wikipedia lies

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

This is what wikipwedia says about 911

September 11, 2001 attacks
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Because of recent vandalism or other disruption, editing of this article by unregistered or newly registered users is currently disabled. Such users may discuss changes, request unprotection, or create an account.

"9/11" redirects here. For other uses, see 911 (disambiguation).
September 11, 2001 attacks

The towers burn shortly after United Airlines Flight 175 crashed into the South Tower on the right. On the left is the still smoking North Tower, struck earlier by American Airlines Flight 11.
Location New York, New York (first two), Arlington, Virginia (3rd) Washington, D.C., Shanksville, Pennsylvania (4th); all USA
Target(s) World Trade Center and The Pentagon (fourth hijacking was probably aimed for the White House or the U.S. Capitol).[citation needed]
Date 11 September 2001
8:46 am – 10:28 am (UTC-4)
Attack Type Suicide attack, Hijacking
Fatalities 2,992 (including 19 suicide hijackers)
Injuries Unknown
Perpetrator(s) Osama bin Laden, see also Responsibility and Organizers on the right hand column
Sept. 11, 2001 attacks
Timeline
Background history
Planning
September 11, 2001
Rest of September
October
Beyond October
Victims
Survivors
Foreign casualties
Hijacked airliners
American Airlines Flight 11
United Airlines Flight 175
American Airlines Flight 77
United Airlines Flight 93
Sites of destruction
World Trade Center
The Pentagon
Shanksville, Pennsylvania
Effects and aftermath
World political effects
World economic effects
Detentions
Airport security
Closings and cancellations
Audiovisual entertainment
Local health
Response
Government response
Rescue and recovery effort
Financial assistance
Operation Yellow Ribbon
Memorials and services
Perpetrators
Responsibility
Organizers
Miscellaneous
Communication
Tower collapse
Slogans and terms
Conspiracy theories
Opportunists
Inquiries
U.S. Congressional Inquiry
9/11 Commission
This box: view • talk • edit

A sequential look at United Flight 175 crashing into the south tower of the World Trade CenterThe September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11—pronounced "nine eleven") consisted of a series of coordinated terrorist[1] suicide attacks upon the United States, predominantly targeting civilians, carried out on Tuesday, September 11, 2001.

On the morning of September 11, 2001, nineteen terrorists[2] affiliated with al-Qaeda[3] hijacked four commercial passenger jet airliners. Each team of hijackers included a trained pilot. The hijackers crashed two of the airliners (United Airlines Flight 175 and American Airlines Flight 11) into the World Trade Center in New York City, one plane into each tower (1 WTC and 2 WTC). A third airliner (American Airlines Flight 77) was crashed into the Pentagon in Arlington County, Virginia. Passengers and members of the flight crew on the fourth aircraft (United Airlines Flight 93) attempted to retake control of their plane from the hijackers; that plane crashed into a field near the town of Shanksville in rural Somerset County, Pennsylvania. In addition to the 19 hijackers, 2,973 people died; another 24 are missing and presumed dead.

[flamesong]

Then why not change it?

As wikipedia works by concensus and anybody can edit any article, it is a bit like criticising a spanner because you have only tried using it to hammer in screws.

You fail to mention this, much more substantial, (almost twice the size) page on wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories

[Andrew Johnson]

[flamesong]

My point is that there is not some dark evil which maintains editorial control over what goes on the wiki - it is maintained by concensus. Now that might be a little idealistic to be practical, or even useful to the cause of 9/11 truth - especially as, despite the contrary claims of Alex Jones, 9/11 truthers may still be in the minority. It is therefore disingenuous to state that wikipedia lies.

And, Andrew, you also fail to acknowledge the much more substantial page which details the alternative view which represents what many of us would, to some extent, endorse:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories

Whilst I cannot claim that this constitutes any kind of legitimacy, wikipedia is oft compared to Encyclopedia Britannica - how much webspace do they give to the alternative view? Perhaps somebody who subscribes to their service can tell us.

[Andrew Johnson]

[flamesong]

Well, my point seems to be missed - by simply questioning the demonisation of wikipedia in the first post I find myself cornered into a position of having to defend it because of other peoples' black and white view. It isn't so monochrome - is it!

