User talk:Digiterata

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Image copyright problem with Image:Milos_Konopasek_-_Dan_Bricklin's_Page.jpg 2 9/11 Attacks: The Facts and Nothing But 3 3RR 4 3RR 4.1 regarding 4th RR allegation 5 3rr warning 6 User notice: temporary 3RR block

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Milos_Konopasek_-_Dan_Bricklin's_Page.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Milos_Konopasek_-_Dan_Bricklin's_Page.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

Corrected and re-submitted picture under creative commons attribution non-commercial license under authorization of Dan Bricklin Digiterata 17:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 9/11 Attacks: The Facts and Nothing But

Below is a summary of facts compiled by Cathal and appended by myself. I have also included my opinion on whether the point is a (Hard Fact) or (Arguable). Please feel free to markup this list if you agree, disagree or other. The purpose of this list is to identify specific point we can agree are facts, disregarding for the moment whether or not they are relevant facts.

The Two Towers of the World Trade Centre, NY:

(Hard Fact) *It is factual that the two main towers of the WTC and one ancillary building were destroyed on 11/09/01.

(Hard Fact) *It is factual that eyewitnesses and video evidence showed planes striking the towers before their destruction.

(Hard Fact) *It is factual that official documents and accounts from those in the aviation industry, and the government of the United States, detailed the two planes veering off projected course and heading for New York rather than their intended destination.

(Arguable) *It is factual that the planes executed extreme flight manouvers in order to change altitude and bearing in a short period of time.

(Arguable) *It is factual that one viewpoint explains this phenomenon by citing trained personnel hijacking the planes and executing the manouvers.

(Arguable) *It is factual that military personnel have claimed said manouvers are difficult or impossible for trained personnel to execute in the class of plane commonly asserted to have caused the event.

(Hard Fact) *It is factual that the towers fell at freefall speeds, in accordance with Newtonian gravity.

(Arguable) *It is factual that video evidence and eyewitness accounts claim to have recorded secondary explosions.

(Hard Fact) *It is factual that the media coverage of the event on the day of the attacks repeatedly and without ambiguity referred to secondary explosions in the buildings, and many of these references were made by experts in demolition and fire safety personnel.

(Hard Fact) *It is factual that large fires were in evidence in both towers, following the large fuel explosion of the airplane kerosene fuel.

(Arguable) *It is factual that the towers were designed to withstand such an attack.

(Hard Fact) *It is factual that some experts in construction, physics and demolitions advocated an explanation whereby kerosine fuel caused temperatures sufficient to melt the structural supports of the buildings.

(Hard Fact) *It is factual that other experts in construction, physics and demolitions advocated an explanation whereby the structural supports would only melt at temperatures exceeding the burn temperature of kerosene, and instead advocated a deliberate demolition explanation.

(Hard Fact) *It is factual that many lives were lost during the event.

(Hard Fact) *It is factual that bomb sniffer dogs were removed from the building days prior to the attacks.

(Hard Fact) *It is factual that there is convincing evidence of insider trading in the WTC regarding the stocks of both airline companies involved in the event; official "bets" that share prices in both would drop dramatically, and that the number of these bets exceeded the statistical norm by, at peak, a factor of eleven.

(Hard Fact) *It is factual that the information regarding this insider trading has been passed to the FBI, and that no investigations are underway or planned regarding this information.

(Arguable) *It is factual that some experts have verified video accounts of the event.

(Arguable) *It is factual that other experts have brought the same video accounts into question.

The Pentagon:

(Hard Fact) *It is factual that structural damage and fire was caused to the Pentagon Building in 11/09/01

(Hard Fact) *It is factual that several streetlamps were damaged along a vector approaching the pentagon face in question.

(Hard Fact) *It is factual that there was disturbance of the soil and grass outside the block in question on the day of the event.

(Hard Fact) *It is factual that there was a hole in the side of the face of the building, and a tunnel of similar diameter continuing into the building along a roughly straight vector.

(Arguable) *It is factual that one viewpoint explains the event as having been caused by an airplane striking the side of the building. Some commonly cited eyewitness accounts support this theory.

(Arguable) *It is factual that another viewpoint explains the event as having been caused by placed demolitions explosives within the building. There are few, if any, commonly cited eyewitness accounts to support this theory.

(Arguable) *It is factual that another viewpoint explains the event as having been caused by an airborne military weapon striking the building. Some commonly cited eyewitness accounts support this theory.

(Arguable) *It is factual that, aside from the hole in the building, there was little structural damage to give an accurate estimation of the shape of the object striking the building.

(Arguable) *It is factual that, according to the theory that the event was a plane-crash, the plane fuselage, engines and contents was vapourised by the kerosine explosion.

(Arguable) *It is factual that, according to the theory that the event was a plane-crash, the remains of the passengers or crew of the plane were recovered and identified with few exceptions by DNA analysis of the remains.

(Arguable) *It is factual that, as a counterpoint offered by those explaining this as a weapons strike, the metal content of the plane could not have vapourised at the burning temperature of kerosine.

(Arguable) *It is factual that, had an explosion taken place with sufficient temperatures to vapourise the metal content of the plane, the human remains of the Crew or Passengers could not have remained to be identified by DNA analysis.

(Hard Fact) *It is factual that several CCTV systems captured the event in resolution sufficient to confer hard evidence to either theory.

(Hard Fact) *It is factual that the aforementioned tapes were confiscated by the Government of the United States, and their contents have not been revealed.

