Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:41, 24 March 2009

Number of the Beast

Hi! I have reverted your (repeated) addition of the remark about the translation of χάραγμα. Not only was it formulated in a manner inconsistent with WP:NPOV, but I also could not find any support for the claim in that lexicon. The website you provided was unhelpful (well, blatantly wrong and non-notable, actually). Please read WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:EL for more information. —xyzzy_n 09:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

That you know, or believe to know, something does not justify inclusion here. Restating your theory does not constitute an improvement. As for the reference I gave, please read it yourself before (falsely) asserting I had not read it.

Rev. 16:2 reads thusly:

In English, the translation looks like this:

Liddell and Scott state:

Liddell and Scott then give another translation, as ‘money’, as follows:

Feel free to look for the manuscript to which they refer by yourself. That website only gives its title as ‘P.Oxy. 1.32. Latin letter to a tribunus militum’; how you conclude from this that this translation could be better applied to the verse in question than the one explicitly given in the same entry is obscure to me.

Regardless, unless you can find a reliable source that has published your theory, it has no place in an encyclopedia, including this one. By the way, please do read the policies which I pointed out above.

—xyzzy_n 00:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

You don't get it, look at the CONTEXT: "No one buys or sells (BUYS OR SELLS) without the MONEY of the beast on/in mind or hand." Liddell and Scott are telling the context of the words or the places they appear in documents under translations throughout the ages.

Antipater Thessalonicensis wrote at the same time as the Revelation was composed (66 AD) and POxy.144.6 was written in the Fourth Century AC, which means that the greek word χάραγμα meant MONEY at the time Revelations was written.

Liddel-Scott are only documenting how the word had meaning at the times specified. As you know, words change meanings over time. χάραγμα meant MONEY at the time the "revelation" was written.

The bible "scholars" mistranslated the word χάραγμα like they do with the Aramaic word Mammon,which is only translated correctly in the New Oxford English Bible. (Or "Logos" is NOT translated as Logic in John 1:1.)

Jesus-Christ (if he existed) said, "You can't serve God & MONEY ... but the Pharisees, who loved money (philarguron) heard all this and scoffed." Like you're scoffing too. (See Luke 16.)

Jesus also told his disciples, like the Buddha did, to not carry and gold, silver, script or brass in their purse.

Jesus also said, "Who's picture is on the $$$?" Caesar's!

Also, xyzzy_n, I am NOT skilled at formatting html.

You allow the Jehovah's Witnesses and several others to voice their opinion you should NOT censor mine just because I am self-published.

Please don't censor my opinion: look at the context. χάραγμα was known as money when Revelation was written. (2. stamped money, coin, AP5.29 (Antip.Thess.) <-- Antip.Thess. lived at the time the Revelation was written.

Peace, Love & Truth, Raquel

I don’t need to ‘get it’ or ‘look at the CONTEXT’; my earlier comment on your theory was a matter of courtesy, not related to the article (and I will not spend any more time on the theory than absolutely necessary). It is policy on Misplaced Pages to present topics on which there is no definitive point of view (i. e. just about everything outside of science) by presenting the points of view proportionally to their support. This means that the JWs’ position gets a mention, because they are a fairly large and reasonably well known group and some opinions of people who are not by themselves known are mentioned because they seem to be supported by reasonably notable organisations, while your view, which is your research, published on your homepage, fails the reliability check and stays out of the article.

For your information, I neither allow nor censor anything; however, I do try to ensure that articles which I edit comply with Misplaced Pages’s policies on content. Currently, I neither see any way to have your view in the article without it breaching policy nor any need to tolerate such a breach.

Please read WP:NOT and find a more worthwhile way to contribute to Misplaced Pages (or promote your theory elsewhere; apparently you have already discovered Usenet, which, I think, is far better suited for your purposes). —xyzzy_n 22:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

No, xyzzy_n, you DO need to look at the context and the definition of chargma. I may not have a following like the Jehovah's Witnesses do but I'm right and you ARE a Pharissitical censor of the truth!

I'll bet you hide your theory in the page somewhere. Like, why do these people get their theory in and not me? Who the hell are they?!

• Keith Krell interprets the mark as a requirement for all commerce to mean that the mark might actually be an object with the function of a credit card.
• Steven D. Miller proposes that the mark of the beast may refer to a social security number or card.
• Terry Watkins supposes the mark to be a microchip or barcode in or on the human body.

What good are their references? My reference comes from the Unabridged Greek-English Lexicon by Lidell and Scott!

Peace & Love, Raquel

No, it doesn’t (and truth is not a standard for inclusion). —xyzzy_n 06:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

My reference to the context and definition of Charagma = MONEY comes from the Unabridged greek-English Lexicon by Liddell & Scott. You can see a JPEG image of the definition on my flickr-photos and,here's an online version of the definition of the word, χάραγμα, which means MONEY, here's another online Liddel-Scott reference to Charagma.

