *educated* guess. It is unfortunate that some editors on Wikipedia choose to act as gatekeepers by insisting that the New York Times is an unquestioningly reputable source when all one has to do is look at the Jayson Blair scandal. It is likewise unfortunate that these same editors have gotten to the point where they can not see the difference between a peer-reviewed scientific study and a conspiracy theory. Clearly the only "agenda" is not by "truthers" but by those folks who wish to marginalize the controlled demolition hypothesis using the term "conspiracy theory," which has become a byword for "wacky nutcase idea."

To which Wikipedia editor "Jehochman" said the following:

Aha! You are starting to get the point. Wikipedia is not a platform for publishing wacky, nutcase ideas. There are plenty of websites for that. This isn't one of them. Go elsewhere if that's your agenda.

Well, at least he admits he has an agenda. Anyway, I replied with

Sir Jehochman: Wikipedia is for finding information. The controlled demolition hypothesis exists, and it is backed explicitly (in writing, if just by petition signature) by hundreds of relevant professionals with appropriate credentials. Not only that, the FBI has acknowledged that the hypothesis is "backed by thorough research and analysis." These facts alone should many anyone's head turn. As such, sir, it is merely YOUR OPINION that it is a "wacky nutcase idea" and you are using your editorial power to attempt to marginalize the idea with the negative term "conspiracy theory" which puts it in the category of Elvis sitings, UFO's etc. I am very disappointed.

If indeed this guy is one of the very few paid employees of Wikipedia, I'm not sure what can be done. This Jehochman asshole is giving credence to Eric Hufschmid's accusation (which I previously laughed at) that Wikipedia "is a Zionist operation." :mad:

I really feel VERY close to snapping, throwing my hands up and declaring defeat. This country (USA) will simply believe what it wants to believe. The Germans snapped out of it because their cities got bombed. Their "myfh of exceptionalism/invinciblity" was shattered beyond repair. No global coalition will bomb our cities in order to snap people out of the "myth of american exceptionalism." Maybe a complete (i.e. to point of famine) breakdown of our economy might be the only thing to snap people out of their fairy tale.

Thanks!

kameelyun, thanks for your effort. Everything counts, everything adds up in the end.

The reason you will come away feeling sick after working there is that it is infested. Any normal person will feel the urge to slam something by the blatantly fascist behavior on there. But if the infestation is ignored, it continues to cause problems.

The key is to find a way, within yourself, to work around that and outdo it. You can. It just takes some trial and error. Each time you post, they have to respond, and that uses up their time and energy for doing other things, and shows the public how many people do not agree with their actions.

It's possible if not likely that some amongst them are paid, and that some amongst them are agents, and that one person has more than one persona on there as several "administrators". Afterall, the gang that stormed the vote-count in Florida in the 2000 election were not just annoyed Floridians -- it was a staged and paid effort with people flown in for the occassion. Likely things are approximately the same at wikipedia, even if the majority of the admins are unaware of what they are participating in.

Remember, their goal is for you to feel defeated. As long as you find a way not to feel that way, you win.

Harvard Faculty Adopts Open-Access Requirement

"Harvard University’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences adopted a policy this evening that requires faculty members to allow the university to make their scholarly articles available free online.

Peter Suber, an open-access activist with Public Knowledge, a nonprofit group in Washington, said on his blog that the new policy makes Harvard the first university in the United States to mandate open access to its faculty members’ research publications.

Stuart M. Shieber, a professor of computer science at Harvard who proposed the new policy, said after the vote in a news release that the decision “should be a very powerful message to the academic community that we want and should have more control over how our work is used and disseminated.”..."

more at...
http://chronicle.com/news/article/3943/harvard-faculty-adopts-open-acces...

MIT Faculty Adopts “University-Wide” Open Access Policy

"Another week, another new faculty open access mandate—this one coming from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). MIT becomes the latest in what is becoming a steady stream of faculty approving open access mandates, following Harvard’s groundbreaking OA mandate last year. The policy was approved unanimously at an MIT faculty meeting on Wednesday, March 18.

Unlike previous votes that applied to certain schools, or by faculty councils, such as at Boston University’s recent mandate, MIT’s policy is said to be the first mandate approved in vote by all of an institution’s faculty. The policy went into immediate effect.

Under the policy, much like Harvard’s initial mandate, faculty authors give MIT “nonexclusive permission” to disseminate their journal articles for open access through DSpace—the open-source software platform developed by the MIT Libraries and Hewlett Packard, and it gives MIT and its faculty “the right to use and share the articles for any purpose other than to make a profit.” Authors may opt out on a paper-by-paper basis...."

