Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pilots for 9/11 Truth


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was  d elete. - Mailer Diablo 19:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Pilots for 9/11 Truth

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

Pilots for 9/11 Truth is simply not notable. It's run by a member ("JohnDoeX") of the Loose Change Forum who deflected and started his own web forum. While I know about this "group", because I have followed the Loose Change forum, blogs, etc, there lack any reliable sources that mention this "group". --Aude (talk) 14:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Truth_Movement Compare the core membership list below with the names listed within the wikipedia article above. Viewed within that context, Pilots for 9/11 Truth is new, yes, but hardly non notable, based on core membership, the forum which it has given birth to and sites which link to it. Here's a small hint for verification purposes: you can use the civil aviation registry https://amsrvs.registry.faa.gov/airmeninquiry/ to verify some of the information on the core members list (though not all, since not all of the core members are US pilots). Yes, it really is an international organization, and yes it does include pilots and other aviation professionals within its membership. http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core.html http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/ http://www.v911t.org/ http://patriotsquestion911.com/ http://www.davidicke.com/content/view/5157/33/ http://www.realradioarchives.com/sound-1.htm http://www.physics911.net/ http://911scholars.org/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nine eleven researcher (talk • contribs) 04:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC). — Nine eleven researcher (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete The article lacks evidence of notability and lacks reliable independent sources. Edison 15:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom and Edison above. Tom Harrison Talk 15:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. I wondered about this article's appearance in the templates.  No vote at this time, but I doubt there's any press coverage or members who are active pilots.  One of the debunkers of the Journal of 9/11 Truth was a military and civilian pilot, and his comments may me wonder how any pilot whose license is current could believe the "no plane" theories or that the planes couldn't have been "stolen" and flown by terrorists in the sense of the mainstream account.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 17:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess that is why you misunderstand the Truth Movement, you ally the fringe to the center. Kind of like saying Southern Baptists beliefs are all the normal Conservative beliefs as well. Try not to stereotype people and groups in the future. --Nuclear Zer0 17:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I apologize for saying there are no legitimate pilots in the organization, even though I still believe it's accurate. That has no place in Wikipedia.  (My delete vote still stands, because it's just not WP:Notable.)  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 13:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - I have felt concern about this group because it appears to focus only on the idea that a commercial jet didn't hit the Pentagon, while not even making a serious case that is definative or scientific. The group says "it is impossible for this aircraft to have struck down the light poles."  This implies that the lightpoles in front of the Pentagon came down in some other manner, which there is zero evidence for, or that their (NTSB) data is flawed.  Many witnesses reported seeing a large jet and many analyses have shown that it indeed COULD have taken down the lightpoles, so I'm concerned about the poor quality of research this site is promoting while using the title "pilots" to suggest expertise.  The most one can determine is that the data they used to reach their conclusions is wrong, but they don't even suggest this or any other conclusion from what I can tell. bov 21:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC) 21:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Regardless of what they stand for, or their methods, this is a non-notable group with no verifiable information in the article. Fails WP:WEB in addition to the rest. -- Kesh 02:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Gets exactly "1" hit in Google News Search for the Free Market News Network in Florida, which means it fails our WP:NN tests.  I have to thank Ombudsman for creating this one though, so that we could delete it -- I was beginning to lose interest in Wikipedia : )  Morton DevonshireYo  05:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-notable, unverifiable, and looks like advertising. WarpstarRider 14:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, this article and site should be viewed within the context of the 9/11 Truth movement.
 * Comment: None of the sites you mention meet the reliability requirements of Wikipedia, as they are pro-conspiracy advocacy sites, and David Icke is the Reptilian humanoid dude.  Morton DevonshireYo  05:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: None of the sites you mention meet the reliability requirements of Wikipedia, as they are pro-conspiracy advocacy sites, and David Icke is the Reptilian humanoid dude. Morton DevonshireYo 05:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC) Comment: yes, I'm sure that the official theory apologists sincerely hope that the entire 9/11_Truth_Movement dries up and blows away...
 * Delete NN and not likely they ever will be.--MONGO 06:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No way, we'd miss out on all of the mini-nukes blew-up the Towers crapola pumped-out for profit by dental materials engineers like Judy Wood and Distinguished Emeritus Blowhards like James Fetzer who believe that "space beams" were used. Wouldn't quash that for all of the tea in China -- too entertaining.   Morton Devonshire  06:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Then why worry about Pilots for Truth, with honorary members Robert_M._Bowman, David_Ray_Griffin and Steven_E._Jones in addition to all of the aviation professionals and researchers associated with Pilots_for_9/11_Truth? It's all part of the fun, right? Nine Eleven Researcher  06:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Honorary members are irrelevant. They may not even know they're "honorary members".  (They're also not mentioned in the article, so that it's clear that you don't think they're relevant)&mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 15:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - Pilots For 9/11 Truth is in its infancy. So far they have analyzed the Flight Data Recorder as provided by the National Transportation Safety Board and have recorded calls to the NTSB and FBI trying to get answers. Its no wonder why some govt loyalists here would like to have this credible article/organization ripped from Wiki. Anyone interested in the credibility of the organization can look at their member list and cross check with the FAA database at faa.gov. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.95.203 (talk • contribs)


