• (Here are my archived talk pages)

You'll need to start a discussion at WP:DRV, as talk pages of de;eted article will not get any attention. The text you posted was:

Dear Fellow Editors,

I would like to propose that we now restore the page, since the film has been shown on video google 1.027.655 times (1500 views a day). I believe that makes it notable enough to be included on wikipedia.

• http://video.google.nl/videoplay?docid=786048453686176230

Old content:

• http://www.talk2000.nl/mediawiki/index.php/TerrorStorm

Good luck. --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 22:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

• 1.061.411 21:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Why did you delete the comment I left? Bassgoonist 04:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I just completely misread his talk page...sorry about that. With at least 2 people flying off the handle with accusations about my intentions, I jumped to conclusions...sorry. Bassgoonist 12:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have restored the discussion page. But you need to move it to userspace. The essay was deleted as a result of an MFD. If you want that restored, you have have to request at DRV. --soum ^talk 11:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Regarding the message on my talk page about the Norm Mineta testimony: the version you propose wouldn't be notable enough to include in the article, IMO. There is in fact a controversy about Mineta's testimony, I think mainly because it is somewhat ambiguous and raises concerns about Cheney's role. --MaplePorter 14:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I saw your post: "How many structural engineers I can name is not relevant;"
I looked it up and the list is interesting. Many are listed here: http://patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html. Hope it helps if you dont already have it. Wayne 16:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your kind comment. bout the issue you raise ... i do not have anything constructive to say. While I generally support Wikipedia (I am still around after all) and believe the things I wrote in that essay, and even use Wikipedia myself, its flaws are legion and well-known, and even the most ardent fans of Wikipedia have to acknowledge that it is far from perfect in many ways. My general advice for anyone feeling down: triple-check to make sure you are complying with NPOV, NOR and V, and if you are absolutely certain you are, stick to your guns. But also do assume good faith - Wikipedia is not going to provide every point of view that exists, there need to be standards of relevance and significance. I am not sure these can be codified, I think they have to be negotiated by editors working on a particular article. Try to negotiate. If you still feel frustrated, there is always mediation. I've been around a long time and still don't see any better solution than this, even if it is often inadequate. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

For undue weight some people use the google test (how many responses do you get when you put that name or phrase in google, compared to another minority view included in the article)? I would also suggest a lexus/nexus search - the more it has been written about in newspapers, the more notable it is. The problem is this: the WWW makes it possible for anyone with a certain amount of money - a lot if you live in rural Bolivia, but trivial if you live in the US or Europe - to post ANYTHING. New technologies make it easy for people to make videos and post them on the web, too. Therefore, it is unreasonable to make existence on the web in and of itself an acceptable criteria for inclusion. There has to be some standard for notability. Ask other editors ative on the page, including people you are in conflict with, what their standard for notability is. Assume good faith and assume they have good reasons, and ask them to assume good faith on your part, and try to have an open discussion about where to draw the line for reasonably notable versus too trivial to include. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

It was rambling that we've seen before and has nothing to do with the article. Also the person blanked the article and I figured not by accident. --Golbez 12:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I won't delete it again. --Golbez 12:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