You don't care about Truth, like a Pharisee you crucify the Logos-Logic of God!

The Liddell & Scott Lexicon is a dictionary, which tells the context of words. Nearly all bibles translate χάραγμα as "Mark" 'cause they don't know any better (they had abridged dictionaries or they didn't have a good Lexicon), they're ignorant or afraid of the truth! Raquel Baranow (talk) 04:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Problematic edits

Hey: Apologies, on looking back into this, I do see some seriously problematic edits from you... but they're from 2005, hardly worth a concern now. I've reviewed all your edits from this year and it seems to me that your edits from this period are okay. So I'm going to unblock you to file your username change request. But it is worth reminding you that despite your own personal observations, Misplaced Pages article content must be based on reliable sources and presented in proportion to their prominence. Mangojuice 18:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Allowing name change to User:Raquel Baranow. Please put in the change request at Misplaced Pages:Changing username as soon as possible. Request handled by: Mangojuice 18:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC) Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Thanks, Mangojuice! . . . I just submitted a new username and, yes, the REAL problems I had were waaay back in 2005. If any administrator wants to edit my page to remove any of the above related to this block it would be appreciated. Raquel Baranow (talk) 19:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello. You may remove remove the block notices yourself since you are unblocked. Currently the duplicate template causes this page to be in Requests for unblock and should be removed. Thanks.—Sandahl (talk) 21:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi

I had some concerns with the amount of information you were displaying on your userpage. It's generally not safe to publish that much personally-identifiable information online. I've removed it and asked for it to be deleted permanently. I hope you don't take offence; I'm just concerned about safety. //roux   08:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Who did U ask to have it removed permanently? (Are U talking behind my back?) I don't mind . . . thx 4 being concerned but I am a public figure . . . very popular where I live. Raquel Baranow (talk) 17:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I asked here. Also please do not edit comments made by other users. //roux   20:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The "edit comments made by other users" Roux is referring to is me italicizing some of their 14 March comment, above, which appears to be re-written now. Whatever. Raquel Baranow (talk) 20:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I rewrote it back to the way I originally wrote it. There's no 'whatever' about this, it's really simple: do not edit comments made by others except very basic housekeeping (indenting if they forgot to), or removing egregious personal attacks if they won't do so themselves. I hope that is clear. //roux   21:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, okay, I get it, whatever, lol but don't forget, U started this discussion by removing personal material from MY UserPage. Thx, I learned my lesson! :) Raquel Baranow (talk) 23:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

ARB9/11

Hi. This is a friendly notification that all 9/11 articles are under general sanctions. Please be especially careful before editing further there to familiarize yourself with WP:ARB9/11. Thank you. Jehochman 16:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Please don't remove what I wrote about Controlled Demolition. I reworded the Talk someone removed and would like to add this reference: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/theories/thermobarics.html Raquel Baranow (talk) 16:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

That's not a reliable source. Misplaced Pages is not a chatroom for discussing fringe ideas. If something hasn't been reported about in reliable sources, it is not relevant to Misplaced Pages. Jehochman 17:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The article is about a "fringe" idea. The source I quoted is relevent to the article about Controlled Demolition. The NIST investigation is "propaganda," the NIST conclusions are the Government's POV. I, and MANY other people believe the government is covering up the truth! Raquel Baranow (talk) 18:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Nope. It doesn't work that way. The article is about how mainstream sources cover a fringe idea. It is not a WP:COATRACK for bringing in all sorts of original research and unverified material from primary sources. Jehochman 18:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Raquel - please see our policies on original research and verifyable and reliable sources. Also, one of our core values is that we retain a neutral point of view in all matters.

Your opinion and contributions here are non-neutral, are original research, are not published in reliable sources.

Misplaced Pages is not a place to fight external fights such as attempting to raise public visibility of fringe theories. You yourself know and acknowledge that your opinions are not mainstream. Attempting to use Misplaced Pages to soapbox, or promote those theories is also a violation of our policies.

If you can review and abide by those policies you are welcome to continue contributing to Misplaced Pages. If you reject those policies, then Misplaced Pages is not an appropriate venue for your contributions.

It's up to you to chose whether to abide by our goals and core values. We are not the thing you seem to think we should be in this case - we're an encyclopedia, not those other things. If you can contribute under our policy to the encyclopedia then please do. If not, please don't force us to block you from editing permanently. Just walk away from participation here with no hard feelings.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

All I'm trying to do is improve articles here that appear to be one-sided and untrue. I'm discussing them on Talk Pages. It's NOT just my opinion that the Government isn't a reliable source when they have an interest in covering-up their mis-deeds. Why can't U ppl here at Wiki discuss things civily without censorship or banning?! I'm kinda new here.

U keep saying "reliable source" but that is a very subjective term: Government is NOT always a "reliable source."

