Talk:9-11/Israel did it

From Wikispooks
Jump to: navigation, search
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. --Peter P (talk) 20:47, 2 June 2014 (IST)
As long as the SEO angle persists, I agree that it makes sense to leave it where it is. Robin (talk) 14:10, 6 July 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 responsibility; the info gathered on the page does a pretty solid job of demonstrating that too IMO. --Peter P (talk) 15:59, 6 July 2014 (IST)
Its more likely a course of events in a network structure where a lead responsibility or a main perpetrator may not be found. Even the assumption that a masterplan existed is not necessary for such complex events to take place, however, there might be a permanent strategy or knowledge about how to stay in power. The power structures itself may show emergent properties [i.e. when false flags happen and they do happen from time to time] much like a swarm of Piranhas 'decide' when they attack. Of course fish don't cover up what they are up to, humans do...
I fear that first time visitors get the wrong impression, that WS editors are proposing a simplistic thesis with lacking distinction between Jews, Zionists, Israelis and Mossad agents. ['Cui bono' is a good starting point, but a severely limited POV in answering this question makes it easy do discredit the WS project as a whole]. We should make clear that this is a summary and extension of a discussion board thread which presents valuable information on a piece of a puzzle. --Urban (talk) 12:16, 10 June 2015 (IST)
I concur with all your points, Urban. The 'top down hierarchy model' with which we are familiar from a lot of public social institutions is a poor approximation of the workings of clandestine, deep state groups. As Peter Dale Scott once described when asked who ran the post-WW2 Rat Lines "Everyone was in charge and no one was in charge". The off-the-books nature tends to preclude a formal hierarchy. This would be good to examine on other pages, too, but given the importance of this high traffic page, it would be particularly useful to point readers towards the sort of nuanced thinking which permeates WS. Another possibility would be to archive this by placing it in the Document: namespace, then writing reviews of it reflect our reservations. Robin (talk) 16:56, 10 June 2015 (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)

Hello, I am back to editing and I thought this image of the mural van would be important to add to the mural van section to show that the allegations that the van had a painting depicting the 9/11 attacks was true. I noticed that the page is protected so if one of you guys could add it in there or unprotect the page so that I could do so would be good. TruthSeeker611 (talk) 16:55, 31 May 2015

Welcome back. I'll unprotect the page for you. As far as I am aware, that image is a mock up, so do not publish it without making this completely clear. Actually, probably better not publish that at all, unless you can verify its source. I think the image at http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=urban_moving_systems is actual. Robin (talk) 14:58, 2 June 2015 (IST)
Oh alright I guess I shouldn't add it then. Thanks for letting me know. But I also found some typos to fix. TruthSeeker611 (talk) 22:10, 8 June 2015 (EST)
Hi there TS. The page is still by far the most visited on Wikispooks as you can see here. Any tidying up and/or additions that further its thesis are welcome. --Peter P (talk) 07:29, 9 June 2015 (IST)

"Prime mover?"

Where is the evidence that the Israeli deep state was the "prime mover" in 9-11? I see plenty of evidence that it was involved, but where is the evidence about initiating the project? Unless I've missed something big, a more guarded lede would be better summary of this page's content. -- Robin (talk) 14:39, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

It is the page title itself that implies Israel was the prime mover; the rest of the page marshals evidence for that proposition. That is not to say that it does so conclusively - or even persuasively - but that is the clear intent of the title; the lede merely expands on the title. I also think that to include the caveat that currently follows the opening sentence is unwarranted because it patronises the reader who should be assumed capable of making his/her own mind up about the evidence. I further think that use of 'Deep State' is not without serious problems in the context of this page. This is because it implies that those behind planning and commissioning the events can be defined and circumscribed by similar executive and legal boundaries to those of the visible 'State' whereas, IMO, state structures and capabilities (especially intel and the military) are in reality seen as mere tools by the most powerful 'Deep State' operatives whose over-riding loyalties and allegiances are to pathologically secretive trans-state organisations. --Peter P (talk) 16:59, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
If the title were something akin to "9-11/Israeli involvement", I would see no need for the caveat. However, "Israel did it" has been taken by some readers[1] to suggest that Israel did it alone, or that the government of Israel did it, as opposed to a small cabal which used state structures such as the Mossad. The caveat is a recognition that perhaps more than any other on this site, this page is read by many deep state-naive people. -- Robin (talk) 16:17, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Citations = Evidence?

I've counted six citation needed tags throughout the 9-11/Israel did it article which require references to support the evidence adduced. Assuming such citations exist, I wonder whether they are likely to convince doubters such as Mark Crawford who wrote on Facebook today:

"The article presents no 'evidence' because no such evidence exists. Please LOOK AT the article and see all the major 'evidence' which has the notation 'citation lacking'. This is an extreme case of proof by coincidence. I am an anti-zionist but I can recognize unfiltered jew-hating when I see it.
"I hope that this 'professor' once did fine work to earn his professorship and his 'emeritus' rank BUT emeritus, as we all know, means than you cannot be fired even after you become senile and stop making any sense whatsoever!!!!
"15 of 19 9/11 hijackers were Saudi and all were members of Osama bin Laden's vigorously/violently anti-Israel sunni sect known as Al Qaeda - Kees van der Pijl uses neither logic or history to tangle with these inconvenient facts: 🤣 😎 Fifteen of the 19 were citizens of Saudi Arabia, and the others were from the United Arab Emirates (2), Egypt, and Lebanon."

Peter P said in 2010:

"Masses of references to insert - lots available from the original source."
The article already boasts 23 references: can we find another six for the [citation needed] tags to silence the doubters?--Patrick Haseldine (talk) 12:30, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  1. Judging by responses in forums where this link has been posted