 |
truthaction.org
9/11 TRUTH NOW
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
victronix01
Joined: 18 Sep 2007
Posts: 1704
|
 Posted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 3:13 am Post subject: Wikipedia editors livid over new paper |
 |
|
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 . . .
| Quote: | Recommend renaming this article
There is no "hypothesis" that controlled demolition brought down the WTC. There are "conspiracy theories" that this occurred, but thats all. I recommend and urge we retitle this article to properly reflect what this article discusses, namely the conspiracy theories. So I think that retitling it to [[Controlled demolition conspiracy theories about the collapse of the World Trade Center]] would be the most accurate title which reflects the information in the article.--MONGO 03:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with Mongo. I did several Google searches on "Controlled demolition hypothesis" and the vast majority of hits come from 9/11 conspiracy Web sites, none of which qualify as WP:RS. If you ignore the conspiracy Web sites (as we should) and only look at reliable sources, the term "Controlled demolition hypothesis" is hardly ever used. The overwhelming majority of reliable sources refer to the "controlled demolition" of the World Trade Center as a conspiracy theory. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Is Wikipedia an encyclopedia or do we use newspaper terminology? A conspiracy theory is who did it and why while a hypothesis is what happened. A conspiracy theory requires a hypothesis as a basis. To use newspaper terminology is inappropriate and could even be POV.
Conspiracy Theory-noun: a belief that some covert but influential organization is responsible for an unexplained event.
Hypothesis-noun: a tentative theory; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena. Wayne (talk) 16:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Most reliable sources talk about "controlled demolition" and then go on to describe it as a conspiracy theory. A hypothsis is a scientific proposal that has yet to be proven. Things that are patently false are not called hypotheses. Only Truther literature uses the term "controlled demolition hypothesis". Therefore, in accordance with our general practice on Wikipedia to call things by what they are, I think this article should be named World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories. See also Chemtrail conspiracy theory, Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories, October surprise conspiracy theory. Jehochman Talk 19:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Rename it. Isn't a hypothesis something that can be falsified? But to the point, calling it the "controlled demolition hypothesis" is substituting what some guys on the internet think best for what the sources say. That's original research. We should describe things as the sources describe them. To the extent they talk about this at all, they do so in the context of the 911 conspiracy theories. Tom Harrison Talk 19:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC) |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_controlled_demolition_conspiracy_theories |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Arcterus
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
Posts: 698
Location: New York
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 3:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
By definition, our theories are hypotheses.
The end. Stop bitching.
_________________
http://arcterus911.blogspot.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scott N
Joined: 24 Jul 2007
Posts: 1525
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks for this Vic.
I encourage people to take snapshots of mutating headlines as they unfold.
There are very few "leaders" in the Truth Movement that I have trusted over the years. Steven Jones is one exception. He was one of the first "leaders" to support the 11th Day Actions, he insists on maintaining the highest standards of scientific scholarship and he has always maintained a respectful (though trenchant!) demeanor even in the face of vicious attacks by stooges like Fetzer and their counterparts on JREF.
The new evidence is the proverbial nail in the coffin. Be interesting to see how the anti-truth movement (sometimes known as "debunkers") responds. I predict mucho ad hominato and logical fallacy combined with a general refusal to address the evidence at hand. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scott N
Joined: 24 Jul 2007
Posts: 1525
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Arcterus wrote: | By definition, our theories are hypotheses.
The end. Stop bitching. |
Acterus,
I think the complaint is that "Hypothesis" morphed into "conspiracy theory", not the other way around. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arcterus
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
Posts: 698
Location: New York
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 6:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
I understand the complaint. I don't see what that has to do with a definitive understanding of the word "hypothesis".
| Quote: | Hypothesis Hy*poth"e*sis, n.; pl. Hypotheses. [NL., fr. Gr.
? foundation, supposition, fr. ? to place under, ? under + ?
to put. See Hypo-, Thesis.]
1. A supposition; a proposition or principle which is
supposed or taken for granted, in order to draw a
conclusion or inference for proof of the point in
question; something not proved, but assumed for the
purpose of argument, or to account for a fact or an
occurrence; as, the hypothesis that head winds detain an
overdue steamer.
