New site: "9/11 Answers" wiki

[CurtC]

All,

In the thread Orgainising an FAQ (http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showthread.php?t=67203), Anti-sophist and I both suggested a FAQ in a wiki format. A-S suggested the title:

911 Answers
"Just providing answers to those just asking questions"

I've set this up:

9/11 Answers Wiki (http://editthis.info/911answers/Main_Page)

Right now, it's a template. Anyone can edit the pages, which I'm sure will need to be restricted Real Soon Now, if not due to vandalism, it will be the spambots. So go to town, create content, fix it up.

[Dragonrock]

There, I fixed the spelling of "Sepember".

Sorry, it's all I got, I'm not very goodly at writing.

[Muckar-duva]

Esssellent idea. As I currently have ten books on the subject here, I'll be sure to read them in front of the computer.

[hellaeon]

*bump*

This is Excellent, you have no idea how this will benefit a lot of the people (fencesitters, possible CTers?) I know.

[firecoins]

I have posted some basic info on the timelines of the planes and phone calls

[hellaeon]

Curt might I suggest you do restrict access to it for now and maybe people PM you for access? Only a suggestion, I know it means it will take longer for it to build but it also means you can be sure the entered information is valid, up to date and correct.

[Muckar-duva]

That reminds me, I used my usual name when registering, which is Sordid.

[T.A.M.]

As much as I want this idea to work...

(1) it will be vandilized and filled with CT garbage in the blink of an eye.
(2) Not sure it will have much weight, given it is on wiki, and we know anyone can edit wiki.

You know I want this to work, so dont take my comments as anything only constructive.

TAM

[qarnos]

As much as I want this idea to work...

(1) it will be vandilized and filled with CT garbage in the blink of an eye.
(2) Not sure it will have much weight, given it is on wiki, and we know anyone can edit wiki.

You know I want this to work, so dont take my comments as anything only constructive.

TAM

Is there a way to restrict editing to "trusted" users?

[geni]

I would suggest useing skepticwiki

[Kryptos]

I have mainly been lurking on this forum, with most of my time spent working on Wikipedia and on "my" website - http://www.debunk911myths.org/

I would welcome additional editors on my website, which might be better suited than editthis.info I suggest that work needs to be done on Wikipedia too.

Debunk911myths:
My website is set-up with a wiki interface, which is entirely hidden on the site, unless you log in. This past weekend, I solved some technical issues and now have expanding/submenus for each main topic. I now think it's ready for more editors.

In order to get an account, new editors would need to contact me, be approved, and I would set up a new account for them. Like Wikipedia, I could eventually appoint more trusted editors as admins who can help with account approval. For now, I'm the only admin.

Right now I am focused on building content. The goal is to build a collection of articles (wiki-style) and information that not only debunks the myths but is a general resource on 9/11. I've started with the 9/11 Commission Report, the NIST and FEMA reports, and various other books and resources.

Wikipedia:
At the same time as I work my way through all these reports and resources, I am posting relevant information on Wikipedia. On Wikipedia, my goal is to get a set of articles relating to the 9/11 attacks to featured status.

I would welcome help on my site and/or on Wikipedia. Are people are interested in either or both?

-Kate

[Kryptos]

And I want to thank Curt for getting the ball rolling. One more advantage to my site is that it won't display ads. There are some ads on the search feature on my site, but I'm looking to get rid of those too. On editthis.info, I wouldn't be suprised to see a "loose change" ad displayed there. So, it's best to have no ads.

[LashL]

Excellent. I made my first edit to change "which" to "with".

Woo hoo!

[Bell]

Could somebody write about me? Like in "On this subject, Bell has stated ..."

Ofcource, I haven't stated anything up to now, but I'm optimistic I will one day.

[qarnos]

Could somebody write about me? Like in "On this subject, Bell has stated ..."

Ofcource, I haven't stated anything up to now, but I'm optimistic I will one day.

How about:

On the subject of being quoted, Bell has stated "Ofcource, I haven't stated anything up to now, but I'm optimistic I will one day."

[Bell]

How about:

On the subject of being quoted, Bell has stated "Ofcource, I haven't stated anything up to now, but I'm optimistic I will one day."

That will do :D

[hellaeon]

Is there a way to restrict editing to "trusted" users?

I did not even realise anyone can edit anything on wikipedia. I assumed you could restrict entries. Jeebus.

[defaultdotxbe]

I did not even realise anyone can edit anything on wikipedia. I assumed you could restrict entries. Jeebus.
some articles on wikipedia are restricted for editing, so im sure other wiki sites could do it too

[CurtC]

I would welcome additional editors on my website, which might be better suited than editthis.info I suggest that work needs to be done on Wikipedia too.

Debunk911myths:
My website is set-up with a wiki interface, which is entirely hidden on the site, unless you log in. This past weekend, I solved some technical issues and now have expanding/submenus for each main topic. I now think it's ready for more editors.
I'm all for that. Let's move the wiki effort over to your site. Can you give me a login? Also firecoins would want one.

