Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Wikipedia categorizes 9/11 truth as 'denialism'

page: 1
11
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 02:50 PM
link   
Wikipedia's page for 9/11 conspiracy theories has labelled them as 'denialism', as well as 'pseudohistory' and 'pseudoscience'.

Personally I think labelling something denialism is an extremely harsh charge academically and should not be taken lightly. It infuriates me that 9/11 truth is put into the same category as people who think the Earth is flat and so on.

Does anyone here edit Wikipedia regularly and have an account? I really want to get this slander of 9/11 truth off the page as imo it's unjustified and dangerous for 9/11 truth to be dismissed as denialism. I already think people are starting to simply accept the official story without question, we are already losing the battle imo.

Go to

http://e n.w ikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:9/11_conspir acy_theories#Categ ories_for_9.2F11_CT_article

and

h ttp://en.wik ipedia.org/wiki/Talk:9/11_conspiracy_theories#9.2F11_conspiracy_the ories_are_not_denialism
get rid of the spaces I made in the URL and paste it; they're just because it won't let me link
edit on 24-1-2012 by lampsalot because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 02:51 PM
link   
I don't even totally believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories; I consider myself a 'truther' because I still think the events are mysterious and a conspiratorial explanation is at least as likely as the official story.

Even if you DON'T believe the conspiracy theories are likely, I think we can all agree, for the most part, that the denialism category is meant solely to judge 9/11 truthers and people who question our leadership in general.
edit on 24-1-2012 by lampsalot because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 02:54 PM
link   
you can try to change it but within 24 hours it will be back again. wikipedia is untrustworthy.

why not ask them about the eugenics movement plan to sterilize and kill indigineous populations, then we will see who the real deniers are.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 02:54 PM
link   
The ATS posters here who say that missiles cannot get near a CBG fail to recognize that dumb planes got past the most sophisticated air defense system of USA and was able to take down a high value target.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 02:55 PM
link   
Building 7



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia
you can try to change it but within 24 hours it will be back again. wikipedia is untrustworthy.

why not ask them about the eugenics movement plan to sterilize and kill indigineous populations, then we will see who the real deniers are.


We can still try. If more people oppose the categories than approve, the categories will be gone. Just don't tell anyone where you were directed from.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 03:06 PM
link   
I'm probably gonna get flamed for saying this, but I'll say it anyway.

None of you have any conclusive, irrefutable proof that 9/11 was anything other than what the officials say. All you have is circumstantial evidence, LACK of evidence supporting their theory, and some crappy footage.

At the very best, you can prove that it didn't happen the way they say it did; but the more important part, what really DID happen...you can't prove. You can't prove any of your theories of exactly what happened.

Just thought I'd toss that in the ring while we were on the topic.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Starchild23
 

That's the point. We don't know what happened. Especially because the official story is nothing but lies. That's what smart people know for sure, the official story is a lie,



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Starchild23
I'm probably gonna get flamed for saying this, but I'll say it anyway.

None of you have any conclusive, irrefutable proof that 9/11 was anything other than what the officials say. All you have is circumstantial evidence, LACK of evidence supporting their theory, and some crappy footage.

At the very best, you can prove that it didn't happen the way they say it did; but the more important part, what really DID happen...you can't prove. You can't prove any of your theories of exactly what happened.

Just thought I'd toss that in the ring while we were on the topic.


None of that makes it denialism, though. Denialism is denying something that is so obviously correct that it is absurd to deny. I'll admit the truther theories aren't much better, if any better than the official story. But I dont think the official story holds up very well either, especially because there are so many suspicious details about the whole thing.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Starchild23
 


Well..For debris of two crashed planes to just disappear should be evidence enough. I really can't believe people struggle with this..I was there that day saw the whole thing and knew then it was what Bill Cooper always spoke of as it was happening. I worked just blocks from there for a couple of months after and there were blockades on Canal St. You were not allowed south of Canal St for months without some sort of clearance..The madness that has been left in it's wake is proof positive that, understand this, 9/11 WAS A CONSPIRACY...The blind never cease to amaze me...You are like the undecided voters who just can't make up their minds on who they want to f*#k us over for the next four years...



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 03:19 PM
link   
I would say at the very least there was extreme incompetence evolved, and I would probably generally lean to the idea that 1) they let it happen, 2) they used Islamists as patsies for justification for the Project for the New American Century's actions in the Middle East, and 3) Bin Laden's involvement is questionable, definitely not undeniable