My guess is that those who levy criticism at wikipedia have not been involved in concensus decision making. Like I said, it might be too idealistic to be of any use to us - but that is the way it works. If there weren't folk involved in wikipedia who are interested in 9/11 - you can be sure that the site would somehow resemble the Indymedia UK site of two or three years ago whereby 9/11 was swept under the carpet.

I do not really see that there is much justification in singling out wikipedia for attack when a). there is a substantial section coving alternative 9/11 issues, albeit not worded the way it would be on a 9/11 campaign site. And b). there are countless other infopedia sites which hardly, if at all, mention non-mainstream 9/11 issues.

Let's not be naive, wikipedia is neither controlled by 9/11 activists nor the powers that be.

[rodin]

I can see I have work to do here

Wikipedia, the 'free' online encycopedia? Online mind-progamming psyop more like for the global crime syndicate

http://judicial-inc.biz/wikipedia.htm

http://judicial-inc.biz/Huffschmidt_movie3.htm

There is no such thing as a free lunch

[wepmob2000]

[rodin]

wepmob

you'll be the thought police then?

I know Wikipedia censors like crazy. To cover up certain dangerous truths.

Have you rejected the information on that site because you are progammmed to, or because you are a gate keeper. You are certainly not a truth-seeker for you would examine test then expose any lies on that site for what they are before decrying it. Yes it is a bit hard hitting. And it does have an agenda. The agenda is to warn us of a conspiracy NO MSM are allowed to touch. And no wonder. ALL MSM is controlled by the same gang. Check it out for yourself. Just do your due diligence instead of spouting off rote-learned slogans.

An anti semite is not someone who hates Zionists, its someone Zionists hate. Zionists aren't even SEMITES - irony of ironies. If you read the site properly and point out the errors to me fine - we can have a sensible discussion. I am no dogmatist and am always open to persduasion by a sound argument. But you are NO BETTER than a NIST commissioner who refuses to look @ WTC demolition evidence until you do.

9/11 truth? Lets have it. The WHOLE truth and not some limited hangout.

[wepmob2000]

Hello Rodin

Steady on there, I didn't mean any offence if any was taken. The connection between Zionism and the media is possible, although unsubstantiated, and the question of bias is extraordinarily subjective. Many right wingers claim the BBC to be biased in favour of the enemies of Israel after all.

Unlike some posters here, I do differentiate between dislike of a political entity and racism, appreciating theres a difference between anti-Zionism and Anti-Semitism (for want of a better term).

Having said that, I would encourage you to look to other sources, as the website reads like a Goebbels speech, with an undoubted Nazi-apologist and anti-Jewish agenda. Its factually inaccurate, distorted and extremely biased. Its historical inaccuracies must call into question its validity.

A few examples of its distortions and inaccuracies........

-The British army at Dunkirk was not Hitler's peace offering to Britain. Dunkirk was only the culmination of phase 1 of the German invasion of France. German Panzers were held back to allow supply lines to catch up and to re-fit before phase 2 began, which was intended to defeat the bulk of the French Army. The Luftwaffe was not rested, Goering intended to destroy the British Army on the beaches with his bombers, leading to some of the heaviest air combat of WWII. Pictures of the aftermath of Dunkirk clearly show Britsh warships that were bombed and then beached. Also see Norman Franks book 'Air Battle over Dunkirk' for more details of Luftwaffe operations.

-It suggests Stalin wanted war with Hitler, neatly ignoring completely the Nazi-Soviet non-aggression pact of 1939, which Hitler broke in 1941. Also ignoring the fact that the USSR was a major supplier of resources to Germany in the period 1939-41.

-There is no genuine evidence to suggest Germany was worried about Anglo-French invasion in 1939-40, nor any evidence of major Anglo-French aggression.

-Hitler declared war on the USA on 10th December 1941, not the other way around.

-Churchill was an avowed anti-Communist, he and Stalin always mistrusted each-other.

These are only a few points, as its late and I'm tired, but theres very little in the historical section of the website that cannot be comprehensively debunked.