[gumboot]

I'd be keen to get all my NORAD info on there - it was a lot of work to find all the stuff and put it together, so it'd be nice if it was somewhere people could read it... ;)

It is divided into three major categories:

1) NORAD's Mission and Standard Intercept/Hijacking Proceedures as at 9/11
2) NORAD Exercises and 9/11
3) Detailed minute by minute timeline of 9/11 as from the perspective of NORAD, covers from 0759 (AA11 departure) to 1015 (NEADS notified that UA93 has crashed).

-Gumboot

[LashL]

I'm all for that. Let's move the wiki effort over to your site. Can you give me a login? Also firecoins would want one.

I'm in, too, and have already got my login ~ neener neener :p

[Muckar-duva]

I would very much like a pass, although I don't know how much I'll add.

[Kryptos]

Please PM me if you want an account. I will look at your contributions here on the forum, and approve/disapprove requests. (e.g. Truthseeker1234 need not apply)

[Kryptos]

Also firecoins would want one.

Firecoins - PM me.

Thanks.

[The_Fire]

On the same subject: Once my imminent Finals are over, which means sometime in december, I'm going to create an invitation only PDF article database for those, whom like Gravy, have large files but nowhere to put them. If anyone have any ideas on what features such a site should contain, let me know. I can't promise to use all ideas, but you may think of something I didn't.

[Anti-sophist]

Once my real life settles down, I'd like to help. I'm finishing moving and now applying to grad schools.

One of things that would be most useful is just compiling -all- the common "questions". Filling in answers is all downhill after that.

I'd also like to see it split up into "short answer" and "long answer".

[G-K-4]

So is the http://editthis.info/911answers/Main_Page site going to be abandoned? I just spent the last couple of hours setting it up further. :(

What's the bottom line?

[Muckar-duva]

I do love the tradwiki.

[T.A.M.]

I think both could be done, with cut and pasting, but IMO the Wiki site has to ensure only "Trusted" editors can edit.

TAM

[G-K-4]

I think both could be done, with cut and pasting, but IMO the Wiki site has to ensure only "Trusted" editors can edit.
Who has the keys? (Not that I want them, but I am registered and would like to stay registered.)

[CurtC]

I just spent the last couple of hours setting it up further.
So that was you! It looks great. We likely will abandon that site, but just move over any content from that one to the new site. That should be very easy, so keep cranking out the content. I see you've taken Anti-sophist's suggestion to heart, and you are filling out a framework full of questions. That's beautiful.

About restricting the right to edit content - it's easy on editthis.info for the admin (me) to allow editing by logged in users only. I've chosen not to do that yet, to encourage more people to chip in at this formative stage. I assume that it would also be possible to restrict logins to known "good guys," but I haven't found that yet. It might not exist. In any case, we can ban vandals and clean up their mess fairly easily, since wikis include all the history for each page.

However, if we already have a wiki available at debunking911myths.com, that seems like a better answer than this public free wiki site. I've not yet received my login to that site, so I can't say for sure. But if we're going to eventually move it, it's better to do so early.

In any case, please keep the contributions coming - it won't be wasted if the site moves.

[G-K-4]

So that was you! It looks great.
Thanks.

In any case, please keep the contributions coming - it won't be wasted if the site moves.
That's good to hear.

I'll keep working on it, maybe this evening.

[Kryptos]

I don't mind if people want to use editthis.info to help draft material. It might help people get used to editing wiki-style.

On my site, I would like to host expanded coverage of the topic that more explicitly addresses conspiracy FAQs than can be done on Wikipedia itself. Information on "my" site can be organized by topic, by source (e.g. claims made by loose change), in FAQ format, and in other ways. I'm open to suggestions and changing how things are set up currently.

If you want to edit on "my" site, please PM me. I need to manually approve editors and set up accounts.

-Kate

[Kryptos]

Primary topics on debunk911myths:

7 World Trade Center
Aircraft (not sure I like the wording)
Controlled demolition
Foreknowledge
Hijackers
NORAD
Osama bin Laden
Pentagon
United Airlines Flight 93
World Trade Center

Key topics on editthis FAQ to incorporate:

Prior events (I'm not sure I like the wording, but could work)
Al Qaeda (I could make this a main topic instead of bin Laden, and make Osama a sub-topic of Al Qaeda?)
Investigations (this can definitely be added)
Consequences (not sure I like the wording)
Other 9/11 Claims (this sounds good)
Who Are the 9/11 Conspiracists? (this is a little long to fit in the menu, but maybe could take up two lines)

9/11 news and updates

The main page of the site, which uses wordpress, can be used for this. The wiki login is separate from this, but I could grant access to this part of the site too.

[CurtC]

Now that I have a login, the situation is a little different that what I thought. Your whole web site is basically in wiki format - I thought that there was your web site which you control the content, and then separately you had a little-used wiki available.