 * Strong Keep - "JohndoeX" is Robert Balsamo. He has flown over 20 years and is listed as the first member on their member list. It's obvious the original poster who created this article of deletion has not done his homework. Rob Balsamo and Glen Stanish (A current Continental Pilot) are the Founders of pilotsfor911truth.org. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.95.203 (talk • contribs)

"Organizations are usually notable if the scope of activities are national or international in scale and information can be verified by a third party source." National in scope should be verifiable using the FAA Civil Aviation Registry, if someone cares to do so. He or she could also contact the public figures listed as core members. If further proof of international scope is really needed, I suppose we pilots for truth forum members could all descend here with our different IP addresses, but you wouldn't really like that... in other words, just because "mainstream media" coverage is somewhat lacking on certain issues, that does not mean an organization cannot be considered notable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nine eleven researcher (talk • contribs) 09:03, January 21, 2007  (UTC)
 * keep: Per above; no need to further suppress serious efforts to question authority.  Ombudsman 07:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * delete per Ombudsman; the evidence above does not support any notability. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 08:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "National in scope" could clearly not be verified even by using the FAA Civil Aviation Registry, even if accurate. No information on any notable members now in the article, and I'm not going to research whether an organization is notable if you're not willing to give evidence of notability in the article. &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Efforts should be made to improve content, not outright deletion, give the article some time to develop. This can be notable in the context of the 911 truth movement. Killroy4 11:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Several webcomics we've deleted were notable within their fandoms. That's irrelevant. This is talking about notability outside that small community, which this group does not have. -- Kesh 16:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

STRONG KEEP - Pilots For 9/11 Truth isn't notable?? There research on the flight data recorder of American 77 is flawed?? Are you kidding me? Have these people even bothered to look at the members list on the actual website or bothered to examine the Flight Data Recorder of American Airlines Flight 77 for more than five minutes? If so, they'd realize that not only is the NTSB's animation of American 77 too high during it’s approach to the Pentagon, it's also too far north to have taken out the light posts.

Question: If the NTSB's CSV file(hard data) on American 77 shows that hijacker Hani Hanjour reset the barometric pressure as he plummeted through 18,000, why does the altimeter on the NTSB animation not indicate this reset with a snapback of the altimeter hand? Question: Why did the NTSB release a flight data recorder showing that the yoke(steering wheel) was never pulled back on to level off the aircraft's final approach to the Pentagon in direct contradiction to what we've all been told(and shown through DoD pictures) for last five years that American 77 flew parallel to the ground just prior to impact? Question: Why is the vertical speed from the flight data recorder in total contradiction of the government’s account of American 77’s final approach?