If U guys leave me alone and didn't erase stuff I write, like at the Talk Page for Controlled Demolition at the WTC, everything would be alright. I reworded the stuff someone erased and included MANY references . . . U or someone else can sort them out as "reliable" or not . . . I was merely suggesting that the Government's explaination of the tiny debris pile and several inches of toxic dust throughout Manhattan is rediculous! A more likely explaination is a Thermobaric bomb. If U Google, "Thermobaric" + "wtc" U will see many "reliable sources."

But of course . . . it would be sooooo much easier 4 U editors to ban and censor me! Raquel Baranow (talk) 21:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Raquel - you're missing the point.

You need to find a reliable source (published, peer reviewed, etc) that states that someone has looked at Thermobarics in detail and feels that they explain the WTC collapses.

One website out there saying so, if that website isn't run by someone with demolitions or explosives or forensic engineering background, is not good enough. The website you described is not.

Just because some person out there mentioned Thermobarics and the WTC collapses does not mean that it's sufficiently well documented to appear in Misplaced Pages. There have been single websites that claimed that UFOs caused the collapses - that there was a coverup of a hidden earthquake fault that caused the collapses - that there was a nuclear bomb stored in the WTC basement that caused the collapse. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, George, I get it . . . but it's obvious to anyone with an open mind that there were bombs in the WTCs. Look at the tiny debris pile at ground zero: what happened to the two 100-story WTCs? Answer: they were pulverized by bombs, hence the huge cloud of dust that left several inches of pulverized concrete, aesbestos and glass all over lower Manhattan. There is NO explaination for it on WIKI or in "reliable sources" that pass Ur test (but they do mine . . . how else can U explain it). What I wrote on the talk-page should remain until someone does write a "reliable source." There's ample evidence that many ppl have lung infections/disease now (I think there's a Wiki article on the respritory problems rescue workers are suffering now). We owe it to these ppl to explain why they are suffering! Just leave what I wrote there in the talk-page for other reasearchers to add to. What pissed me off is that someone erased what I wrote . . . I re-wrote it better and it should stay for the record . . . I have looked through the archives BEFORE I wrote my original piece. Others have mentioned "mini-Nukes" (in the archives), the current, best explaination is Thermobaric Bombs, which are not radioactive. Let's just leave it at that! Peace & Love. Raquel Baranow (talk) 13:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

You may misunderstand the purposes of article talk pages. They are not there to put forward ideas or arguments about the subject of the talk page, but to discuss sources, formatting, whatever about the article page. You will often find where talk pages have been used as a soapbox for people's ideas, but that is definitely not their purpose and such edits may and often are removed. That's why someone removed it. Otherwise our talk pages could end up as a haven for just any idea and for arguments, just like any web forum and they are not web forums. dougweller (talk) 18:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought the purpose of the Discussion Pages was to improve the article. If the article does not explain or answer the topic the topic should be revised, especially if it is outdated. Raquel Baranow (talk) 19:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdenting again for ease of typing)

Raquel - talking about the underlying facts... Take a look at Gravitational potential energy#Gravitational potential energy. A kilogram of material 415 meters above the ground has 4,070 joules of energy. A ton of material has aout 4.1 megajoules of energy - about the energy in a kilogram of TNT (4.2 Mj), which is enough to break a ton of concrete and steel into a bunch of small chunks of metal and a lot of concrete dust and small chunks.

The collapses didn't smash the buildings into tiny short stacks of material. You're forgetting the WTC basements. There was 60 feet of space under the plaza level, between bedrock and the plaza. The debris piles were about 70 feet tall on the average - sticking up a bit above ground level, but mostly compacted in the former basement spaces. That roughly 20:1 compaction lines up well with the former empty space fraction of the buildings - once collapsed, most of the air space between floors went away, but that's about it. Looking at the video, piles of wreckage, etc - they clearly weren't blown up by bombs. All the videos clearly show vertical or near vertical collapse of all the debris, other than small puffs of air and debris out the sides as floors were collapsed together. If there had been enough bombs to do serious damage, you'd have seen much more fragmentation and windows shattering out all sides. Thermobarics don't neatly sever structural columns - they overpressure a whole volume, blowing out windows, floors, ceilings. Windows would have been shattered outwards at very high velocity, you'd have seen visible shockwaves coming out the windows, etc. The points at which the collapse started clearly were within the floors which were on fire from the aircraft strikes. You can't use a thermobaric or FAE explosive in a room or space that's on fire - the fire will simply ignite or burn the explosive during the dispersal process, taking away the dispersed detonation behavior. You get a big puff of fire, not a detonation.

Even if the building had been completely wired up for a controlled demolition, assuming someone had planned that from the beginning, any explosive material available (and any reasonable wires for detonators for it) would have ignited and burned away from the surrounding fire. One could hypothesize that someone wired the building for demolitions and then exploded other parts of it - but the collapse behavior clearly was the blocks of the buildings above the fire zone falling down into the structure below them, indicating that whatever happened started right where the fires were hottest. There was far more energy and momentum in the falling structure than was needed to shatter and collapse the rest of the structure, at that point.