I'm now uncertain about how to proceed. For one, your site is very nice, which much content already in place. But I was thinking of having a user-owned site, which people could create and edit pages without concern about it being someone else's baby.

Kate, how would you like to proceed?

[Kryptos]

Now that I have a login, the situation is a little different that what I thought. Your whole web site is basically in wiki format - I thought that there was your web site which you control the content, and then separately you had a little-used wiki available.

I'm now uncertain about how to proceed. For one, your site is very nice, which much content already in place. But I was thinking of having a user-owned site, which people could create and edit pages without concern about it being someone else's baby.

Kate, how would you like to proceed?

On Wikipedia, a key principle is that no one owns any content or any articles. They are for the community to work on collaboratively. See Wikipedia about "Ownership of articles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles)"

All the pages on "my" site are very much a work in progress. The controlled demolition page, for example, needs lots of work. And the FAQ (http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/index.php?title=FAQ)page sits empty.

Having spent a great deal of time on Wikipedia, I am entirely open to the idea of others mercilessly editing material that I have posted on debunk911myths and improving it.

I have put together a "mission statement" for the site:

Debunk 9/11 Myths is a non-profit educational resource, dedicated to dispelling myths and conspiracy theories surrounding the 9/11 attacks, and to serve as a general information resources about the attacks.

I welcome anyone that agrees with the mission to help.

Like Wikipedia, I think "my" site could have two levels of users:
1. regular editors
2. admins/sysops with extra technical tools but no added say over editorial decisions. the added technical tools would allow admins to approve new editors, delete articles, block disruptive editors (I don't think that will happen), and edit the main page "blog"/news part of the site.

Also, setting up the menu is restricted to just me, for technical reasons. At some point, I think it's technically possible to make that open to other sysops.

If this is still unsatisfactory, I can try and think of other options.

-Kate

[CurtC]

If you're OK with others editing content at your site, I'm certainly fine with it.

I gather that we can't edit the main page, which is like a blog and has a menu on the left side linking to subject areas. But we can edit those subject areas, create new pages, etc. Is this right?

[Kryptos]

I gather that we can't edit the main page, which is like a blog and has a menu on the left side linking to subject areas. But we can edit those subject areas, create new pages, etc. Is this right?

That's somewhat correct. It's a matter of setting permissions for "trusted" users.

As you can see, I have only periodically posted things on the main page, due to lack of time. It would be great if others would post "news" items concerning site updates, news in the conspiracy world, etc. For now, I haven't granted permission for others to edit the main page. Like Wikipedia, I think that permission should be granted to sysops (trusted users) who have spent some time on the site, obtaining more technical understanding of how the wiki works.

And to give some more insight to how the site works, it uses a custom "skin" to give it a look that blends with the main page. But the skins that come with MediaWiki are also there:

Here's the default Wikipedia skin:
http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/index.php?title=Osama_bin_Laden&useskin=monobook

And the custom skin:
http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/index.php?title=Osama_bin_Laden

If people don't like the color scheme or any design aspect, the skins can easily be changed.

-Kate

[firecoins]

On Wikipedia, a key principle is that no one owns any content or any articles. They are for the community to work on collaboratively. See Wikipedia about "Ownership of articles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles)"

All the pages on "my" site are very much a work in progress. The controlled demolition page, for example, needs lots of work. And the FAQ (http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/index.php?title=FAQ)page sits empty.

Having spent a great deal of time on Wikipedia, I am entirely open to the idea of others mercilessly editing material that I have posted on debunk911myths and improving it.

I have put together a "mission statement" for the site:



I welcome anyone that agrees with the mission to help.

Like Wikipedia, I think "my" site could have two levels of users:
1. regular editors
2. admins/sysops with extra technical tools but no added say over editorial decisions. the added technical tools would allow admins to approve new editors, delete articles, block disruptive editors (I don't think that will happen), and edit the main page "blog"/news part of the site.

Also, setting up the menu is restricted to just me, for technical reasons. At some point, I think it's technically possible to make that open to other sysops.

If this is still unsatisfactory, I can try and think of other options.

-Kate

This is good so far.

[Kryptos]

Also, I try to keep main page items apolitical and non-partisan.

The truthers aren't representative of any political party, and would go after whichever party is in office.

They assert conspiracy theories surrounding the Oklahoma City bombing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oklahoma_City_bombing&diff=62765229&oldid=61943491

Asserting that the Clinton administration was somehow behind that, likewise how they assert that the Bush administration was behind 9/11.

I think that debunkers come from all political persuasions, and the site should respect that.

-Kate

[firecoins]

Also, I try to keep main page items apolitical and non-partisan.

The truthers aren't representative of any political party, and would go after whichever party is in office.