[1913 Webster]
An hypothesis being a mere supposition, there are no
other limits to hypotheses than those of the human
imagination. --J. S. Mill.
[1913 Webster]
2. (Natural Science) A tentative theory or supposition
provisionally adopted to explain certain facts, and to
guide in the investigation of others; hence, frequently
called a working hypothesis.
Syn: Supposition; assumption. See Theory.
[1913 Webster]
Nebular hypothesis. under Nebular. Hypothetic
-- From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 |
The second definition fits particularly well, I think.
Unless the people on Wikipedia can somehow explain how these theories do not fit in with EITHER of those 2 definitions, I motion that they are being petty and obnoxious for no purpose other than to disassociate any sense of reason from the Truth Movement.
_________________
http://arcterus911.blogspot.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scott N
Joined: 24 Jul 2007
Posts: 1525
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 7:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Arcterus wrote: | I understand the complaint. I don't see what that has to do with a definitive understanding of the word "hypothesis".
| Quote: | Hypothesis Hy*poth"e*sis, n.; pl. Hypotheses. [NL., fr. Gr.
? foundation, supposition, fr. ? to place under, ? under + ?
to put. See Hypo-, Thesis.]
1. A supposition; a proposition or principle which is
supposed or taken for granted, in order to draw a
conclusion or inference for proof of the point in
question; something not proved, but assumed for the
purpose of argument, or to account for a fact or an
occurrence; as, the hypothesis that head winds detain an
overdue steamer.
[1913 Webster]
An hypothesis being a mere supposition, there are no
other limits to hypotheses than those of the human
imagination. --J. S. Mill.
[1913 Webster]
2. (Natural Science) A tentative theory or supposition
provisionally adopted to explain certain facts, and to
guide in the investigation of others; hence, frequently
called a working hypothesis.
Syn: Supposition; assumption. See Theory.
[1913 Webster]
Nebular hypothesis. under Nebular. Hypothetic
-- From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 |
The second definition fits particularly well, I think.
Unless the people on Wikipedia can somehow explain how these theories do not fit in with EITHER of those 2 definitions, I motion that they are being petty and obnoxious for no purpose other than to disassociate any sense of reason from the Truth Movement. |
Fair enough. I think the complaint arises from the (now) derogatory connotations of the phrase "conspiracy theory."
I can't remember the last time I heard the phrase "conspiracy fact". Though examples abound. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arcterus
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
Posts: 698
Location: New York
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 8:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah, I try to avoid using the term "conspiracy theory" because of it's connotation. Well, that and because the official story is a conspiracy theory. I'd sound like an idiot.
| Quote: | | I can't remember the last time I heard the phrase "conspiracy fact". Though examples abound. |
I think I saw it on some JFK program on the History Channel a couple years ago. That's the last time I can think of it.
_________________
http://arcterus911.blogspot.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
victronix01
Joined: 18 Sep 2007
Posts: 1704
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well the fact that wikipedia user Tom Harrison is coming back to deal with this shows it's important to them. His primary job was the block the evidence on 9/11 and insert "conspiracy theorist" onto everyone's pages on there and patrol every minute, for years.
Pages like Guiliani's would have no such level of patrols and so you could add any type of phrase onto his page and no one would remove it for days or weeks. But Jim Hoffman, Steve Jones and David Griffins "conspiracy theorist" titles were patrolled by the minute, literally.
That says something. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
victronix01
Joined: 18 Sep 2007
Posts: 1704
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 09, 2009 4:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
They continue to remove any mention of the paper from the page World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories.