Simple collapse explains the debris pile and dust just fine. See for example - the total gravitational energy in the 600,000 tons of structure and fittings per building was about equal to about 280 tons of TNT (per tower). That's plenty enough to squash the debris and break it into little pieces, and compact what's left into the former basement spaces.

This is intrinsic to highrise buildings. You get the same short debris pile with actual controlled demolitions, if you look at them. They use careful precutting and a few tens of kilograms of explosive to bring down a building that weighs tens of thousands of tons - and it collapses into a small pile of debris.

Fire and local structural collapse explains WTC just fine. Any theory with explosives doesn't explain where the collapse started, because any explosives at the collapse points would have burned off in the fire. Thermobarics would be even more vulnerable to the heat and then burning / flame environment, and are even less credible than normal explosives. But the heat of the fire was 2-3 times hotter than the hottest temperature the most heat resistant explosives in the world can stand before they break down and burn away (most explosives burn just fine, without detonating, if you light them on fire or heat them enough in an oven).

I appreciate that you mean well with all this. But explosives really don't make any sense at all here. They aren't a better explanation. They're a worse explanation. Really much worse. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

That article is well written but a debris pile from a controlled demolition and from a "pancake" collapse would be much different. One would expect that the roof of the WTC would be pretty much intact. I'm NOT an expert on 9/11, just a skeptic. We could move on to the Pentagon, WTC-7 or Pennsylvania crash-site for more but I won't . . . I'll wait for more experts to weigh in . . . I should be getting the latest book by David Ray Griffin soon.

Like I said before, I'm new here and looked at some articles where I am an expert (Kennedy assassinations, Holocaust logistics & forensics of the alleged murder weapon) and found some serious bias. I thought I could improve the articles but ended up in a lot of hot water. . . I'd like to just cool it for awhile and retain my ability to make innocuous suggestions for improvement! I need to focus on my health too . . . I suffered a heart attack five-days ago, am haveing trouble with my best friend of 15-years and plan on a vacation in a coupla weeks. :) Raquel Baranow (talk) 23:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I have never seen any building collapse from beyond 3 stories that left an intact roof. I don't know why you'd think it would be - the WTC core and curtain wall collapsed at different rates, and the "roof" and floors all hung between them, so any differential would tear up each floor level and the roof as it went.

A pancake collapse typically refers to what happens when one or two floors out of several collapse, but there's structural integrity above and below the failure floor(s). The WTC had enough gravitational potential energy that it couldn't pancake - once it started falling, the ultimate total crunch at the bottom was unavoidable. There was far too much energy in the block of structure above the failure points to avoid doing anything but smash the bottom of the falling block and the top of the remaining structure very completely as the collapse progressed.

Physics really isn't gentle to tall things that stop being solid and rigid. Look at what happens when an avalanche starts on a mountainside. The WTC was a vertical avalanche, falling straight down through its own structure and pulverizing it as it went. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Just remembered that David Griffin wrote that if the building did collapse as alleged by the government, the impact would have ruptured the retaining wall holding back the Hudson river and would have flooded Manhattan and really caused a mess . . . I spent several minutes looking for that reference but couldn't find it. There's an archetect/engineer at our University and many others at AE911Truth.org that say the government's non-explaination is not any good. Raquel Baranow (talk) 01:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The truth

Your discussion on AN/I is getting into some trouble where you don't understand our verifyability and reliable sources requirements. Your comments about orwellian ignorance of the truth need to be followed up on...

We don't care about "The Truth" not because we don't want to be accurate - on the contrary, we entirely do - but because we have no way of knowing what any contributor's actual experience, credentials, and validity are.

As I mentioned when I first started talking to you - people have claimed all sorts of crazy things including UFO attacks, earthquake faults, meteor strikes for the WTC collapses. We have no way of knowing if the person who writes "It was certainly a meteor impact, see the shockwave pattern and damage to surrounding buildings, the airburst pattern, etc" is a NASA meteor impact expert or a 13 year old kid who was watching the Armageddon movie and mistakes computer graphics for reality.

We have no way of knowing if "The Truth" that anyone claims has any validity to it.

What we do know, and can check on and confirm, is that Person X wrote thing Y in publication / book / newspaper / etc. Z. We can look at publication / book / newspaper Z and determine if they generally do fact-checking, scientific or engineering peer review, if it's a serious publication or a popular press, etc. We can also confirm things like "Publications A, B, C, D, E all carried articles saying that Y happened".

Websites are bad sources. They're bad sources because any person can put one up - there's no way to verify that they do fact checking, that they did any peer review, etc. There's no way to tell for sure who put it up, and what their real credentials and experience are. I could tell you here that I have been on a team that's imploded 20 buildings in controlled demolitions, and you have no reasonable way to confirm or refute that claim... (just to be clear - I have not actually done that... I have some experience with explosives, including both theory and practice, and an engineering degree, and I've looked at the analysies done for building collapses, terrorist bomb damage, structural engineering issues, etc. But I don't take buildings down for a living). I could say I was a university professor (I am not), etc.