They assert conspiracy theories surrounding the Oklahoma City bombing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oklahoma_City_bombing&diff=62765229&oldid=61943491

Asserting that the Clinton administration was somehow behind that, likewise how they assert that the Bush administration was behind 9/11.

I think that debunkers come from all political persuasions, and the site should respect that.

-Kate
we should remain non political. Take a side politically marginalizes our mission.

[Kryptos]

Here's an example of how I have been cross-posting material:
http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/index.php?title=World_Trade_Center_background
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Authority_of_New_York_and_New_JerseyIt looks maybe like one is plagiarizing the other, but not so.

I've been working to gather more information on how Silverstein got the lease (I know he very narrowly won it, after another deal fell through). Information about Silverstein needs to cover his insurance policy, proceeds, and the rebuilding efforts. The Larry Silverstein article on both my site and Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Silverstein) need work. This is the sort of information that can be gathered on debunk911myths, with bits and pieces incorporated, with references, into the relevant Wikipedia articles.

I'm amazed at how often articles such Wikipedia articles are cited, such as in LC forums and elsewhere. And the Wikipedia article is the #1 google result (http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=mozclient&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&q=larry+silverstein), when searching "Larry Silverstein", followed second by a conspiracy site, and #3 is his own company site.

Debunk911myths can be more in depth, but it's important that relevant Wikipedia articles are also of good quality. This, I think, fits with the mission of educating people about 9/11. Here's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AudeVivere/September_11%2C_2001_attacks) a more complete list of Wikipedia articles relating to 9/11 that need work (sure I'm missing some).

I would like feedback as to whether that sounds acceptable. I won't ask anyone to do the crossposting (you can if you want), but would like the okay to copy bits and pieces over to Wikipedia.

-Kate

[firecoins]

One of my problems with CTers is they won't believe the official version because they say the gov't gave it too us and they suspect the gov't. But the official version did not just come from government agencies. It came from the public. The gov't just organized it.

Examples: people in Manhattan/Brooklyn/Jersey City/Newark had a clear view of what was going on at the WTC. Many people saw 1 or both planes hit. The only film of flight 11 came from 2 French brothers making a documentary on FDNY. Domestic anfdForeign news agencies as well as hundreds of bystanders caught the 2nd plane on their own camcorders/film cameras.

.

[Bell]

One of my problems with CTers is they won't believe the official version because they say the gov't gave it too us and they suspect the gov't. But the official version did not just come from government agencies. It came from the public. The gov't just organized it.

Examples: people in Manhattan/Brooklyn/Jersey City/Newark had a clear view of what was going on at the WTC. Many people saw 1 or both planes hit. The only film of flight 11 came from 2 Frenc brothers making a documentary on FDNY. Domestic anf Foreign news agencies as well as hundreds of bystanders caught the 2nd plane on their own camcorders/film cameras.

.

Actually, AA11 has been caught by THREE camera's :eek:

- The Naudet brothers
- Pavel Hlava (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavel_Hlava)
- Wolfgang Staehle (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8KBiym4Yd8) (webcam)

[Kryptos]

because they say the gov't gave it too us

The best thing to do with documents like the 9/11 Commission Report is pay attention to the footnotes. What sources did they use? And combine that with many different reputable non-government sources, and testimonial sources such as fire department interviews, phone calls, video, etc.

In working on this, it also helps me develop arguments to use when I go down to GZ with Gravy & co. on occassion. I need some basic flyers and information that I can keep in my own binder. I was unprepared last time. For the extreme truthers, I'm not sure what more I/we can do to save them. But for those on the fence or those passerbys at GZ who get flyers from the truthers, useful weblinks and information for them to look at is important.

-Kate

[G-K-4]

Okay, I think I'm done. Maybe for this project, or maybe only for now. I'm not sure.

http://editthis.info/911answers/Main_Page

I have incorporated quite a lot of questions I found in a CT "Forty Questions" document (which had a lot more than that). It seems to cover a lot of the common questions and accusations from the other side, with the odd exception that it hardly mentions the airline crashes or the building collapses. It concentrates more on the "behind the scenes" stuff, and has many obscure points. Since a lot of you guys working on this are well-versed in the plane-and-building explanations, I imagine that you have this covered.

(I haven't been able to see your wiki pages, because I don't know how to find them.)


A Note on Structure

I want to remind everyone that it's probably going to be very useful to have a simple, cite-able reference. ("Oh, this CTer is just repeating Claim D3.101. Send him to the FAQ.") I have tried to organize things logically, but feel free to improve on it. But please don't get rid of cite-able numbers.

Also, I have not answered any of the questions. Just setting up the skeleton has been a lot or work. (This is why I did not move Firecoins' contributions.) Each should have an answer on its own page.

I don't know how difficult it would be to re-name pages if their citation numbers change (for example, if things are reorganized). Should a page be called by its number or by what it's about?

[Kryptos]

I have incorporated quite a lot of questions I found in a CT "Forty Questions" document (which had a lot more than that).

