Wikipedia renames 9/11 controlled demolition page to a “conspiracy theory”

Debunking The Debunkers
Friday, April 10, 2009

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_controlled_demolition_conspiracy_theories

Page History
(cur) (prev) 21:40, 5 April 2009 Jehochman (talk contribs) m (55,220 bytes) (moved Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center to World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories: Rename article per talk page discussion) (undo)

It used to be called a hypothesis now its been downgraded to a conspiracy theory. Right around the release of the thermitic material paper as well; which there was a debate about whether or not to mention.

hy·poth·e·sis (hī-pŏth’ĭ-sĭs) n. pl. hy·poth·e·ses (-sēz’)
A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.

conspiracy theory n.
A theory seeking to explain a disputed case or matter as a plot by a secret group or alliance rather than an individual or isolated act.

By simply looking at the definitions it is clear that the proponents of the demolition theory are not proposing a “conspiracy theory”, they are proposing a hypothesis. Stephen Jones, Richard Gage and other technical 9/11 researchers have never directly pointed the finger at anyone. They simply criticise the official theories for the destruction the towers and look for alternative explanations. They are therefore not conspiracy theorists. Furthermore, everything about the official story of 9/11 fits the definition of a conspiracy theory.

(ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW)

• A d v e r t i s e m e n t

Ever since the article was created in September of 2006, the theory has been referred to as a hypothesis. Now the new paper comes out PROVING there was a large quantity of explosive super-thermite in the towers and within a day, several biased editors, who are likely paid operatives, flood the talk page suggesting the page be renamed to a “conspiracy theory”. The page was renamed hours later, despite opposition from fairer editors. They also attack the paper on the talk page, doubting the reliability of the journal and the peer review process.

Page History
(cur) (prev) 14:54, 4 April 2009 Arthur Rubin (talk contribs) (55,220 bytes) (We’ve gone through this before; The “peer review” seems to consist of “Yes, this looks interesting”, and there are credible reports (to the point we could include them) that THIS paper was not review) (undo)

Just because a journal isn’t mainstream, doesn’t mean it’s not credible. Compared to the corrupted, agenda driven “investigations” of Propaganda Mechanics, the British Brainwashing Corporation and the Nanothermite Institute of Scumbags and Traitors, who have been exposed as frauds several times before, i’d say Bentham is pretty reliable. And, according to Stephen Jones, the peer review process on this paper was the most grueling peer review he’s ever had.

Talk Page
In articles on fringe topics, we are not supposed represent the fringe theory as if it is a legitimate viewpoint or on some kind of equal footing. Instead, we’re supposed to fairly represent all sides of an issue per reliable sources. If reliable sources reflect a particular viewpoint, then we’re supposed to represent that viewpoint as well. In a case such as this article, I doubt if there are many (if any) reliable sources that claim the WTC was destroyed via controlled demolition. Even if there are any, weight should be roughly proportional to the preponderance of reliable sources backing that perspective.

As a result, there might be a WP:NPOV issue with this article. This article should treat this topic in the same manner as reliable sources do. Thus, if NIST, Popular Mechanics, the BBC, ABC News, Time Magazine, etc. regard the controlled demolition conspiracy theory as outlandish bunk unsupported by factual evidence, that that’s how this article should be written. To do otherwise, is against WP:NPOV.

In other words, the viewpoints of reliable sources are the standard by which we write our articles and judge its neutrality.
- A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

So it seems Wikipedia’s definition of neutral is NIST, Popular Mechanics and the BBC’s definition of neutral – AKA selective and biased.

See:
David Ray Griffin – Let’s Get Empirical
9/11 and the British Broadcasting Conspiracy
WTC7 and the British Brainwashing Conspiracy

It is clear that there is no possible explanation for the super-thermite in the World Trade Center dust that doesn’t point towards inside involvement. Therefore instead of even attempting to explain or refute this evidence, Wikipedia has evidently gone for the ad-hominen attack, a technique used time and time again by 9/11 “Debunkers”.

This article was posted: Friday, April 10, 2009 at 12:14 pm

---

---

---

---

Infowars.com Videos:

Comment on this article

Comments are closed.