Talk:9-11/Israel did it
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. --Peter P (talk) 20:47, 2 June 2014 (IST)
Perpetrators
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)
- For me, Gorton's notions of a cabal is a more precise way to describe who was responsible than saying "it was this or that TLA". If I were a 'career-minded superior' in a TLA charged with doing it, I can imagine being personally offended by the suggestion that the TLA for which I worked in good faith had done such a thing - and would probably not be inclined to take the article seriously henceforth, i.e. "I never heard anything about that, ergo this article is wrong in assigning blame to my TLA". Gorton's suggestion that there is a deeper level of organisation at work I consider more or less indubitable, and such a claim is more nuanced than assigning responsibility to an entire TLA (or set of TLAs). As you point out - there is an entire alphabet soup of TLAs that must have had people on the team (e.g. FAA, NEADS, NIST, ... ). To talk about "elements of both the CIA and Mossad" is to invite the question of which elements, and why. Gorton's answer to this question - that a secret organisation has evolved over time, has carried out a whole sequence of events which can be traced through recent history, and continues to try to manage events to its own selfish interest - appears to me to have explanatory power both as regards 9/11 and beyond. Robin (talk) 14:10, 6 July 2014 (IST)
- Yes, I can go along with all that so far as the planning and pre-positioning of assets etc goes. But, on the execution, the net widens (ie more people become at least culpable, if not 'responsible') - they may be uneasy and have disturbing worries about anomalous goings-on, but hey; they have careers to consider and looking - or being made to look - a fool isn't a good career move. Then post-event, the entire organisation becomes culpable in what amounts to the cover up - if only in arguing black is white in favour of the Official Narrative. Again careers are on the line and, when the chips are down, "we really are the goodies aren't we?". I reckon there's no simple way of assigning and characterising lead responsibilities for such major events, whether to individuals, cabals of individuals, or the organisations themselves - For example, who was responsible for getting the UK into the Iraq war? - Blair, Blair and his 'advisors/paymasters/mentors' or the British government?. Same applies to WWI and WWII, though in both cases 'cabals' were undoubtedly involved. The 'British Deep State' is useful shorthand for each of them, which I guess could qualify as a 'cabal', but frankly the whole issue is a semantic minefield.
- All that said I have no problem with you having a go at tweeking the intro - After all, I don't think it was purely Mossad either; just that theirs was probably the lead lead responsibility and the info gathered in the page does a pretty solid job of demonstrating that IMO. --Peter P (talk) 15:59, 6 July 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)