(I haven't been able to see your wiki pages, because I don't know how to find them.)

...

I want to remind everyone that it's probably going to be very useful to have a simple, cite-able reference. ("Oh, this CTer is just repeating Claim D3.101. Send him to the FAQ.") I have tried to organize things logically, but feel free to improve on it. But please don't get rid of cite-able numbers.

Also, I have not answered any of the questions. Just setting up the skeleton has been a lot or work. (This is why I did not move Firecoins' contributions.) Each should have an answer on its own page.

I don't know how difficult it would be to re-name pages if their citation numbers change (for example, if things are reorganized). Should a page be called by its number or by what it's about?

Is the "forty questions" somewhere on the loose change forum? I think I saw something like that there, but can't find it now. Other threads there that might be useful include "top smoking guns (http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=7602)" The idea sounds good, but I don't entirely understand the section and numbering. If you point me to the "questions" document, that would help me understand better how you structured the questions.

My wiki site is at the link in my sig. The site won't appear as a wiki, as the wiki features only become visible once you login. In order to login, I have to approve new users and create the accounts. I'm not comfortable with letting just anyone edit, like on Wikipedia. The truthers have proven to be a roadblock there, with time wasted in reverting vandalism and edits that violate wikipedia policies.

So on "my" site, editing is restricted to "trusted", approved users who PM me with request. That basically means TS1234 (who was banned from Wikipedia) and like users need not apply. It sounds like you should have an account. You've done well with editing, from what I've seen thusfar and would be very helpful. It would be a simple matter of copying what you've done over to a different wiki site.

-Kate

[firecoins]

Actually, AA11 has been caught by THREE camera's :eek:

- The Naudet brothers
- Pavel Hlava (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavel_Hlava)
- Wolfgang Staehle (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8KBiym4Yd8) (webcam)
I am still learning things. I was completely unaware these two others but clearly the Naudet brothers got the best footage.

[Bell]

I am still learning things. I was completely unaware these two others but clearly the Naudet brothers got the best footage.

Yes, but they where 'in on it'... :boxedin:

[Bell]

I think there should also be sections that contain (links to) pictures, documents and videoclips. So if for example some nutter says the fires were going out, we can provide, in a quick and easy way, pictures of the huge fires in the WTC.

I get tired Googling those everytime (yeah, I'm lame at bookmarking stuff)

[CurtC]

I think there should also be sections that contain (links to) pictures, documents and videoclips. So if for example some nutter says the fires were going out, we can provide, in a quick and easy way, pictures of the huge fires in the WTC.
That's exactly the purpose I have in mind for it. Have a list of the standard CT claims, and the real evidence right there.

Kate, one suggestion for your site: you have headers for "Theory" and "Fact," but I think it should be "Claim" and "Fact."

[G-K-4]

Is the "forty questions" somewhere on the loose change forum?
No, it's from http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041221155307646 . I don't remember how I found it.

The idea sounds good, but I don't entirely understand the section and numbering.
I organized the sections to be roughly chronological, grouping similar CT arguments by topic.

Sections A-E run from 1898 to early in the morning of September 11, 2001. (The CTers bring up a lot of the past when they make their allegations.)

Sections F-M cover the hijackings and attacks themselves, and the collapse of WTC7. I separated the plane sections from the building sections since each has a lot of information. The border between them is the moment of impact (more or less).

Sections N and O are for subsequent events that are relevant (either about 9/11 or brought up by CTers).

Section P is the "Miscellaneous" file, for CT claims that don't really fit anywhere else.

And the Appendices are for other information. It's more the "metadata" file, data about the data about 9/11, including a repository for the reports by Gravy, MarkyX, Abbyas, and others. As someone requested, I also added an appendix on the CTers, that people (especially newbies) may get a sense of who they're dealing with. And the last appendix is about the debunking side, including information about logical arguments and useful resources.

Is it the numbering system that isn't clear? We could change it. I was combining the systems from here (http://www.infoshop.org/faq/) and here (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/), and admittedly, it is a bit of a mutant.

Would the more basic standard outline format (like from school papers) be better?

If you point me to the "questions" document, that would help me understand better how you structured the questions.
Done above, but please note that I did not build my structure around the CT document. Like most of their arguments, it was all over the place. (Which is another reason why I think it would be useful to keep our rebuttals in a logical order. Both styles almost suggest something. ;))

I also used a lot of the questions from 911myths.com.

My wiki site is at the link in my sig.
Found it!

It sounds like you should have an account. You've done well with editing, from what I've seen thusfar and would be very helpful.
Thanks. Let me know if you (all) want to use this kind of structure. But if people aren't confident that it will be necessary or useful, I should know before I dramatically reorganize things.

What say ye?

[CurtC]

So what do you think about this page?
http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/index.php?title=Index_to_Conspiracy_Theory_Claims

To get there, go do debunk911myths.org, select "Miscellaneous" on the left menu, then at the bottom click "Index to Conspiracy Theory Claims." All I did was copy & paste the wiki from the other site into here.

