Check out the "9/11 Conspiracy Theories" page on wikipedia -
it is now locked because of 'vandalism.'
The page is controlled by editors who openly despise any questioning of the official version of events, such as . .
people in the military:
people who openly mock '9/11 conspiracys' on their home page:
and even one person whose efforts to debunk all 'conspiracy theorists' as lunatics extended onto a Democracy Now program, the only one to ever take on 9/11, where David Ray Griffin was subjected to a trashing by him (Chip Berlet).
[[A Chip Berlet aside . . .
Right Woos Left:
Chip Berlet defends Bush regime against claims of complicity
Chip Berlet, "leftist" professional anti-conspiracist who defends the official 9/11 conspiracy theory, calls oilempire webmaster "essentially an industrious rumor-mongerer with a penchant for conspiracy theories"
Ford Foundation funds Berlet
Organization: Political Research Associates
Purpose: To study the college and university campus leadership and outreach programs of major national organizations and social movements and their relationship to political environment on campuses
Location: SOMERVILLE, MA
Program: Peace and Social Justice
Unit: Governance and Civil Society
Subject: Civil Society
Amount: $ 175, 000
'Political Research Associates - a liberal / progressive / left non-profit that claims that Bush is innocent of complicity in 9/11'
PRA's page denouncing "conspiracies" about 9-11:
This page insinuates that the "9/11skeptics" movement largely consists of anti-semites, far-right fanatics and holocaust denial people. Yes, those sites do exist, but one could make a very good case that several of them are "false flag" operations to provide rhetorical ammunition to attack the idea that the Bush regime allowed 9/11 or gave it technical assistance to ensure it succeeded.
PRA has resisted numerous opportunities to discuss the credible evidence that 9/11 was not a surprise attack, refusing to discuss:
* prior warnings by allied governments
* warnings to political, military and corporate officials to get out of the way
* the NORAD wargames that confused the Air Force response
* the CIA / NRO wargames on 9/11
* the motivations of Peak Oil and "Homeland Security"
* anthrax attacks on the Democrats and passage of the Patriot Act
If the racists on the web didn't exist, groups like PRA would have to invent them.
Those are who essentially control the content of the wikipedia page which allows questioning of the official version of events on 9/11 - they support eachothers changes while deleting anything that disagrees, and are involved in maintaining the title page as the pejorative 'conspiracy theories' rather than allowing anything else.
The players shift, but they are essentially of the same ilk.
And yet, the lie of 9/11 is exposed in the first paragraph of the page by the fact that the official story defenders have to provide links to their own debunking of the 'conspiracy theories,' but -- get this! -- won't allow any links to either the counter debunkings - or - anything they consider a 'conspiracy'!
That's how afraid they are, how hard they are needing to try to keep out the questioning. The page on the 'September 11th 2001" cannot allow any questioning of the official version AT ALL - only 2 sentences to refer and deride the 'conspiracy theories.' But the 'conspiracy theories' page must have a debunking of all the theories - and a sandwiching in with UFOs and paranormal - right in the
first paragraph . . . not even just in name, but with links!
Here's a typical excerpt from the discussion on there:
"What do you think about this possible new title:
'9/11 skepticism and conspiracy theories'
It would mention both POV and leave the reader free to judge himself what in the article is a conspiracy theory and what is just sketpticism. What do you think?"--Pokipsy76 08:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
"Conspiracy theories and legitimate criticisms are two separate topics; combining them into a signle article which fails to distinguish between the two would represent a loss of information." Peter Grey 15:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Here is a related story someone sent me:
"Whitedust is running an article which claims that lobbyists for Wal-mart have successfully waged a war against a fair viewpoint on Wikipedia's Wal-mart page. From the article: "Although Wikipedia maintains a 'Neutral Point of View' (NPOV) policy, the Wal-mart page is highly biased. Additionally, all criticism has, contrary to policy, practice, and the general opinion of those concerned, been moved to a Debates Over Wal-mart section. Even that page has noticeable resistance to negative points of view about Wal-mart."
I have to predict that the wikipedia project will ultimately fail, given how controlled and biased it is.