More at,,,
http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6646388.html

They really do not hesitate

After I returned a reference to the Bentham article supporting the controlled demolition "conspiracy theory", I was immediately warned that I could be blocked from Wikipedia. After that sigle edit, I only wrote two comments on this Talk page. After that, I found the following on my own talk page:

I've filed an arbitration enforcement request against you. See
WP:AE. Jehochman [[User
talk:Jehochman|Talk]] 16:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I appealed to the fair-minded Wiki editors "not to allow Wikipedia to go down this route".

Post Danish network interview of Prof. Harrit as citation

It's down below this post on the front page.

They can't refuse to accept a citation of a mainstream TV network news program in a NATO ally nation and their interview of a Chemistry PhD like Prof. Harrit.

Here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:World_Trade_Center_controlled_demoliti...

It would be nice, though, to see more of us truthers there...

Unbelievable

My discussion entry entitled "Respectful and serious coverage of the nanothermite residue article in reliable sources in Danmark" was suddenly "CLOSED AS SPAM" by someone. How can someone just do that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:World_Trade_Center_controlled_demoliti...

One word:

EVIL.

This is truly the feeling of suffocation that free speechers in fascist/communist europe must have felt in the 20th century. Tolerance and respect for the opposite point of view, and open minds, were howled down, drowned out and buried under a sea of hate, pseudoscience and intolerance.

What now?

THEY decide that an article's name should be changed, and then accuse those who revoke the change as breaking a consensus. THEY decide that an article should not be referred to, and then accuse THOSE who revoke the change of breaking a consensus. Apparently, they can also just close a section as spam. I contested that: it will be interesting to see what happens.

There has to be something that can be done to stop that. But what?

Does anyone know a proficient "Wiki-lawyer"?

There's some light amid the darkness.

On the one hand all this censorship is infuriating and frustrating, yes. But on the other hand it is an involuntary acknowledgment that we are on the right track. They are obviously desperate as hell not to let the people know about the paper and, to me, that itself is strong circumstantial evidence that the findings are correct. And what was set in motion with the publication of the paper will be unstoppable in the end, no matter how hard they try to stop it.
______________
Spuren von Sprengstoff im Staub des World Trade Centers gefunden

Thanks.

Encouraging post. :-)

The wikipedia editors have

The wikipedia editors have been discussing this comment here.

Banned

Believe it or not, they banned me for one month from editing any Wikipedia articles and for a full year from editing 9/11-related articles based on my wish, expressed above, that there were more like-minded editors on Wikipedia.

Their arguments are highly disingenuous.

The latest online Bentham article cannot be referenced, as Bentham is such and such. So why can the *earlier* online Betham article by Jones et al be linked?

When one points out that the latest article has been discussed in Danmark's TV2, they say that YouTube is not a realiable source.

When one shows the numerous references to the article in Danish mainstream and science media, they say they do not undestand Danish and that it is best to USE only English sources.

And so on. A question to all Bloggerists and fair-minded Wiki editors possibly reading this: What can be done about this unfairness?

That's outrageous.

I have no other advice than to document it and thereby expose them as the jerks they are. Maybe someone could write an essay about it. I'm sure that many people, even if they are not into 9/11 Truth, would find this censorship outrageous, too. And maybe with enough public pressure we could embarrass them into reversing their policies. Other than that, I'm not sure there's much we can do. But as I said earlier, we should take some encouragement from the fact that they are obviously desperate not to let the people know about the paper. That itself says a lot.
________________
Spuren von Sprengstoff im Staub des World Trade Centers gefunden

Evil charlatan frauds must be exposed...

If I could track this guy down on the streets I'd give him hell, just as Luke Rudkowski and friends did to Karl Rove: "You are an evil, evil, evil man!!!!!"

Everyone: Take a good hard look at this "Jehochman" charlatan and Wikipedia editor. Remember his face. He needs to be as instantly recognizable as Karl Rove. This person needs to be exposed.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/35/Jehochman.png

edit: if an editor here knows how to directly embed the photo onto this post, please do so.

Not an editor...

but here's the mug:

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

I have never, in my life...

...felt the kind of visceral, white hot hatred for another human being as I do for this "Jehochman" asshole.

Why is there no Wikipedia page for Richard Gage?

This is the first sentence from the second paragraph of the World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories article in Wikipedia:

The most detailed theories have come from physicist Steven Jones, architect Richard Gage, software engineer Jim Hoffman, theologian David Ray Griffin, and author Webster Griffin Tarpley.

Everyone listed in the above sentence has their own Wikipedia page, except Richard Gage, why is that?

I think it's time Mr. Gage got his own page, don't you?

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.