Do you think we should start working on it here and abandon the editthis.info site? Once it gets built up some, Kate can index it more prominently in the menu.

[G-K-4]

That's exactly the purpose I have in mind for it. Have a list of the standard CT claims, and the real evidence right there.

Kate, one suggestion for your site: you have headers for "Theory" and "Fact," but I think it should be "Claim" and "Fact."
How about this (http://editthis.info/911answers/Operation_Northwoods) for a template?

I still need to figure out the box formatting, and the superscripts.

[CurtC]

That looks great, with one exception: the text in the "Claim" box doesn't line break, but keeps going a couple of window widths to the right.

[G-K-4]

That looks great, ...
Thank you.

...with one exception: the text in the "Claim" box doesn't line break, but keeps going a couple of window widths to the right.
I know. But I don't know how to make it work. I like Kate's use of a box around the claim, but don't know how to do that in wiki-ese. Does anyone know?

Maybe we could use horizontal lines instead? At least for now?

[CurtC]

I suggest entering content like you've done, and those fluent in wikiese can clean up the formatting.

[Retrograde]

The best thing to do with documents like the 9/11 Commission Report is pay attention to the footnotes. What sources did they use? And combine that with many different reputable non-government sources, and testimonial sources such as fire department interviews, phone calls, video, etc.

What I'd like to see is a repository of all available data - witness reports (with dates), and the others you mention, with references to the original sources. I know it's a lot: I think one reason we keep seeing CTers bring up the same talking points over and over is because the sheer volume of readily available items overwhelms them.

One of the unfortunate side-effects of the net is that information gets lost so easily. Consider all the first-hand contemporaneous reports from September 2001 posted to various newsgroups, websites and blogs - in their infancy then - by people who were there telling their world-wide friends how they were effected. What happens to all those when someone stops maintaining that site? Will the main information sources then be the conspiracy websites, because the shout the loudest?

[Bell]

When you mention the number of passengers on the planes, is that including the terrorists? How do you feel about summing it up as:
- pilots, flight attendants, passengers, terrorists ?

Likewise with the number of victims, seperating the terrorists from the actual victims.

[CurtC]

I don't have an issue with putting the terrorists into the "passengers" category. I think the two categories should be "crew" and "passengers." Even though the terrorists took over controls, I certainly wouldn't put them in the former.

[Kryptos]

It's fixed, with use of <div> tag, colors and border. I like the use of "claim" rather than theory.

If you just want to add content, and have others fix formatting that's fine.

-Kate

Thank you.


I know. But I don't know how to make it work. I like Kate's use of a box around the claim, but don't know how to do that in wiki-ese. Does anyone know?

Maybe we could use horizontal lines instead? At least for now?

[Kryptos]

What I'd like to see is a repository of all available data - witness reports (with dates), and the others you mention, with references to the original sources. I know it's a lot: I think one reason we keep seeing CTers bring up the same talking points over and over is because the sheer volume of readily available items overwhelms them.

That's a good idea. Only in the early stages of doing this, but I have been going through new archives (e.g. Lexis Nexis) and other sources to gather first-hand accounts.

Here's one I found from a transcript from ABC news, regarding the collapse of the south tower:

http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/index.php?title=Collapse_of_the_South_Tower

-Kate

[Kryptos]

Terrorists need to be counted separately from the passengers and crew, who were victims. That's how CNN has listed them on their memorial/victims list, which is how Wikipedia also counts them.

September 11 Memorial (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/memorial/) - CNN
September 11, 2001 attacks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11%2C_2001_attacks) - Wikipedia

Of course, when the CTs don't see the terrorists on the CNN victims list, they say the terrorists weren't on the planes.

-Kate

I don't have an issue with putting the terrorists into the "passengers" category. I think the two categories should be "crew" and "passengers." Even though the terrorists took over controls, I certainly wouldn't put them in the former.

[Kryptos]

So what do you think about this page?
http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/index.php?title=Index_to_Conspiracy_Theory_Claims

To get there, go do debunk911myths.org, select "Miscellaneous" on the left menu, then at the bottom click "Index to Conspiracy Theory Claims." All I did was copy & paste the wiki from the other site into here.

Do you think we should start working on it here and abandon the editthis.info site? Once it gets built up some, Kate can index it more prominently in the menu.

The page looks good. Two suggestions:

1. Make the subpages entitled "Conspiracy claims - Section A" rather than just "Section A". I have modified a few of the links to that effect. The way the links are displayed on the page remains the same, "Section A", but the underlying links have the more complete title. Does that sound okay?

2. I suggest including the "Conspiracy claims" index page directly in the menu. I'm thinking the "Controlled demolition" page should also be separated from the "Topics" section and grouped with the conspiracy claims. Possibly, the "conspiracy claims" portion of the menu can be bumped to the top, above "Topics". Thoughts?