We focus on reliable sources and verifyable sources because we don't have any idea who is putting information here, really, and we have no way to tell if someone claiming to know something really does. We can't tell if you're a qualified expert, or if I am. So we assume nobody is, and we insist that you do your homework and cite your references and sources for anything which seems questionable.

I don't believe any source is never going to be mistaken, or that any source could never be corrupted. But we judge the credibility of sources by how official they are - academic peer reviewed things are great, official reports by organizations are great, publications that include more references and which show their work and analysis and which are supported by other research are great.

Talking about fringe theories, there usually isn't much good coverage. But even with fringe theories, you find some people who have some credibility talking about things. There are some college professors and engineers associated with the 9/11 conspiracy groups. We can accurately report that those people have made statements or done analysies.

The problem with your thermobarics claims is that as far as I know, none of the experts in the 9/11 conspiracy crowd who know explosives have supported them. So it's not even reliably sourced or verifyable by standards *within the fringe group*...

That's the sort of support that ideas need to be included in Misplaced Pages. Even if the experts in the conspiracy stuff are way outside the mainstream, you need them to support the idea enough to justify including it here. So far as far as I can tell, none of them do. And from what I know on FAE / Thermobarics, there's not much chance that anyone would support it, given that it would be pretty much impossible to do that with those types of explosives, and it would have looked completely different if someone had tried.

So, please understand that it's important to find sources and references. If you can find some which are reasonably reliable in the context of the demolition conspiracy people, then please provide them. If there aren't any, you should consider why there aren't... perhaps it's because it's just an incorrect idea.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I suggested Thermobarics and found a few well-referenced articles with a Google search of Thermobaric & WTC . . . I was hopeing someone else would know better. Certainly NOT mini-Nukes as mentioned in the archive because there was no radioactivity. The articles I looked at mentioned other bombs but I thought Thermobarics were the most likely choice. Obviously some kind of bomb was used. There's waaaay too many holes in the official story. As I said before: The Pentagon, Pennsylvania, WTC-7, the skills of the alleged hijackers.

Look, I happen to be really sick now . . . this couldn't have come up at a worse time. If it wasn't for that jerk who erased what I wrote, this never would-have happened. Was that person justified in erasing what I wrote?!? Raquel Baranow (talk) 01:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello, Raquel Baranow. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jehochman 19:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Orwellian Thought Control, Double-Speak & Censorship at Misplaced Pages

For the record and my reference, so this discussion won't get lost, I'm copying it here:

Account espousing conspiracy theories; Intervention needed

• Raquel Baranow (talk · contribs)

This account is soapboxing and causing trouble:

• I, and MANY other people believe the government is covering up the truth!
• Looks like a Thermobaric Bomb was used to bring down the Twin Towers.
• Also note the tiny debris pile of mostly steel beams . . . like where's all the broken glass, concrete, steel desks, etc?
• Obviously something caused the entire Twin Towers to disintigrate into a cloud of dust leaving a tiny debris pile.
• I'm serious: CIA killed JFK! I'm an expert on this

The account is wasting other editors time and disrupting talk pages. I'd like to see if somebody else could intervene and explain how Misplaced Pages works before more time is wasted. Thank you. Jehochman 19:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

First, I don't need a soapbox for my ideas . . . I have a webpage and several Blogs for doing this. My purpose here at Wiki is to establish the truth. Seems everybody at Wiki thinks the Government is telling The Truth, lol, anyone who disagrees with the government's POV is considered a "soapboxer" or "conspiracy theorist."

I was told by an administrator that if I am an expert on a subject, I should say so. I'm an expert on the John F. Kennedy assassination and a skeptic of the Government in regards 9/11.

In the "Controlled Demolition" article's Talk Page I suggested opening up a new subject in the Article explaining why it appears that a bomb destoryed the entire two 100-story World Trade Centers, left a tiny debris pile at Ground Zero and a blanket of dust inches deep throughout New York City. The government's explaination is ridicuous. Governments do lie, U know! A bomb better explains what happened at the WTC's. I also mentioned that two references are needed for the most crucial paragraph in that article. I don't know how to add, "Citation Needed" to the one sentence and the other reference (#23) is a broken link. (Just noticed that someone fixed it but the link #23 does NOT cite a page explaining why there was such a tiny debris pile and blanket of dust throughout Manhattan . . . see the Talk-Page, cited herein.)

There are many other ppl besides myself who believe bombs destroyed the WTC: Google, Thermobaric + wtc. As I said above: The article on "Controlled Demolition at the WTC" is poorly referenced in a crucial paragraph and is one-sided.