Here is the code. All you need to do is copy that text, click on edit this page at the top, and paste it into the page, probably at the end of the section titled "History".
| Quote: |
In April 2009, Danish chemist Niels H. Harrit, of the University of Copenhagen, and 8 other authors, published a paper in ''The Open Chemical Physics Journal'', titled, 'Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe'.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/openaccess2.htm |title=Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe |accessdate=2009-04-03 |format=html |last=Harrit |first=Niels H}}</ref> The paper suggested that [[Metastable intermolecular composite|super-thermite]] chips were discovered in the dust and was covered in the Danish and Croatian press<ref>{{cite web |url=http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=da&u=http://videnskab.dk/content/dk/teknologi/dansk_forsker_eksplosivt_nanomateriale_fundet_i_stovet_fra_world_trade_center&ei=dhXZSduWFp_wswOGvM2iCg&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=2&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3DNiels%2BHarrit:%2BVidenskabeligt%2Bbevis%2Bfor%2Bgammel%2Bviden%2Bom%2B9/11%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG |title=Danish scientist: nano explosive material found in the dust from the World Trade Center |accessdate=2009-04-04 |format=html |last=Hoffman |first=Thomas}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.javno.com/en-world/super-explosive-found-in-wtc-remains_249153 |title=AS THE DUST SETTLED: Super-Explosive Found in WTC Remains|accessdate=2009-04-07 |format=html |last=Tustić |first=Tomislav}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://politiken.dk/indland/article684567.ece |title=Conspiracy theories about 9 / 11 get new life|accessdate=2009-04-04 |format=html |last=Mølgaard |first=Milla}}</ref> as well as in Utah.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705295677/Traces-of-explosives-in-911-dust-scientists-say.html?pg=1 |title=Traces of explosives in 9/11 dust, scientists say |accessdate=2009-04-07 |format=html |last=Jarvik |first=Elaine}}</ref> |
The person who usually does this has now been blocked -- that's their solution, to erase the text and block you from editing. Then they come up with fake reasons to remove it -- Bentham is not reliable (it's been on wikipedia for months now), the post is in the wrong section (then block the person trying to post it so they can't move it), etc. That's why you also should engage in discussion, to expose their methods.
| Quote: |
Removals of the new paper
Please explain why the article about demolition "conspiracy theories" is not allowed to include references to the papers that are written about the subject itself, just because they are published by Bentham. Obviously there is no concern about references to conspiracy theory books. But since when is an open scientific journal not allowed on wikipedia? Bentham articles have been referenced here for a long time, and the topic is extremely relevant to this article, written by the very researchers the article is supposedly about.
If one were writing an article about moon landing deniers, but no actual articles written by moon landing deniers would be allowed to even be referenced in the article, how is anyone supposed to see what the claims actually are?
The only reason I can imagine is that editors here don't want anyone to know that conspiracy theorists have written articles at all. If their claims are all wrong, what difference does it make if people see them? Apparently if the public sees these articles, they will be misinformed about what the conspiracy theories are really about. Or is there some other reason? bov (talk) 02:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
"If one were writing an article about moon landing deniers, but no actual articles written by moon landing deniers would be allowed to even be referenced in the article, how is anyone supposed to see what the claims actually are?" The answer to this question would be how do reliable sources treat these claims? If no reliable source has covered the conspiracy theories, then it need not be in the article. If reliable sources have covered the conspiracy theories, then they might be in article but only as the reliable sources resported it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Why are we labelling these papers as "reaction of the engineering community"? They weren't written by engineers, so keeping them in this section falsely implies that engineers are writing papers about controlled demolition ideas. If these papers are going to stay they need to be moved to another section. Hut 8.5 12:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I have requested arbitration enforcement. We should not have to answer the same questions to the same users a million times. Jehochman Talk 13:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
You opened the door to the same questions with the name change. If the name change is acceptable then material that may not have been appropriate for a hypothesis is now relevant under the more general conspiracy theory title. For example, no reasonable arguement can now be made to keep out the Bentham paper anymore. Wayne (talk) 13:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
That's almost true. However, the claim that either Bentham paper is in a peer-reviewed journal is not suitable for inclusion, nor is the claim that the authors are engineers or otherwise credible. Notability is still in question, not verifiability. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