Topics
7 World Trade Center
Aircraft
Foreknowledge
Hijackers
NORAD
Osama bin Laden
Pentagon
United Airlines Flight 93
World Trade Center

Conspiracy claims
Controlled demolition
Index to claims (I'm not sure how best to word it)

Films
Loose Change
United 93
World Trade Center

Miscellaneous
Miscellaneous

References
References

[Kryptos]

The link helps. Thanks.

I like the structure. I say we move forward with this. If something doesn't work quite right, we can always shuffle a few things around later. But, I think it will work well.

Here are some claims that are most prevalent
http://www.ny911truth.org/media/posters/posters.htm

The ny911truthers put these posters on display at Ground Zero each Saturday.

-Kate

No, it's from http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041221155307646 . I don't remember how I found it.


I organized the sections to be roughly chronological, grouping similar CT arguments by topic.

...

Thanks. Let me know if you (all) want to use this kind of structure. But if people aren't confident that it will be necessary or useful, I should know before I dramatically reorganize things.

What say ye?

[CurtC]

Terrorists need to be counted separately from the passengers and crew, who were victims. That's how CNN has listed them on their memorial/victims list, which is how Wikipedia also counts them.
Certainly the terrorists should not be on a list of victims, but if the list is "passengers," I think they should be on that one.

[G-K-4]

Okay, I just spent my evening updating the new wiki. I added the main outline for each Section, and made lots of improvements along the way. Feel free to improve the introductory texts.

Also, I want to point out Section N.1. I didn't indent the main intro. One of the reasons is that the outline is already too far to the right, so why make things squeeze more than they have to?

I want you all to know that this is the only part of one section to have this different treatment. If you like it, we'll have to change all of the other sections. (But don't let that dissuade you.)

[gumboot]

I'm confused now...

Are there two sites now? Which one should I be editing?

-Gumboot

[G-K-4]

I'm confused now...

Are there two sites now? Which one should I be editing?
The EditThis site is now basically a testing ground, or "sandbox" as the kids seem to be calling it these days.

The primary site is now: http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/index.php?title=Index_to_Conspiracy_Theory_Claims

What we're looking for now is answers with sources. They should include the following elements:
http://editthis.info/911answers/Operation_Northwoods

If you can contribute, it would be greatly appreciated. If you don't have access to the www.debunk911myths.org wiki, you can post articles to the EditThis sandbox. Then I or someone else can add them until Kate gives you an account.

[gumboot]

The EditThis site is now basically a testing ground, or "sandbox" as the kids seem to be calling it these days.

The primary site is now: http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/index.php?title=Index_to_Conspiracy_Theory_Claims

What we're looking for now is answers with sources. They should include the following elements:
http://editthis.info/911answers/Operation_Northwoods

If you can contribute, it would be greatly appreciated. If you don't have access to the www.debunk911myths.org wiki, you can post articles to the EditThis sandbox. Then I or someone else can add them until Kate gives you an account.



Oh right.

I got confused because the menu on the left of the page doesn't have a indexing system...

-Gumboot

[gumboot]

Another query...

I have copied all of the NORAD questions over to my computer to compile answers, and it's a bit tricky as really the answers double up somewhat...

Here (http://calan8.livejournal.com/10058.html)'s my article on NORAD's mission and standard intercept proceedures. This answers the D.1.1 and D.1.2 questions.

I'd also add this for D.1.101 Intercepts of suspect planes normally happen within 10 minutes. Why not on 9/11?

Simple maths can dispel this myth. From 3 May, 1994 NORAD alert aircraft were on a five minute standby. (1) The more powerful of NORAD’s aircraft – the McDonnell Douglas F-15C Eagle - can reach cruising altitude for an airliner in about 60 seconds. It has a maximum speed at altitude of 1650 MPH (2). This means in absolute ideal conditions, an intercept could only possibly occur in 10 minutes if the target aircraft was within 110 miles of NORAD’s 14 alert stations spread across the entire continental United States.
By 9/11, the scenario had become even more unlikely, with the number of alert stations halved, and response time increased from 5 minutes to 15 minutes.

Reference (1) above is the Report to Congress on NORAD's mission (it is linked and quoted in my more detailed NORAD article) and Reference (2) is Wikipedia's entry on the F-15C Eagle.

I'm really not sure how to incorporate all this appropriately, and not sure on layout... also it's the busy season for the film industry, so I don't have as much spare time as I used to... :p

Perhaps if I provide information others can enter it in correct layout?

-Gumboot

[Kryptos]

So far, I have a few pages on NORAD - mainly using the 9/11 commission report, chapter 1, as a source:

* NORAD (http://debunk911myths.org/topics/index.php?title=NORAD)
* NORAD background (http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/index.php?title=NORAD_background)
* FAA (http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/index.php?title=FAA)

NORAD information is also included on the pages for the four flights:
*American Airlines Flight 77 (http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/index.php?title=American_Airlines_Flight_77) (example)

All this information needs to be better organized, with addition of the specific CT claims.