It took three or four sessions, but I finally magnaged to watch the whole film on Google video (so deduct 3 from the viewership total ;-) The three sections do not seem to have a lot in common. I suggest you also go through the discussion at the James Randi Educational Foundation where they discuss the film [1]. It appears to borrow heavily from earlier 9/11 conspiracy movies,(like Loose Change) and repeats a lot of untruths and half truths, as well as saying some things which are supported or at least not disproved by the poor investigation the government did of 9/11. In other words, it may be wrong in the details about 9/11 and tinfoil hat conspiracies, but right in the larger issue of the event being used by right wing politicians to get money handed over to their defense contractor supporters, to get reelected by brainwashing and frightening the populace with color coded warnings, and by curtailing civil liberties, and by establishing a permanent state of war with a shadowy enemy who cannot ever be made to surrender. I feel that when there is a high enough degree of incompetence, it can look like a conspiracy (Pearl Harbor, 9/11). With the idea that the planes were supposed to crash into buildings, but somehow it also took explosives in the buildings to bring them down, I've wondered what happened to the fourth building (the target for the Shanksville plane. Did workers come in the next day and remove explosives? In the Towers, what did the office workers think about supposed workmen coming in and cutting building columns, and knocking plaster off colums to install charges? I would have commented on it if it had happened in a building where I worked! In the attack on the Christian and Jewish religions (carefully avoiding Islam) some of the stuff about similarities with earlier religions has long been part of comparative religion, and many previous writers have suggested an influence of Buddhism on Christianity. Then it has a lot of pure bullcrap, like saying look how much "Sun" sounds like "son" when neither word was part of the Hebrew or Aramaic languages; their roots are in Indo-European. It also is exposed at JREF for misquoting what early religious texts said and for making up similarities between a number of religions and the Jesus story. I am very doubtful of astronomical claims that the Southern Cross was visible in the holy land and that the 3 stars in Orion were called the "three kings"(by whom?) and that the sun stops its zodiacal movement for 3 days at Easter or whatever, but I will leave it to astronomers to check that. The diatribe about how there is no law requiring people in the US to pay income taxes is balderdash, and the JREF cites the relevant federal laws. But the stuff about Prescott Bush and the Nazi banking is pretty well established. I kept waiting for the other shoe to drop, to reveal that the film was a product of the Larouchies or Scientology or some such, but no tie to any particular group was revealed. Their website is also pretty vague as to who paid for the great editing job (parts were really well done, like the music and video of violence montage at the beginning, and the use of colorized silent movies of Biblical scenes for comic effect.) Before it possibly gets deleted, I suggest you save a copy of the Wikipedia article on your hard drive, or perhaps save both a copy as it appears and a copy of the source text from edit mode, to make it all the easier to re-create if it gets multiple coverage in reliable publications. Regards. Edison 15:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I don't understand the draconian rules for "notability". I have a hard time believing these delete happy wikipedians are acting in good faith. I try to assume, but when they block every movie not made by Ted Turner that talks about things in a way that is outside the official story (yes I'm using hyperbole here) it becomes hard to accept... oh well. Thanks for fighting the good fight. Moonbug 16:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I noticed your threads at the Village Pump were always ending with Image:Smile-tpvgames.gif. Possibly you even have it embedded in your signature? Please see WP:SIG#Images for the reasoning behind not using such images on talkpages, especially within signatures. (Essentially, they're distracting and annoying to other editors – Imagine how messy the pages would be if everyone used them!) Much thanks. :) --Quiddity 17:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I didn't see any text from you that wasn't posted on the deleting admin's talk page? The best place for further discussion would be WP:DRV if you haven't started this already. DRV will establish whether the AfD close was handled correctly. --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 00:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, sad thing about Lucky 6.9. He quit maybe half a dozen times, but this time it really does seem like he's quit. As for the meter, simply use the images Image:Wikistress1.png through Image:Wikistress4.png. --Golbez 15:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I would be happy to help you with a macroscopic overview for the 9/11 conspiracies page. It won't be easy but I believe it's needed. Are you going to start a user sub-page for it? Corleonebrother 22:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but not yet, feel free to do so yourself. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 02:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

By the way, I have improved my 9/11 opinion polls page and (in the spirit of WP:BOLD) I will be creating a new page for it soon. Would you have a look at it before I do so to see if you can improve it anywhere? Thanks, Corleonebrother 22:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

You are right that we DO include a comma when the day is after the month and the year is also specified (this is standard format for American-style dates). However, the examples that you edited were to illustrate that no comma should be used when there is a month and year, but no day of the month. Your point (about the comma after month and day) is already covered in a later section, "Autoformatting and linking". Happy editing! Chris the speller 00:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

You appear to have done 5 reverts in this article today, please stop. I don't want to see you blocked ;-)

  You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on September 11, 2001 attacks. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Melsaran 14:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Including the supernatural in science will destroy science. Suppose you have some physics homework to do. You know the answer from the back of the book. You need 20 steps to get to the answer. You can only get the first 3 steps. Then you write "The remaining 17 steps are a miracle and I dont need to do them so there". And then you complain when the teacher gives you a bad grade for not doing your homework. And complaining when the other student who does all 20 steps gets a better grade. Understand?--Filll 17:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Now how would lawyers feel if the following were pushed by the public and by members of some small eccentric religious sect:

• All criminals that had not been seen committing a crime by the jury had to be released immediately. DNA evidence was ruled inadmissable, and confessions, and fingerprint evidence, and circumstantial evidence and eyewitness accounts were all thrown out. Unless the jury sees the crime for themselves, there is no proof it did not happen, so we have to just assume the opposite.
• Any criminal defendent is allowed to use miracles as part of his defense. So if my neighbor saw me killing the postman and burying him in the backyard, I can claim that he did not see me, he saw a vision, or that I was miraculously in Cleveland on the day of the murder, even though I have no evidence to support me being in Cleveland and in fact there are 30 pieces of evidence that I was home in Rochester instead.
• Questioning a "miracle" defense, or questioning the discarding of DNA evidence or fingerprint evidence will cause the judge, jury or lawyers to be condemned and cursed roundly, and told by the general public that they are damned and will burn in hell forever for questioning the word of God himself-They are in fact, defaming God almighty by questioning the miracle defense or introducing evidence from the past which no one saw.
• There were rumblings about changing the laws to require the introduction of the miracle defense, and the discarding of all past evidence. Anyone who disagrees with these principles is automatically suspect. Politicians opposed to the miracle defense and discarding of past evidence will be voted out of office. Judges opposed will be impeached and removed from the bench.
• Lawyers and judges who disagree will be viewed as nonbelievers and atheists and blasphemers for doubting the word of God himself
• The expertise of lawyers and judges will be called into question since it is irrelevant-they are all atheists anyway, so who can trust them?--Filll 17:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Is there no way in between? There are many things which are hard for science to explain:

• people not eating for six months and living healthily
• telepathy
• prediction of the future
• out of body experience in which people see stray items on top of the hospital roof (how did they know they were there?)

Also, there are many things of which science knows it is unaware:

• new particles keep being discovered
• new functions and processes of DNA are discovered

By definition, the supernatural is not at the same time science. But anything which was once labeled supernatural, like telepathy, can be science the moment we know how it works or even prove that it exists. It should then no longer be labeled supernatural, ofcourse. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 17:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

If there is any evidence for something, then it can enter the realm of science. Unfortunately, all the examples you mentioned do not have good scientific evidence behind them. And that includes intelligent design. Once there is evidence, then it might start to be considered science, if it passes the other criteria which exist for things to be science (see the demarcation problem for instance, or Daubert standard for some examples). Until then, it is not in the realm of science. Just like the other things you mentioned.--Filll 17:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I am no expert on these matters, but I believe thousands upon thousands of events have been described by scientists. There is a remote chance that it is just a giant hoax, but that doesn't seem the most likely option to me, especially since I've had a few minor telepathic experiences myself. So I contend there is good scientific evidence, but the scientific community is afraid to look at it. (History has shown that looking at it damages your reputation and career.) — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 18:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

It has been looked at. For literally centuries. And no evidence has ever EVER been found. So of course, to work on it would damage your career. It is a waste of scarce resources chasing somethig that we have no evidence for. Fair enough?--18:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I could not disagree more. And I meant, work on it in your own time, it makes sense you cannot work on it if you are not being paid to work on it. — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 18:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

If you want to develop a scientific case for it with your own resources and time, feel free. Then present your ideas to the scientific community and try to gain acceptance for them. If you convince them, then you will have succeeded. I, for one, will employ my talents elsewhere. Thanks anyway.--Filll 18:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/NCSE_Grand_Canyon_Raft_Trip and the associated article NCSE Grand Canyon Raft Trip. Happy Couple 21:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Marquart (Mark) Ewing Phillips, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. Oo7565 19:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, could you please userfy or mail to me:

• Ted Gunderson

including the page history.