How do we know the editors/censors of Wiki who are harassing me are not government agents bent on covering up the truth? Rather that allowing a discussion on a Talk Page, these ppl would censor and ban me. Raquel Baranow (talk) 20:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

You have got to be joking. Misplaced Pages editors are government agents bent on covering up the truth? Please. Go read our policy on reliable sources (nothing claiming that 9/11 was a conspiracy fits), and WP:TRUTH. Better yet, go back to your blogs and/or Conservapedia. //roux   20:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

In addition to Roux's comments, a requirement of editing here is that you assume good faith of other users. PhilKnight (talk) 20:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm a Canadian, and if I was government I'd be getting paid more. You are espousing a point of view that is definitely considered on the fringe side of things. You'd require extensive reliable sources to be able to include such material in the articles. You're not being censored, you're going over ground that's been covered many times on these articles, and being informed as to the guidelines that need to be met for such activities. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

OK seriously, why are we feeding this one? Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Educating, not feeding. For now. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Go look at reference #23 as a "reliable source" to explain the tiny debris pile and dust everywhere several inches thick. What page number in reference #23 explains this? Same to U about "Good Faith" editing!

On no! The truths! Hide the children... (in fact, i think this is just a troll.)Bali ultimate (talk) 20:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Please don't poke fun at the user here. WP:BITE and WP:NPA apply here on ANI as much as anywhere else.

It's clear to me that Raquel is trying to do things which Misplaced Pages is not here for, including WP:SOAP etc. However, that needs to be politely communicated, and she needs to be given the opportunity to contribute in a positive manner. I left long message on her talk page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I hafta go for about 72-hours. I also promise to be more careful in the Discussion Pages but please don't ban me or erase anything I've written! If U want me to erase or edit something, please discuss it on my Talk Page before erasing what I have written! Raquel Baranow (talk) 21:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

What you have written remains in the article history - but content that is not sourced to reliable references may be removed from the page. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• Just for the curious :D --WebHamster 21:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
  • omai. //roux   21:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

"My purpose here at Wiki is to establish the truth". With the best will in the world, on her own talk page this editor claims to have been around since 2005; if s/he hasn't got the clue by now, and does not move forward, it has to be "kiss, kiss, bye-bye". Without the kisses. We have far too many such editors and give them far too much leeway as it is. Absent a severe change of attitude, it's time for a kick+door scenario. --Rodhullandemu 01:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I started out in 2005 an then quit and came back a coupla months ago. Why do U write "s/he" my name is Raquel.

This whole issue stems from a discussion-page about "Controlled Demolition" at the World Trade Center. The way the article is written, it is unsourced as to why there was such a tiny debris-pile and huge cloud of dust which settled over Manhattan several inches deep. The most logical explaination, which many other researchers are saying to explain that is Thermobaric Bombs were placed inside the WTCs, which complerely pulverized the two-100-story buildings. Google, Thermobaric + wtc. U guys are ganging up on me 'cause U don't wanna face reality or???? Raquel Baranow (talk) 15:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Raquel - This is not the location to argue about content or what "the most logical explanation is." As you may be aware, we care not for the "most logical explanation" or answers to questions like "why there was such a tiny debris pile?" Instead, we care to best reflect what a preponderance of reliable sources report, and have policies for dealing with fringe beliefs, a general disregard for the "Truth", and policies for editor conduct (of particular interest to you may be one on how to deal with disruption). You may think wikipedia's approach is wrong, or stupid, or something else. If so, you don't have to participate here. If you are going to participate here, you need to abide by the local rules and standards. If you stay and don't abide, there will be sanctions and that won't be censorship -- just as tossing a shirtless guy out of a private club (who insists ignoring the dress code is a form of free speech) isn't censorship either.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

let me add that wikipedia is intended (like any encyclopedia) to be unextraordinary, unrevelatory, and non-specultive: everything short of dull, pretty much. when and if the world gets to the place where you can suggest that the twin towers were destroyed by thermobaric bombs and most people will look at you and say "yeah... so what?" - then that information belongs on wikipedia. probably not before, though... --Ludwigs2 18:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• Sigh* I get the feeling that this isn't the last time we'll be dragged into this debate. But can someone please explain to me why, when there are myriad blogs and forums, do the fringe and conspiracy theorists have to come here? Why do they have to try and insert their unproven theories and 'evidence` into perfectly good articles? When, Raquel, are you and your compatriots going to realize that Misplaced Pages simply doesn't care, about your theories, or 'the truth'? If reliable, third party sources discover that it was a plot and it turns out that those bloody towers were thermobarically demolished, then I'll happily admit I was wrong; hell, I'll add the paragraphs and sources myself. Until then, you can politely take your huge cloud of dust and your tiny pile of debris, and shove them.

Yours, Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 13:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

If U Google, Thermobaric + wtc, U will see many reliable sources for bomb in the WTC, which puverized everything and left a tiny debris pile. If U want I'll sort through them and tell U about the aurhors (some are University professors, some are Archetects & engineers, etc.) The Government's 9-11 report never examined or explained why there was such a small debris pile and so much dust everywhere but it seems obvious to anyone with an open mind that a bomb musta done it.

