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

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 aswell; 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. Steven 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.

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".

Related Info:

Guide to Wikipedia on 9/11

Rampant Un-American Censorship of the 9/11 Truth Movement

Controlled Demolition Not Possible?

Pat Curley of the Screw Loose Change blog was recently listening to No Lies Radio when he caught Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth founder Richard Gage trying to fool the audience; Pat states...

"Gage does one little trick that's pretty obvious and I'd like to suggest that somebody catch him on it. When he talks about the columns being ejected from the building, it's because of explosives. But when somebody catches him on the lack of audible explosions, he dodges back to thermite/thermate/nanothermate. Well, nanothermate isn't going to give the explosive force he claims is needed to eject those columns."

Of course, I was outraged! How dare Gage try to trick me! So, I took Pat's advice and I "caught him on it," here is Richard's reply...

Hi John Michael,

He doesn’t know how much explosive force nano-thermite is or is not capable of – nor how loud it is. This is speculation. We have dozens of people (refer him once again to our DVD!) reporting huge explosions at the onset of collapse – one guy from the BBC in a blue shirt ducking having heard the explosion from behind him. And nano-thermite is quieter than C4 or RDX. And the columns were ejected at 55 mph instant speed from the side of the Twin Towers.

Richard

Boy am I glad I wrote Gage about this issue, because I almost had forgotten that, as Assistant Director of the FBI's Counterterrorism Division Michael J. Heimbach pointed out, "Mr. Gage presents an interesting theory, backed by thorough research and analysis!" Shame on me...

Factual back-up, sources, and further research materials:

"One thing conspiracy theorists like to ignore is that controlled demolitions make noise." - RKOwens4

Conspiracy theorists like this?

Controlled Demolition Expert, Tom Sullivan, Discusses Controlled Demolitions on 9/11.



Good Science and Demolition Theories, Indeed

Richard Gage, AIA member

Alex Jones Interview
April, 2008
Richard Gage is interviewed in this latest show with host Alex Jones

911 Mysteries (Part 5 of 10)

911 Mysteries AND Facts - MOLTEN METAL

Terror Storm 2nd Edition Pt 9/12

Physicist Says Heat Substance Felled WTC

9/11 Science vs. Conspiracy Theories Part 1 of 2

9/11 Science vs. Conspiracy Theories Part 2 of 2

Immortal Technique - Bin Laden (Remix) (Instrumental)

NIST Report on WTC7 debunked and exposed

Steven Jones & David Ray Griffin on the Alex Jones Show 11/19/2008

"If explosives were used on each floor of the World Trade Center, a succession of distinct explosions would be heard miles away. Yet, even at the base of the building, not a single explosion was heard." - RKOwens4

Excerpts from 1-A/B "9/11 Guilt: The Proof Is in Your Hands"

Continuous Explosions Leveled the Towers

The towers' destruction cannot be accurately described without the word "explosion." Huge clouds billowed out from the towers, starting around the crash zones, and grew rapidly as they consumed each tower, converting them to fine powder and fragments of steel, and depositing the bulk of the remains outside of each tower's footprint in a radial pattern.

Incredibly, this stark reality has and continues to be so consistently and widely denied in government, media, industry, and academia, that few Americans have even entertained the idea that the towers were intentionally demolished. One of the key underpinnings of that denial is the fact that the explosions were continuous, extending for the entire 15-second duration of each tower's collapse. Although witnesses describe loud pops at their onsets, the extended duration and loud roar of the explosions apparently prevented most people from thinking of them as explosions. Also, the repeated description of the events as collapses by the broadcast networks must have had a powerful effect in shaping people's understanding of them, particularly given the heightened state of suggestibility induced by the profound state of shock and disbelief most of them were in. Click here to read the entire article.

16000 firecracker explosion

9/11: South Tower "Collapse" video compilation

FOX 9 11 Explosion sound waves reached midtown NYC