Thx, — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 17:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

User:Xiutwel/Ted Gunderson - done. I will look at the article history to send to you as well. (aeropagitica) 22:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I wasn't aware that you had already requested userfication of the article, so I put in my own request on DRV a week ago. I just rewrote and recreated the article today. If you'd like to pitch in, there's still plenty of work that could be done on the article! --WacoKid 21:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I noticed that you've been trying to keep the "alternative" points of view represented in the Oklahoma City bombing article. I added the following to the Conspiracy theories section, but it was removed without explanation. I returned it, but I'd beginning to suspect that I'd probably profit from your help and advice vis-à-vis such conflict situations. Vesku 22:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Conspiracy theorists say there are several discrepancies, such as a retired U.S. explosives expert, Brigadier General Benton K. Partin, stating that the size of the blast was not consistent with the bomb used by McVeigh.[84] Some critics of the official explanation point to a blast effects study published in 1997 by the Eglin Air Force Base, which concluded that the damage to the Murrah building was "not the result of the truck bomb itself, but rather due to other factors such as locally placed charges within the building itself".[85]

Hello Xiutwel,

Thanks for the comments left on my talk page, regarding my attempted contribution of the relationship between Phi and the ET semitone. Yes, your expression is correct. (Phi^3)/4 almost equals an ET semitone (rounded, it is 0.992721 of one ET semitone).

First, I am a musician by profession...not a mathematician. However I came across the coincidence while studying patterns in the Fibonacci number series. Since each third number is an even number, I wanted to establish a ratio between two adjacent even numbers in the series, and found it to be almost identical to the ratio of 25 semitones. The so-called "Phi semitone" is (rounded) 0.992721, where 1.0 represents an ET semitone (12th root of 2).

I could understand another editor referring to my contribution as "numerology" if I were claiming that the "golden ratio" is, in fact, the basis of equal temperament! But I am making no such claim...I am not even inferring that the Phi semitone be used in musical compositions (although I have used it successfully in some of my own compositions). I simply wanted to point out the near-perfect agreement of the two forms of the semitone.

It is ironic that you mentioned that someone once claimed that the Phi ratio is equal to 8 semitones! In fact, it is equal to (almost exactly) 8.33 semitones.

The request for a "reference" seems redundant. I have used simple mathematics. (Would I require a "reference" if I claimed that 2 + 2 = 4?)

By the way, I am not one of those "Golden Ratio freaks", trying to find the ratio everywhere I look!

It's also baffling that in working on the Semitone article, I contributed the number (139/138)^8 as an approximation of the semitone,(it has a more accurate value than the Phi semitone, being 0.999995131 semitone). The "discrency" here would be indistinguishable from the ET semitone, even accumulated over the entire range of human hearing. Oddly, this argument was readily accepted in the Semitone article.

If you want more information on the math I've provided, please let me know.

Thanks for your interest, Prof.rick (talk) 04:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello again,

It occurred to me that my calculation of a "Phi semitone" was erroneous. Of the almost exact 25 semitones to which I referred, I had allowed 24 of them to be normal equal temperament semitones, so all the error accumulated on the 25th semitone. (Phi^3 need not be divided by 4.) Instead simply take the 25th root of Phi^3 to arrive at a Phi semitone. (This results in a Phi semitone of 0.99970836 of one ET semitone.) The accumulated discrepancy over the entire range of a piano is only about 2.5 cents...

Phi^3 = 4.236067978
25 ET semitones = (12th root of 2)^25, = 4.237852377

One "Phi semitone" = 25th root of Phi^3, or 1.059445247
One ET semitone = 12th root of 2, or 1.059463094

Example:
Calculate a semitone from A 440 Hz, using equal temperament:
440 Hz x 12th root of 2 = 466.1637615 Hz Calculate a semitone from A 440 Hz, using Phi:
440 Hz x 25th root of Phi^3 = 466.1559086

I doubt if any piano tuner could tune "by ear" and achieve such a slight discrepancy over the entire range of a piano! Prof.rick (talk) 06:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks again, Xiutwel!

I found your entry at the "Mathematical coincidence" article. Well done! Your recognition of the very close parallel is appreciated. I am still working on calculations. First, Phi^3 is not a random number...each third number of the Fibonacci Series is an even number. In fact, I came across the coincidence while looking for patterns within the Fibonacci Series. I calculated the relation between two neighbouring even numbers in the series, and immediately recognized the number was virtually the same as the expression of 25 semitones.