So what's the problem here? All I'm trying to do is add a topic catagory at the [http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Controlled_demolition_hypothesis_for_the_collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center#Evidence_of_Explosion:_What_Kind_of_Bomb_Could_Have_Pulverized_Everything.3F "Controlled Demolition" article at the WTC. I already showed that the critical paragraph at the article was unsourced and poorly sourced (i.e, first the link was broken and now it's linked to an 18MB PDF with no page reference.)

Again, I didn't tamper with the article, I merely wanna discuss adding a new section to the article to discuss the probability of a bomb. Raquel Baranow (talk) 13:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I personally am always open to new ideas and theories, and if you post some links on my talk page, I'll certainly have a look with as open a mind as possible. Whether or not it's 'obvious' that your theory is correct is up for debate, but I'm afriad Misplaced Pages isn't the place for those debates. I must admit that I haven't had a chance to read through all of your edits, and all of the background material, so I can't make any judgements, but just looking at the link you provided above, it seems that you're trying to discuss a hypothesis, and provide evidence for your theory. Like I said before, this isn't the place for you to prove that your theory of events happened. Nor is it a place to discuss how the towers may have been destroyed. Misplaced Pages is here to document what mainstream media have reported about the event, and what has been reported about other theories. Whether the towers were destroyed by terrorists with a plane, someone with a thermobaric device or the Teletubbies with cuteness, is beside the point. This isn't the X-Files, and while 'the truth' may be out there we aren't here to report it before it can be suitably verified. Get your theory published and peer reviewed, and then we can talk.

Yours, Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 14:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

It does cite a page reference. I added it yesterday, in case you didn't notice. Hut 8.5 19:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Endorsing what Rodhullandemu said, I support the indefinite block of this user. Let's not waste any more time on someone whose definition of reliable sources is "uh, it turned up in Google". WilliamH (talk) 22:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

These are not zero-tolerance types of abuse. The actual edits so far don't even justify a brief block - warnings, explanations, yes. If they edit articles obstinately with these beliefs and don't get it after an extended period of time, that rises to the level of disruption. But they're not there right now.

Please don't overreact. This is an education problem at the moment. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The off-wiki website initially posted on this user's page is filled with unscholarly, antisemitic, holocaust-denying statements. This user wilfully chose to make the link to their website, which promotes racial hatred with offensive videos like this. What benefit can wikipedia possibly derive from the contributions of such individuals? Raquel Baranow's continued presence would presumably allow her to add to wikipedia her controversial views that gas chambers and Zyklon B were solely for defumigating louse-ridden clothes and that the Talmud is "junk". By previously posting this link to her hate website on her user page, Raquel Baranow would appear to have forfeited the right to edit wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 06:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has been patiently trying to explain things to the user, which is what I hoped for when starting this thread. Unfortunately, the user is playing the "I can't hear you" game and is very likely to continue making contributions that are only disruptive and violating policies. As a result, I think it would be a good idea to place an indefinite block until such time as the user agrees to follow policy. We need to protect our volunteers from wasting time dealing with somebody who is obviously a deep believer in conspiracy and fringe theories, to the point that they will our behavioral and editorial norms to accomplish their agenda. Attempts to educate the user may continue, and the user could be unblocked if those attempts prove successful. Jehochman 08:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm NOT "playing the 'I can't hear U game" (see my Talk-page) . . . the problems I have is with Ur concept of "reliable sources" and with ppl erasing what I have written on Discussion pages, which I hoped would lead to an intelligent discussion rather than someone just erasing it hoping I would go away or get banned. Think of all the ppl suffering respritory diseases due to the explosions at the WTCs now (there is a wiki-article about respritory problems from rescue workers at the WTC) they deserve an explaination as to why they are suffering and dieing!

The only thing I linked to my website was the CIA Killed JFK Page where I have numerous pictures of the Three Tramps arrested after the Kennedy assassination. I suggested that the pics are worth 1000 words and should be posted on the article about the Three Tramps. I never posted a link to my Holocaust-page!

When the article in discussion (Controlled Demolition of the WTC) is a "fringe theory" U hafta rely on "Unreliable sources" to explain it. right? IMO: the person who erased what I wrote on the discussion page is the one who should be disciplined here, not me. What I wrote on the "Controlled Demolition" page should remain for further reference until there is a "reliable source" we can all agree on. Or, the article should include a section on the current theory of "Controlled Demolition," which is "Thermobaric Bombs." The archives, which I have read prior to writing on the discussion-page mention "mini-nukes" but that explaination is not the current theory, Thermobaric Bombs best explain the tiny debris pile at Ground Zero and several inches of pulverized concrete, etc. throughout lower Manhattan.

Sarcastic: Leave a comment on the Controlled Demolition Topic I started so that when I do find an article that may be "reliable" U can help me add a section to the "Controlled Demolition" Page about Thermobaric Bombs (I don't know html very well).