{ec} Is Bentham a reliable source? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Probably not. I don't have the pointers on the tips of my fingers, but there is evidence that people (not necessarily experts) were encouraged to sign up to be "peer"-reviewers. It may not apply to all Bentham open-access journals. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Bentham is peer reviewed but a minority query how extensively based mainly on the fact that article contributors pay for the review. The "encouragment" was Bentham mass mailing scientists and University professors offering them a place on the review board when the journals were first set up. While some were not as qualified as they should have been there has been no evidence that article reviews have been compromised. However the edit Bov made does not mention peer review so it's left for the reader to decide reliability. I also notice the edit makes no claim that the authors are engineers, it is clear that they are chemists and physicists which is consistant with what the paper is about and the journal it is in (The Open Chemical Physics Journal) and it is also clear that such disciplines are part of the engineering community. I see no problem with the edit as it is consistant with the article subject and is not pushing any view. Wayne (talk) 14:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Based on the article's contents, they apparently analyzed dust that random people sent to them: "It was learned that a number of people had saved samples of the copious, dense dust, which spread and settled across Manhattan. Several of these people sent portions of their samples to members of this research group. This paper discusses four separate dust samples collected on or shortly after 9/11/2001. Each sample was found to contain red/gray chips. All four samples were originally collected by private citizens who lived in New York City at the time of the tragedy. These citizens came forward and provided samples for analysis in the public interest, allowing study of the 9/11 dust for whatever facts about the day might be learned from the dust." A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Thay may be a problem best left for the reader. That all samples were identical is support for their provenance. Another supporting factor is that NIST also found the same chemicals in the 911 dust but didn't investigate further as they believed they were likely naturally produced from the destruction of the building contents. I believe that the papers point is that they were in quantities more consistant with explosives than contents. They are likely wrong but that is not for us to say. The idea of research is to discover facts to form a hypothesis and let scientists (and by extension lay readers) decide for themselves which is the stronger case. If the hypothesis is out there it should be presented to Wikipedia readers in an appropriate manner. Just because it lends support for a conspiracy theory doesn't make it true. The assasination of JFK and his brother are examples where some facts support conspiracy theories better than the official theory does but we still accept the official theory because it has more evidence, yet we still include those facts in their articles so I fail to see why this topic should be treated differently. Wayne (talk) 16:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Including these papers in a section entitled "reaction of the engineering community" implies that they are part of the response of engineers to the idea of controlled demolition, like the publications described earlier in this section. In fact they are written by prominent non-engineer proponents of controlled demolition. Descriptions of the papers should therefore be moved to "History" or "Notable proponents". I don't mind mentioning this paper somewhere, as long as we are clear this is just another publication by controlled demolition proponents. Hut 8.5 19:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Schröder
Joined: 14 May 2008
Posts: 59
Location: Germany
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 09, 2009 10:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Wow, that's revealing. If they so desperately don't want people to know about the paper, then surely not because there's unfounded nonsense in there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dem Bruce Lee Stylez!
Joined: 24 Jun 2007
Posts: 708
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 09, 2009 10:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Censorship of the Wiki-Wankers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
victronix01
Joined: 18 Sep 2007
Posts: 1704
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 9:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Wikipedia has now hidden the comments that were originally posted here! That's how intense it has gotten for them!
Check it out on here on the discussion page.
I've never seen them insert bars into discussion that hide the comments of people who are banned -- normally you just see the banned user's name in red and that tells you they are banned. But they don't block all things that that person says . . .
Amazing.
I see that another user, Locewtus, is attempting to post the paper also but literally within 5 minutes they delete it -- that's the level of resources they are devoting to blocking any mention of the paper on there.
[/img] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frederick
Joined: 13 Sep 2007
Posts: 46
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 10:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| victronix01 wrote: | Wikipedia has now hidden the comments that were originally posted here! That's how intense it has gotten for them!
Check it out on here on the discussion page.
I've never seen them insert bars into discussion that hide the comments of people who are banned -- normally you just see the banned user's name in red and that tells you they are banned. But they don't block all things that that person says . . .
Amazing.
I see that another user, Locewtus, is attempting to post the paper also but literally within 5 minutes they delete it -- that's the level of resources they are devoting to blocking any mention of the paper on there.
[/img] |
OK, nevermind. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
truthmover
Joined: 19 Oct 2007
Posts: 1550
Location: Los Angeles
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 11, 2009 11:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Considering some of the more silly things you can find on Wikipedia, I'd say the cover-up of this paper by Wikipedia authors is becoming enough of an event in itself that it might be worth its own entry.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arabesque
Joined: 08 Jul 2007
Posts: 1437
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