Unfortunately, when I first presented the point on the "Golden ratio" article, I assumed 24 of the semitones to be normal, ET semitones, and allowed all the discrepancy to fall onto the 25th semitone. But it occurred to me that Phi^3 should be seen as "25 Phi semitones", instead of 24 ET semitones, and one Phi semitone. The results were remarkable! I used the 25th root of Phi^3 as a semitone. The accumulated discrepancy over the entire range of a piano is only .02537306 of one ET semitone). It is often said that the human ear can normally detect a pitch differentiation of .05 semitone. In other words, not even a professional musician could likely detect the difference, even if piano tuners and mechanically tuned (acoustic) instruments were capable of such a distinction.

So what is the value of this observation to a musician? It certainly will have no effect on harmony or counterpoint! But, as a professional musician and composer myself, I can say it is EXTREMELY important for a musician to recognize the relation between music and other disciplines! Music is a "mirror of life", and as such, the more relations we find between music and other bodies of knowledge, the better! (It CAN effect "interpretation"!) This may sound somewhat subjective, but this is to be expected of any Art.

I have my own website. If I were to publish the relationship between Phi and the semitone, perhaps YOU could produce an article at the Golden Ratio article, quoting my site as a reference. Please let me know if you find this an agreeable plan...we would work on the entry together, hopefully moving it back to the Golden Ratio article.

Meanwhile, I might expand on your contribution in the area of "Mathematical coincidences".

Have a happy holiday! Prof.rick (talk) 00:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello Ziutwel,

Thank you for your work on Phi and the semitone, at "Mathematical coincidence". (I was unaware of this page.) Thanks also, through your work, teaching me how to write simple mathematical expression for Wikipedia.

The section is now complete (I think).

You asked the significance of Phi = 8.33 semitones. Modern composers often explore microtonal music, which requires the division of the semitone into 2, 3, 4, even 8 equal parts! (The Mexican composer, Carillo, had divided the semitone into 8 equal parts before the year 1900.)

I believe the signifance of ${\displaystyle \Phi {3}}$  is best understood when we study the value of the individual semitone, and the accumulated deviation from equal temperament over the entire range of a piano (which is imperceptible to the human ear).

Best, Prof.rick (talk) 05:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

The references you used on the September 11, 2001 talk pages do not meet the WP:RS standards for WP:BLP and must be removed as stated below.

We must get the article right.[1] Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles,[2] talk pages, user pages, and project space.

--PTR (talk) 20:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Done as you requested. All three article histories are included. Cool Hand Luke 04:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

1. 04:00, 5 February 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Xiutwel‎ (Done as you requested. All three article histories are included.) (top)
2. 03:59, 5 February 2008 (hist) (diff) User:Xiutwel/Joe Cell‎ (Rm templates, cats for userfication. There are three different article histories here. 25 February 2005; 26-28 August 2006; and 1 June-22 July 2007.) (top)
3. 03:55, 5 February 2008 (hist) (diff) m User:Xiutwel/Joe Cell‎ (moved Joe Cell to User:Xiutwel/Joe Cell: Userfication of deleted article)
4. 03:55, 5 February 2008 (hist) (diff) m User:Xiutwel/Joe Cell‎ (moved User:Joe Cell/Joe Cell to Joe Cell over redirect: oops)
5. 03:54, 5 February 2008 (hist) (diff) m User:Xiutwel/Joe Cell‎ (moved Joe Cell to User:Joe Cell/Joe Cell: Userfication of deleted article.)

— Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 04:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button   located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 04:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, I'm a little confused about your recent edits on Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks, and I was hoping you could explain it to me. I would have asked there, but I don't want to add to others' confusion, as there's already a lot going on. Is your only concern at this time that the mainstream account of 9/11 presented in the article is not sourced well enough? Okiefromokla ^questions? 18:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

No, my concern is more about this, what you wrote:

Xiutwel, you misinterpret the point of this talk page and Wikipedia. We are not out to decide what we think to be true and incorporate that into the article - its not about pro-mainstream wikipedians or otherwise. This is an encyclopedia of facts, and you are pushing a belief that is not supported by reliable sources of any kind. Okiefromokla questions? 17:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

You say we are not out to decide what's true -- but you do, all the time, as do I. We both wish the article to reflect the truth, don't we? Nevertheless, we agrees via the guidelines to only use RS in doing so. Unfortunately, we are not in agreement on which sources are RS also. I believe all what is deemed RS have been suckered in via the NFSM. Truth remains the ultimate goal. It is what the guideines were written for to achieve with as less arguing as possible. How do you see that? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk)

