I was just looking at all of the inventors who don't deserve a wikipedia page because of a lack of mainstream confirmation of their invention. I had to learn to respect the way wikipedia works right there. This makes me think the amount of pseudo science on this page should make it more then worthy of deletion, Wikipedia should not function as a platform to advertise a minority opinion as scientific fact. The page doesn't mention doubt about the subject, everything written goes without proper scientific evidence. Who brought Osama bin Laden into this story? I really want to hear how he relates to this before reading "he did it!!" in the wiki. Don't you actually have to prove some one did something? Lets agree to disagree and delete the page. There are so much lies on it it's broken beyond repair.(Gaby de wilde 17:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC))
Hey, wait a minute? You talk about me and call me an idiot AND move my article but you don't reply to me? This is just rude trolling IMHO.
At least state your opinion?(Gaby de wilde 19:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC))
- I think Gaby's initial post contains its own answer: the word "mainstream". Fringe science and pseudoscience may be routinely deleted because of a lack of mainstream acceptance. Attribution of this attack to Osama bin Laden is not deleted because it has mainstream acceptance. To answer Gaby's second rhetorical question: No, we do not have to prove anyone did anything. We simply have to find reliable sources who say that they did, and present such information neutrally. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 19:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Please don't post 40,000 word rants about the subject of the article; discuss the article, not the subject. --Haemo 21:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
The article assumes a consensus that does not exist. It makes no reference to other points of view such as science! It represents everything what propaganda stands for. You are right of course when you say you do have to find reliable sources. The claim this is not a highly controversial topic is easy to disprove. My claim remains: This is a subject of extreme controversy, such discussion has no place in wikipedia. And stop deleting everything I write here will you? (Gaby de wilde 21:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC))
- You do understand that Wikipedia has thousands of articles about highly controversial topics? That's not a sufficient reason for deletion.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 21:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- If you make posts in keeping with WP:TALK, they will not be deleted, and vice versa. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 21:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- The page covers a notable topic and therefore deserves inclusion in the project. it certainly wasnt wikipeduia who brought Osama into this and indeed all material should be referenced, SqueakBox 21:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
No it was this
Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden appeared in a new message aired on an Arabic TV station Friday night, for the first time claiming direct responsibility for the 2001 attacks against the United States.
But no reference to the actual video is made on this page. So the page is just a reference in it self. It does not contain any content.
The locked page uses words like TERRORIST and has an extremely PROPAGANDA like nature. It tries to force a consensus upon the reader that doesn't exist.
The official story is a conspiracy theory.
The global scientific consensus is that the buildings got blown up.
Kerosene doesn't get hot enough to create pre-collapse explosions in the basement. Or is a pre-collapse victim in a hospital bed not a credible source?
If I were to bring the towers down, I would put explosives in the basement to get the weight of the building to help collapse the structure -Mark Loizeaux, president, Controlled Demolition Inc.
So that means EXPLOSIONS not COLLAPSE. And what about the thermite? They may have tried to ship all evidence to china the 5000 megawatt afterglow is something you will have to explain for before you quote a news article as a scientific fact.
The official story is nonsense. This everyone knows already. But feel free to explain why didn't jets intercept the airliners since they had numerous warnings of terrorist attacks. Why were there no photos or videos of the Pentagon plane? Why did the private footage need to be confiscated. Where the reported to be found flight recorders are. How Bush could see the first plane crash on live camera. You may explain why the official story is so full of such non scientific nonsense. And most of all we need some explanation of why the official story needs to be supported by removing evidence.
I think those are honest questions. How can there be 10 000 videos on google video all claiming controlled demolition. While some artificial consensus is enforced here?
Please don't just delete my arguments again.
(Gaby de wilde 22:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC))
But ok, lets try discuss the article.
Where footnoot  reads: 'Lieber, Robert J. (2005). "Globalization, Culture, and Identities in Crisis", The American Era: Power and Strategy for the 21st century. Cambridge University Press. '
I find the official story to be one heap of nonsense. The sincere questions about the hiding of practically all evidence should be mentioned here. The thousands of questions about the topic should not merely be generalised as conspiracy nuttery in one single paragraph. They should all have their own Q and A. If anything should be labeled as conspiracy theory it should be the official story.
I find spontaneous pancake dustification of skyscrapers pseudo-scientific nonsense of the highest order.
Then the story wants 3 of those caused by 2 aluminum jets? Almost all the kerosene burns off on impact but there is enough left to melt steel? This while it doesn't actually get anywhere near the temperature in the real world of science.The impact of a jet is no where near the pressure the wind creates. People who worked in the building for years got blown up in the basement. How much more pseudo-scientific does it get I wonder?
Explosions + not enough impact + not enough jet fuel + it didn't get hot enough = controlled demolition
no???? please explain your answer. The article should contain the cop-out excuses commonly used by the mainstream media in order to get away from the facts. Not the other way around, you cant quote up an article out of chunks of clear nonsense and rationalise it by saying it was written in the bible of mainstream media. The truth is not the property of news agencies to make of what they like.
I'm not putting this up for debate, it is my opinion the story should go as it's not based on scientific facts.
Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Gaby de wilde 23:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC))