User talk:Morton devonshire/IlluminatiNoticeboard

Talk Rules
 * Keep it short (special rules for my special friend Travb -- limited to 3-line comments)
 * Keep it personable and friendly
 * I reserve the right to redact your comments in light of the foregoing.

Thanks.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 21:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

One down?
Without Precedent has been made a redirect to 9/11 Commission. Looking at the previous version convinces me that this was a wise move. Cheers, CWC (talk) 14:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Yo
Came to your user page after hearing it refered to. Concerning your statement: "In case you are wondering whether there's an off-Wiki organized effort by 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists to slant Wikipedia towards their point of view, take a look at this page, where it provides instructions on how to insert 9/11 CT propaganda into Wikipedia articles." Has the page changed? Using the link you provided all I can find on that page in regards to editing WP is the following which is obviously not an organised effort to slant anything as it is no different than what WP itself recommends: "Contributing to Wikipedia is easy. Although Wikipedia allows anonymous editing, we recommend making changes as a registered user because it gives your edits more weight in the Wikipedia community." Wayne 20:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Click on 'Sign in / create account' in the upper right-hand corner of any page.
 * 2) Create an account.
 * 3) Once logged in, proceed to edit pages. Note that there is a discussion behind each page, participation in which can help to solidify your contributions.
 * I think you missed the whole top half of that page.   MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 21:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The 9/11 commision report has been critised even by many supporters of the government version (I could be wrong on this as I only know about it from my local newspapers). I'm also a bit sceptical about the NIST report which i read last night. I have seen photos of people standing where Nist says 1000 degree fires were burning and the firefighters reported no major fires in the buildings (the initial fireballs outside the buildings would have consumed almost all of the planes fuel load). I doubt there was any controlled demolition but that leaves open the question of why they collapsed which is a legitimate engineering question begging an "alternate theory" (ie: maybe NIST is covering up shoddy workmanship) and certainly not a conspiracy theory to be lumped in with the more rediculous claims such as no plane at the Pentagon. Wayne 08:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I had another look. The top half is a critique of WP not a organized effort by 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists to slant Wikipedia. I think you are being a bit harsh as this page does pretty much the same as this one does. Having said that, although i dont go along with most 9/11 theories, labelling them all "conspiracy theories" is wrong. Those few theories with credible evidence should be called "Alternate theories" instead. It is undeniable that the government has lied about some aspects so they only have themselves to blame if everything is questioned. Questioning government actions is part of democracy and the only way to prevent any country becoming a totalitarian state. Cheers Wayne 06:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Which theories have credible evidence? No one is against questioning the government.  But if the only answer to questions involve space aliens or Deus ex machina then the problem is with question, not the answer.  --Tbeatty 07:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * My apologies to Morton for replying to Tbeatty here.

body of secrets
Hey Morton,

Personally, I would take Body of Secrets off the list. I wouldn't necessarily trust the book, but it did get a lot of very positive mainstream media attention and the article is fine. It might be worth watching the page to make sure that nobody turns it into a POV rant but there really is no reason to delete it. GabrielF 17:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)