This is NOT conspiracy theory as the mission statement of Pilots For 9/11 Truth specifically avoids theory. Instead, these are serious questions that are deliberately being ignored by the FBI and NTSB regarding a government-released piece of evidence from September 11, 2001. The burden of proof is NOT on Pilots For 9/11 Truth to explain what happened to American 77. The burden of proof is on the NTSB who released a contradictory piece of evidence that goes against the government's account of the fate of American 77 that the world has been spoon-fed for the last five year. Why is that so difficult to comprehend?

Check out their movie about American 77’s Flight Data Recorder here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8672066571196607580&hl=en

-Gideon524 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.6.2.26 (talk • contribs)

Delete according to the article, "Pilots For 9/11 Truth is currently in its infancy" i.e. it's not yet notable. Derex 18:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not notable - considering anyone at anytime can edit anything they want on any article. Delete for Wikipedia in general. Anyone who references wiki on any forum is usually laughed at. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.84.95.203 (talk • contribs) 20:38, January 21, 2007 (UTC)
 * Sooooo... if Wikipedia's so not notable, why do the 9/11 Truth types fight so incredibly hard over everything here? Why are you here? Delete as per Derex and lack of reliable sources. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Pilots For Truth sources the National Transportation Safety Board and FBI (as noted in the recorded calls on their site). Tony thinks those sources are unreliable. Many in the 9/11 Truth movement would agree. The Flight Data Recorder provided by the NTSB is unreliable to the govt story as it is in direct conflict with the 9/11 Commission Report. Pilots For Truth exposes these conflicts. It seems some people here want to sweep the facts under the rug. Then again, anyone who references wiki knows its a place for bias and editing at will. Better off to go to the source site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.84.95.203 (talk • contribs) 19:07, January 22, 2007 (UTC)
 * ... um, actually, by "reliable sources" I mean the complete lack of this kind of reliable sources, the verifiable kind. I could care less about the sources the *group* uses in relation to the article here. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

- Comment - Another cracker jack researcher comparing the Flight Data Recorder provided by the National Transportation Safety board to the Moon Hoax (perhaps he wanted to compare it to Elvis or Bigfoot as well, but didnt want to disrespect the NTSB). Do your research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.153.105.229 (talk • contribs) 03:39, January 25, 2007 -Comment - I see we have another cracker jack researcher calling for delete. Several articles on the site reference mainstream media, the FBI, the NTSB and the 9/11 Commission Report. The site and forums get over 300,000 hits per month in its short existence so far.. and growing. As the owner and co-founder of the site, I would prefer when people reference our site, they reference the site itself instead of Wiki as Wiki is open to any type of edit from anyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.153.105.229 (talk • contribs) 03:50, January 25, 2007
 * Delete Ah yes, some people will believe anything put before them in writing. The Great Moon Hoax is a prime example of this. However, this subject fails WP:NN by several criteria, one of which that it doesn’t even attract enough audience to where it constitutes having an article here. Therefore, delete. JungleCat    Shiny! / Oohhh!  04:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete As others have noted, article totally fails to demonstrate any notability. CWC (talk) 09:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Only sources seem to be from self-published sources, violating WP:V. "You're all sheep" not a valid argument for keeping. - Ocatecir 02:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete not notable -- Selmo  (talk) 03:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * First, stop with the insulting comments. You are violating WP:ATTACK as well as WP:CIVIL. Second, if you are involved in the site, there is a potential conflict of interest here. And finally, Wikipedia is made to be edited by anyone for a reason. If you refuse to cite anything but your own website, you are not following Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you do not wish Wikipedia to be referenced, it may be best to allow the article to be deleted. There is no ownership of these articles, and they will be edited by neutral third-parties. -- Kesh 15:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete NN per nom Tbeatty 04:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.