I know we cannot write that 9/11 was an inside job. I don't even KNOW for sure. In my feeling, there is a 99% probability. (How is your estimate of there NOT being an inside job? 99%? 100%? 90%? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 19:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I generally see what individual editors believe as a non-issue, like you say. Sources are the only real things that matter, and it helps us keep a NPOV as well. I've replied to your requested changes to the lead at the talk page. Thanks for the explanation! Okiefromokla ^questions? 19:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Like I said, it's a non-issue. It just doesn't matter. Sources are what matters on Wikipedia. But if you must know what I personally think, I'd say the chances of it being an inside job are about 3%, at best. Okiefromokla ^questions? 21:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

That's just looking through what some of the conspiracy theorists say. As far as what I believe, I'd say it's more like 0%. Okiefromokla ^questions? 21:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thx. I like that you share your thoughts with me, because I want to understand. When the chance of it being an inside job would be, however slight, nonzero, that means there is a finite possibility that it IS. And suppose it WERE an inside job. How could we find out? We would have to look at the facts. Any crime leaves a trace. But how could any observer find such a trace, when all reliable sources are quoting other reliable sources who do not want to mention facts which do not fit into the narrative? I believe the NFSM can give quite wrong results. Do you share this worry? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 06:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

No, I don't share that worry in real life. In Wikipedia, it doesn't matter, because we are simply not investigators. We don't seek to prove or uncover things, we just report the conclusions drawn by experts like scientists, histrorians, scholars, etc. I use the word "report" because we are really like news reporters in that we (ideally) strive to be completely unbiased and keep any personal beliefs or preconcieved notions away from our editing. So considering the possibility that 9/11 was an inside job is irrelevant, because without reliable sources coming to that conclusion, we simply can't piece together a string of selected factoids that may or may not lead to that conclusion. You claim the article currently uses its own version of fact picking to support, as you call it, "narrative A". However, the only facts used are those from experts, reliable accounts, and official reports. The conclusion of "Narrative A" is supported directly by such reliable sources, whereas reliable sources do not support the conclusion of "narrative b", and therefore, we cannot include it. Likewise, we cannot select otherwise insignificant facts in such a way that implies that narrative B is correct, when such a conclusion, again, is not supported directly. Okiefromokla ^questions? 20:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

What do you mean by "in real life"? I am objecting to the EXclusion of facts that ARE reported by RS. In order to be allowed to do that, you would need proof that version A is correct. If you don't have that proof, you should not leave out facts that are even reported by RS.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind infinity) 21:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I delete that page under Speedy deletion criterion U1. The user requested speedy deletion of their own user page. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I do not agree because I see your facts as facts that are not more relevant than thousand (million) others. What made them relevant is that with them is posible to construct an alternative vision. But I see this alternative vision totally lacking coherence with the full set of facts. Thus, your recolection of facts become arbitrary. I have been studying thoroughly the whole issue and the probability of something different from the oficial version having happened is zero. Cheney, Bush&Co were lucky and made a very inmoral use of 9/11 but they do not organize or consent it in any way. What I told you in the discussion page was rather patronizing but is a big true. You can take any historical event and elaborate an alternative theory. If you have a volume big enough of information about the fact, it will be possible to cherrypick some random facts and create a set to sustain the theory. Let me insist in Lawrence Wright book "The looming tower". There are lots of facts there and if a conspirational theory is created, all of them must be ruled out. E.g. Mohamed Atta personality and behaviour fits with what he did. Did USA governement manipulate Atta from his birth??. And the same stands for the rest of characters involved. There existed (and some still exist) and their existence is imposible to have been prepared with such advance. So your list of facts is an artifact of your suspicions that is unable to sustain a theory that takes account of all facts, thus cannot be considered a set. --Igor21 (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

See your page  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 10:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Bro, i was were you are now regarding 9/11 articles, just look at the archive of the talk page (don't remember were). Can i trust you with my Email? --Striver - talk 22:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks/Archive 14. I would appreciate an answer for the above question. --Striver - talk 23:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've sent it to your e-mail. Did you receive it? --Striver - talk 23:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)Reply