Difference between revisions of "Talk:9-11/Planes"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(A start) |
|||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
Lumping such disparate ideas together in a small blanket headline seems to inspire incredulity - the kind of thing I'd expect from wikipedia. | Lumping such disparate ideas together in a small blanket headline seems to inspire incredulity - the kind of thing I'd expect from wikipedia. | ||
| − | Maybe split this stub (and forgive me if I ignore the 'no planes were involved in WTC 1/2' bits). | + | Maybe split this stub (and forgive me if I ignore the 'no planes were involved in WTC 1/2' bits). [[User:Robin]] 15:50 19 May 2011 |
| + | |||
| + | :Thanks for the observations. Agreed Shanksville and The Pentagon are very different to any Twin Towers 'no-planes' hypothesis. No doubt 'incredulity' is the response of the vast majority too. Problem is I have neither the time nor inclination to taylor site content to a mass audience with an editorial policy that asks 'How credible will this appear to the Sheeple'. Dissemination of information not available in the MSM is the sole criteria - with due care to TRY to filter out the inevitable [[The Power of Unreason#'Infiltration' of 'Conspiracy sites' by the SIS's|Cass Sunstein]] type disinformation. There is in fact some intriguing information out there on the Twin Towers damage being caused by something other than the two commercial airliners of the official narrative. It's just that I never seem to get the time to collate and wikify it in a manner than does it justice and adds to the existing sources in a worthwhile fashion --[[User:Peter|Peter P]] 18:21, 19 May 2011 (IST) | ||
Revision as of 17:21, 19 May 2011
Is this a helpful stub? Considering the amount of video of plane like objects that hit the twin towers, the 'no planes' theory seems unlikely.
I have yet to see any convincing evidence of planes hitting the pentagon, so that seems to me to be a different matter - ditto Shanksville.
Lumping such disparate ideas together in a small blanket headline seems to inspire incredulity - the kind of thing I'd expect from wikipedia. Maybe split this stub (and forgive me if I ignore the 'no planes were involved in WTC 1/2' bits). User:Robin 15:50 19 May 2011
- Thanks for the observations. Agreed Shanksville and The Pentagon are very different to any Twin Towers 'no-planes' hypothesis. No doubt 'incredulity' is the response of the vast majority too. Problem is I have neither the time nor inclination to taylor site content to a mass audience with an editorial policy that asks 'How credible will this appear to the Sheeple'. Dissemination of information not available in the MSM is the sole criteria - with due care to TRY to filter out the inevitable Cass Sunstein type disinformation. There is in fact some intriguing information out there on the Twin Towers damage being caused by something other than the two commercial airliners of the official narrative. It's just that I never seem to get the time to collate and wikify it in a manner than does it justice and adds to the existing sources in a worthwhile fashion --Peter P 18:21, 19 May 2011 (IST)
