Difference between revisions of "Talk:9-11/Israel did it"

From Wikispooks
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(→‎protection: new section)
m (→‎protection: reply)
Line 20: Line 20:
  
 
I've just unprotected it, since it is in need of editing, and making a log-in it probably is sufficient hurdle - if not, it can be reprotected later. [[User:Robin|Robin]] ([[User talk:Robin|talk]]) 13:33, 6 July 2014 (IST)
 
I've just unprotected it, since it is in need of editing, and making a log-in it probably is sufficient hurdle - if not, it can be reprotected later. [[User:Robin|Robin]] ([[User talk:Robin|talk]]) 13:33, 6 July 2014 (IST)
 +
 +
: OK, but not necessary for you to edit it --[[User:Peter|Peter P]] ([[User talk:Peter|talk]]) 13:40, 6 July 2014 (IST)

Revision as of 12:40, 6 July 2014

Searchtraffic.jpg
This is a high traffic page.

Lots of problems and issues with this article. It illustrates the difficulty of using an existing HTML (or other non-wiki) source as the the copy/paste/edit basis for a wiki article, rather than simply authoring from scratch.

The following need attention:

  • Friendly-fi the YouTube links with explanatory text (embedding not really an option because it would slow the page down and make the text too disjointed). - Done --Peter P 13:46, 23 September 2010 (IST)
  • Masses of references to insert - lots available from the original source.
  • Information about anomalous trading in AAL and UAL securities needed - records destroyed in WT7; links (if they exist) to Zionist individuals/organisations etc. To go in evidence of pre-knowledge.
  • Lots of grammatical inconsistencies.
  • Probably a few others.
--Peter P 11:49, 23 September 2010 (IST)

Legacy content

This is not really an encyclopaedia article - it was imported as a finished product, so it belongs in the Document: namespace really. I've put in a few links, as I would even if it were made into a document, but if we leave it here, it needs editing, since some parts of it are weak. The idea that 9/11 had to be either CIA or Mossad, for example, is too simplistic, and doesn't acknowledge that such operations are hardly likely to be on the official books. A Cabal based off the record type agreement involving people within a whole bunch of different organisations seems more likely to me (à la Mark Gorton). Robin (talk) 13:12, 2 June 2014 (IST)

The page was actually assembled by me from a posting plus many comments containing additional info on a discussion board that no longer exists. I agree that, strictly speaking it belongs in the Document name space but feel that it should probably remain where it is - at least for now - for the following reasons: Both historically and currently, the page is the most visited on the site by a factor of around 10:1 over its closest competitor. It is #1 on a Google 'Israel did it' search and is undoubtedly linked to from many sites using the current url. We could use a redirect but Search-Engines use algorithms that penalize them, so why bother? - exceptions prove rules and all that.
We could have an interesting discussion about the cabal responsible for engineering 9-11 and maybe the intro IS too precise in its assignment of responsibility. I'm fairly relaxed about editing that a bit. However, I don't find the distinction between a notional cabal and 'on-the-books' CIA and/or Mossad, particularly useful or enlightening. IMO elements of both the CIA and Mossad with full access to their respective resources and capabilities, had to have lead/coordinating roles in planning and execution - Both must certainly have been privy to events beforehand. They in turn must have had co-conspirators in various other US institutions - especially the FBI and DOD - in subordinate roles. The foot-soldiers and their career-minded superiors up to middle and even senior levels, as always, remained in blissful, earnest, patriotic ignorance. --Peter P (talk) 20:47, 2 June 2014 (IST)

protection

I've just unprotected it, since it is in need of editing, and making a log-in it probably is sufficient hurdle - if not, it can be reprotected later. Robin (talk) 13:33, 6 July 2014 (IST)

OK, but not necessary for you to edit it --Peter P (talk) 13:40, 6 July 2014 (IST)