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by lampsalot
 


You can sign up as a member of wikipedia and edit it yourself. When your edit is reverted just take it onto the discussion page and see how your arguments fare against those of other editors. Be courteous, present references, and you may make your point to them and get the revert. I trust wikipedia in most cases, serious and intelligent editors keep track of their "favorite" pages and revert bad or vandalous edits. Try it, you may like it. And if not, Blank The Page (hahahahahahahahheeheehee huh?), but you will then get banned and miss the chance of editing other articles.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 03:27 PM
link   
Lee Harvey shot Kennedy
George W. was a respectable president
GMO is really the same as organic
Obama was born in Hawaii and is not a muslim
Ron Paul a batty old geezer
Newt is inspiration for us all
I need flouride in my water supply
cell phones have no effect on humans
new age movement enlightens me
MSM gives me all the info I need
2-party system is real freedom
we fight wars to spread freedom

Ignorance is sickening...and contagious



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by lampsalot
 


Well alright then, I think you're on to something, maybe all of those statements are true. The Bush's have middle eastern partners going decades back. It shouldn't be too hard to connect the dots or are we all waiting to hear no the nightly news the truth of what happened that day? Well now that I think about it, anyone paying attention at the time could see the evidence unfold right in front of you...but you would have had to already been enlightened to the mass deception project taking place I suppose



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Starchild23
I'm probably gonna get flamed for saying this, but I'll say it anyway.

None of you have any conclusive, irrefutable proof that 9/11 was anything other than what the officials say. All you have is circumstantial evidence, LACK of evidence supporting their theory, and some crappy footage.

At the very best, you can prove that it didn't happen the way they say it did; but the more important part, what really DID happen...you can't prove. You can't prove any of your theories of exactly what happened.

Just thought I'd toss that in the ring while we were on the topic.


That's not quite true...and unfortunately that's the problem- they make up all the evidence they need off the top of their heads to support their conspiracy hoaxes. Cases in point-

-All the hijackers were illiterate cave men
-Bin Laden was a CIA agent
-no arab names were on the passenger lists
-the planes didn't have airphones for the passengers to call out on
-Marvin Bush was in charge of WTC security
-no interceptors were scrambled on 9/11
-the fires in WTC 7 were either small or already burning out
-the fires melted the steel
-the buildings collapsed perfectly into their own footprints
-all the bomb dogs were withdrawn from WTC shortly before 9/11
-all the WTC steel was immediately shipped overseas
-Cheney issues a stand down order
-billions of dollars are missing from the Pentagon budget
-all the Jews were told to stay home on 9/11
-no one saw what hit the Pentagon
-it's impossible for a plane to fly low enough to hit the Pentagon
-The Pentagon had extensive antiaircraft batteries

...and on and on and on. That's not even counting the really out in left field accusations like lasers from outer space and hologram planes. Whenever someone points out details that show the fallacy in their claims, such as fire fighters reporting critical deformation in the side of WTC 7 from the fires, or NYPD helicopter pilots reporting the support columns in the north tower were glowing red from the fires and appeared as if they were about to collapse, the truthers simply go on and make up even more "evidence" by accusing them of being secret gov't agents. Conspiracies get added to secret plots which is added to coverups until they've built such a runaway train of circular logic for themselves that they'll never be able to get off it. They'll just make up whatever they need to in order to keep their conspiracy claims alive...and all without a microbe of tangible evidence to back them up with.

Of course, someone come alone and refute what I'm saying...by accusing me of being a secret agent too. Right.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 04:18 PM
link   
It just shows that Wikipedia is partly a discussion forum. It really depend on the opinion of the people who gained influence moderating the site, when it comes to toutchy topics like this.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by binkbonk
reply to post by Starchild23
 

That's the point. We don't know what happened. Especially because the official story is nothing but lies. That's what smart people know for sure, the official story is a lie,


If you don't know what happened how can you say "the official story is a lie " ?



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 05:28 PM
link   
Julian Assange and wikileaks is another 9/11 inside-job truth denier and his
as well as wikipedia's stance should tell you all you need to know about these
organisations.

Unfortunately people still are not getting the fact that 9/11 was nothing more
than a massive hoax and Fakery extravaganza.
The proof is there! You just got to take the time!

www.cluesforum.info
www.septemberclues.info



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by pshea38
Julian Assange and wikileaks is another 9/11 inside-job truth denier and his
as well as wikipedia's stance should tell you all you need to know about these
organisations.

Unfortunately people still are not getting the fact that 9/11 was nothing more
than a massive hoax and Fakery extravaganza.
The proof is there! You just got to take the time!

www.cluesforum.info
www.septemberclues.info


The above is a perfect example of denialism. Reality is denied and an alternate reality is created.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 06:30 PM
link   
The 9/11 psychology of the last decade has become more important than what happened on 9/11.

The physics profession alone should have resolved much of this in 2002. But how can they now announce that it is easy to understand why airliners could not have done it after TEN YEARS?

So either it is stupid to believe that airliners could not do it

or

It is stupid to believe that airliners could do it.

So one of two large groups of people would have to admit they have been stupid for ten years to truly resolve this issue.

But the physicists have to square this with Newtonian Physics. So why haven't they built models and talked about distribution of mass in ALL SKYSCRAPERS so they can hold themselves up?

psik






top topics



 
11
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join