You have a lot of good information in your article, with many good sources. I think you can help greatly improve that section.

We can have one main summary page on "NORAD" with the bottom line, key info, such as the response time that NORAD had for each flight. We can have as many NORAD subpages, organized in whatever way you think is good. Once they are organized, the subpages can be added to the menu on the left.

At the moment, I'm busy "researching" Osama bin Laden, and the FBI poster argument. This has come up again (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Osama_bin_Laden#9.2F11) on Wikipedia, so don't have the time right now to work on organizing the NORAD info.

Another query...

I have copied all of the NORAD questions over to my computer to compile answers, and it's a bit tricky as really the answers double up somewhat...

Here (http://calan8.livejournal.com/10058.html)'s my article on NORAD's mission and standard intercept proceedures. This answers the D.1.1 and D.1.2 questions.

I'd also add this for D.1.101 Intercepts of suspect planes normally happen within 10 minutes. Why not on 9/11?



Reference (1) above is the Report to Congress on NORAD's mission (it is linked and quoted in my more detailed NORAD article) and Reference (2) is Wikipedia's entry on the F-15C Eagle.

I'm really not sure how to incorporate all this appropriately, and not sure on layout... also it's the busy season for the film industry, so I don't have as much spare time as I used to... :p

Perhaps if I provide information others can enter it in correct layout?

-Gumboot

[Kent1]

The link helps. Thanks.

I like the structure. I say we move forward with this. If something doesn't work quite right, we can always shuffle a few things around later. But, I think it will work well.

Here are some claims that are most prevalent
http://www.ny911truth.org/media/posters/posters.htm

The ny911truthers put these posters on display at Ground Zero each Saturday.

-Kate

Those fools. I honestly can't believe they are STILL supporting the alive hijacker stories. they STILL state that the flight manifests have no arab names. I find it hard to believe these guys are after truth!!
(Edit: whoops I see someone already posted answer)

[Kent1]

I see they also they used old data on the OBL page. For example they claim the Osama unit has been shut down...however they fail to note that it reopened.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/09/senate_votes_to_1.html

[T.A.M.]

If you want a great source of CT questions to answer, in addition to G-K-4's list, go and read, and then answer all the questions posed here.

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/571-page-lie.htm

TAM

[gumboot]

If you want a great source of CT questions to answer, in addition to G-K-4's list, go and read, and then answer all the questions posed here.

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/571-page-lie.htm

TAM


They're not really questions.... but wow, David Ray Griffin is a retard...

-Gumboot

[Anti-sophist]

Is there a definitive collection/explaination of the "sparkles" that appear during the collapse? I've seen many CTist claim that all these "sparkles" or "flashes" are evidence of an explosion. The vast majority appeare, to me, to be broken glass reflecting light.

[Skibum]

Is there a definitive collection/explaination of the "sparkles" that appear during the collapse? I've seen many CTist claim that all these "sparkles" or "flashes" are evidence of an explosion. The vast majority appeare, to me, to be broken glass reflecting light.

In clearer videos of the collapse many of the "flashes" and "sparkles" look remarkably like pieces of paper and reflections off of broken glass. I attempted to locate a few of the better versions a few days ago but after an hour or two of wading through numerous blurred and pixelized versions I decided that there were better ways to waste my time.

[G-K-4]

Gravy was kind enough to send me a list he had made of useful JREF posts. They itemize various debunkings. I am in the process of sorting them to incorporate them in the "Related JREF Threads" section of each wiki article.

Here is the first example:
http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/index.php?title=The_Reichstag_Fire#The_Reichstag_F ire

What does everyone think of the format, usefulness, etc.?

[Alt+F4]

What does everyone think of the format, usefulness, etc.?

Great work so far but I don't know about other folks, but I have a very difficult time reading white text on a black background, my eyes get that flashbulb effect. Just a thought

[Kryptos]

Great work so far but I don't know about other folks, but I have a very difficult time reading white text on a black background, my eyes get that flashbulb effect. Just a thought

The colors and design can easily be changed. Let me come up with some alternative schemes for your consideration. Any suggestions?

Also, if anyone else wants an account to edit on the site, please let me know. The site is set-up to allow collaborative editing.

[chipmunk stew]

This is a great project, folks. I suggest requesting a link in the "Links" section: http://forums.randi.org/local_links.php
You can contact tkingdoll, AKA TEEK, Links Executive (http://forums.randi.org/member.php?u=5366)

Also, I'm a little confused as to what the address of the Home page is for the wiki.

Is it: http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/index.php?title=Index_to_Conspiracy_Theory_Claims ??

Or is it: http://www.debunk911myths.org/ (http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/index.php?title=Index_to_Conspiracy_Theory_Claims) ??