Difference between revisions of "Talk:9-11/Pentagon"
m (t) |
(→Quotes and structure: new section) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
Thanks for that major edit/input TS. I have been meaning to include a section on the CIT and the fact that emergency calls (911) phone records for the DC area have remained classified whilst those for NYC were released -allegedly anyway (can't recall exactly where I read that now but think it was the CIT work). The thinking - by CIT is that there were many calls reporting the flight of a large plane '''over''' the pentagon and on a similar heading to the one alleged to have hit it. The witnesses interviewed by CIT - especially the police officer, are very compelling evidence that the aircraft could not have hit the Pentagon. For my money, an overflight together either pre-planted explosives or a missile fit the available evidence best. [http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/ Here's the CIT web site] --[[User:Peter|Peter P]] ([[User talk:Peter|talk]]) 06:24, 11 September 2014 (IST) | Thanks for that major edit/input TS. I have been meaning to include a section on the CIT and the fact that emergency calls (911) phone records for the DC area have remained classified whilst those for NYC were released -allegedly anyway (can't recall exactly where I read that now but think it was the CIT work). The thinking - by CIT is that there were many calls reporting the flight of a large plane '''over''' the pentagon and on a similar heading to the one alleged to have hit it. The witnesses interviewed by CIT - especially the police officer, are very compelling evidence that the aircraft could not have hit the Pentagon. For my money, an overflight together either pre-planted explosives or a missile fit the available evidence best. [http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/ Here's the CIT web site] --[[User:Peter|Peter P]] ([[User talk:Peter|talk]]) 06:24, 11 September 2014 (IST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Quotes and structure == | ||
| + | |||
| + | I don't like having so many quotes together, without explanatory text, so will either be trimming some or trying to give them context and work them into the main text, so the "quotes" section gets absorbed into the article itself. There is no explicit policy on this, but I might add a "message rather than medium" suggestion to the [[WikiSpooks:Style Guide]]. [[User:Robin|Robin]] ([[User talk:Robin|talk]]) 06:01, 19 September 2014 (IST) | ||
Revision as of 05:01, 19 September 2014
Good Stuff
Thanks for that major edit/input TS. I have been meaning to include a section on the CIT and the fact that emergency calls (911) phone records for the DC area have remained classified whilst those for NYC were released -allegedly anyway (can't recall exactly where I read that now but think it was the CIT work). The thinking - by CIT is that there were many calls reporting the flight of a large plane over the pentagon and on a similar heading to the one alleged to have hit it. The witnesses interviewed by CIT - especially the police officer, are very compelling evidence that the aircraft could not have hit the Pentagon. For my money, an overflight together either pre-planted explosives or a missile fit the available evidence best. Here's the CIT web site --Peter P (talk) 06:24, 11 September 2014 (IST)
Quotes and structure
I don't like having so many quotes together, without explanatory text, so will either be trimming some or trying to give them context and work them into the main text, so the "quotes" section gets absorbed into the article itself. There is no explicit policy on this, but I might add a "message rather than medium" suggestion to the WikiSpooks:Style Guide. Robin (talk) 06:01, 19 September 2014 (IST)