Structural Steel Facts:

(Hard Fact) *14 grades (i.e., strengths) of steel were specified in the structural engineering plans, but only 12 grades of steel were actually used in construction due to an upgrade of two grade. (Implication: 12 grades of steel would have 12 Heat-tensile strength curves. A reasonable analysis would be to assume the lowest thermal strength material and compare it's temperature-Tensile Strength curve to the maximum known combustion temperature of Jet A (Kerosene) fuel.)

(Hard Fact) *It is factual that according to multiple credible accounts molten steel was found in the basement of all three felled WTC buildings and was still red hot weeks after the event. (Source: Structural Engineer, September 3, 2002, p. 6)

(Hard Fact) *It is factual that prior to the events of 9/11 no modern steel-reinforced high-rise had ever collapsed as a result of fire.

(Arguable) *It is factual that the WTC buildings were specifically designed to handle the collision of a commercial airliner.

Grey C130 Naval Aircraft

(Hard Fact) *It is factual that a grey C130 Naval aircraft flown by Lt. Col. Steve O'Brien of the Minessota Air National Guard was seen by at least 13 witnesses and confirmed by the pilot himself, shadowing flight 77 prior to impact.

(Arguable) *It is factual (need source) that a grey C130 Naval aircraft was also seen by multiple eyewitnesses flying near flight 93 shortly before it crashed.

• The aeroplanes involved in September 11 were effectively bombs and the events were therefore not merely fires which normal construction would allow for.
• If the US Government, or some of its agencies, or some of their agents, had wanted to stage provocations/phoney incidents (as has happened throughout history) they would not have had to go to this extent. Blowing up the Pentagon is extreme. Witness the case of the invasion of Iraq, which was undertaken with minimal evidence. There was no need for such extreme actions.--Jack Upland 10:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

In the case of the pentagon, the damage done was effectively nil: Normal operations at the building weren't really affected, and with a budget like theirs, structural harm isn't a big thing to repair. As to the Towers, the scale of the 'attack' was big enough that, regardless of the true perpetrators, one need only invoke 9/11 to whip the American public into patriotism, which is exactly the way the government there wants it. Patriotism is the root of modern atrocity. - Cathal

I do not debate content outside of entry discussion pages. If you ask me a question on an entry page, I will attempt to answer it.--Cberlet 11:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Please stop asking me content questions on my user talk page. Thank you.--Cberlet 13:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm impressed and flattered, thanks! I originally posted it with the same intent: To try and present things without involving my opinion so that (hopefully) those normally reluctant to read the other side of either argument could end up on similar footing. Much as I wish I could help with the ongoing discussions, exams loom and I must rise to the occasion. I will resume discussion when I can, until then thanks for your contributions and good luck! - Cathal

Although before I go, I'll bring your attention to something else that is bothering me about this entire scenario: Britain seems to be trying the same thing in establishing [totalitarianism] - Cathal

[edit] 3RR

Careful. You've just broken WP:3RR:

1. [1]
2. [2]
3. [3]
4. [4]

The difference between adding the two tags is trivial; the intent was the same. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I have not violated 3RR. [1] and [2] are the same edit as [2] was a self-revert of [1]. I do agree that I am at 3 reverts and I will not attempt another. However, unless admins are exempt from the policy, you are also at the threshold of 3RR.

Please advise, are admins above the Policy or do they need to abide by the rules of Wikipedia as well? Digiterata 18:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

Nice try to game the system. The point remains that your assertions are unsupported, and yours and Elfguy's misuse of tags constitues simple vandalism:

Dispute tags are important way for people to show that there are problems with the article. Do not 
remove them unless you are sure that the dispute is settled. As a general rule, do not remove other 
people's dispute tags twice during a 24 hour period. Do not place dispute tags improperly, as in 
when there is no dispute, and the reason for placing the dispute tag is because a suggested edit has 
failed to meet consensus. Instead, follow WP:CON and accept that some edits will not meet consensus.

Elfguy's and your edits have failed to meet consensus - that is insufficient reason to slap a disputed tag on there. --Mmx1 18:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] regarding 4th RR allegation

Oh please, spare me the drama. That edit was unrelated to my reverts of your additions, and while it may not qualify as simple vandalism, your and elfguy's edits do. --Mmx1 21:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3rr warning

Hi you are close to breaking 3rr in the September 11, 2001 attacks article as you got 3 reverts in less than a 24 hour period, only warning. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, regarding the 3RR warning you sent me, I appreciate your quick action. However I have only made two reverts thus far. Here [5] and here [6]. The first posting of the (disputed) tag does not constitute a revert as it was a first post [7].

You will note that I've placed a clear rationale for placing the (Disputed) tag on this page and that the individuals who have reverted my tag have refused to attempt to resolve on Talk.

I believe I have acted in good faith, but I will ensure that I do not violate 3RR. --Digiterata 02:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User notice: temporary 3RR block

====Regarding reversions[8] made on May 3, 2006 (UTC) to September 11, 2001 attacks====

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley 18:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Re your mail... it was 24h because you're familiar with the rule (having reported someone else). As to the 4R's: 3 you admit. The first... well, you re-added the tag. Thats a revert. It doesn't have to be a previous edit *of yours*, just of the page. The solution is... don't get close to 3RR. Stick to WP:1RR under almost all circumstances William M. Connolley 14:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, understood and point taken. Hard sometimes when others refuse to discuss on Talk. Controversial issues, I guess it's to be expected. --Digiterata 14:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)