Mathsci is raising an issue that has been dealt with it is in the past and WTF, I use my website as a link on hundreds of blogs, etc. . . . this is the first place I have ever had a problem with it! . . . someone took the liberty of erasing the link to my website from MY Userpage (I read that U'r NOT supposed to edit other ppl's Userpages), both my address & website . . . I had no real objection. . . . The H-denial page is poorly written and biased . . . many other ppl have agreed. I am an expert on H-denial . . . so, is that a thought-crime worthy of banning me before I've done anything wrong!?

Peace & Love, Raquel Baranow (talk) 14:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Users can remove links to hateful sites as per the rules  rdunnPLIB  14:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Blogs cannot be reliably used in a case like this so I suggest Block per Misplaced Pages:General sanctions.  rdunnPLIB  14:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• Agree with Jehochman. Georgewilliamherbert has done a sterling job in explaining, but there is only so far one can extend good faith. WilliamH (talk) 16:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

My site explains what H-denial is as well as Global Warming, Exponential World Population Growth, Peak Oil, The Economics of the Current crisis ($531-Trillion, yes trillion in the Derivatives market), Eliminating Money, the 9/11 Fraud, etc. etc. (I don't believe in UFO's . . . I have a webpage on my website about the unlikely-hood of life anywhere else but Earth.) U ppl that mock me for my beliefs probably never read a good H-denial book or know what H-denial is.

So, this is MOB RULE! U guys should realize, "Democracy is one level above tyranny." -- Plato, Republic.

The only reason I used my website was it had ALL the pics of the alleged Tramps in one place. I put my website on my Usre-Page so others could know more about me . . . someone else removed it, I have no problem with that. I have NOT really caused any problems here except for those who don't wanna hear the other side . . . I have NOT repeated anything that has been said before. U guys are making a BIG deal outta nothing! It's like U wanna censor anything that U disagree with! U don't even wanna discuss it! No wonder Wiki has such a BAD reputation when U wanna refer to it for anything.

Raquel Baranow (talk) 16:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

We are not interested in the content of your site; as the owner of that site, you have an obvious conflict of interest which precludes you using it as a source when editing. Your description of your site appears to be using this discussion as a forum to promote your political views, rather than addressing the Misplaced Pages policy issues at stake here. Discussions of history are not simply a matter of opinion; there is also a requirement for credible evidence. I may disagree with a theory, but if there's evidence to support it, and historians out there in the rest of the world use that evidence to back that theory, I can't argue that the theory shouldn't be represented on this site. However, if there isn't the evidence, or the theory has no credible advocates, then it doesn't get covered. And I really can't stress enough that you need to read and understand WP:TRUTH. This is not a site to publish new revelations or dramatic and controversial new theories. We proceed on a basis of consensus and verification, and if that means we lack novel interpretations of material, so be it.

As a courtesy to others, by the way, would you refrain from using shorthand like 'U', 'Wiki', and 'H-denial', please? Your views will be better regarded for being expressed clearly and in plain language. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:47, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Alex: U will see below that I have stopped abbreviating stuff . . . I'm also not too good at spelling. Raquel Baranow (talk) 20:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

People here in this thread have mocked me and brought off-topic issues into this so I'm defending myself . . . this has turned into a pile-on of my beliefs rather than my editing technique. I pretty much "get it" of where ur comming from. My problem seems to be your definition of "reliable source." But when U write an article on a fringe theory (Holocaust Denial, Kennedy assassination conspiracy, Controlled Demolition of WTC) and you're NOT allowed to quote directly from the people who espouse these ideas because their ideas are "fringe," COI, SOAP, TRUTH etc. etc. you're left with nothing. The words you use are like Double-Think. U guys are sooooo wrapped up in Double Think, you can't see through it. It takes an outsider, like me to show how your words and techniques for editing promote one-sided explainations. I thought Discussion-pages were supposed to be used for improving an article! How have any of my discussions NOT sought in Good Faith to improve the articles in question?!

U guys have made ad-hominum attacks on me by refering to my videos (I'm not too photogenic). I am a very smart person. Soooo smart, I went from homelessness to millionaire.

The only reason we're here is because someone erased what I wrote on the Discussion Page for Controlled Demolition. IMO, that was sooooooo wrong! The people who died in that tragedy, the phony war in Iraq 9/11 caused and the people who are dieing from respritory problems deserve an explaination of what happened that day. Our government has NOT offered a plausable explaination for the tiny debris pile and toxic dust several inches deep. U faceless/nameless people attacking me should be ashamed of yourselves!

Raquel Baranow (talk) 17:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

If you're that smart, would you like to acknowledge and act on my final comment relating to the use of language, please? You currently do yourself no favours. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

←Actually, Raquel, if you actually read the criticisms of your edits you'll see that what is being attacked is not your theory, nor you (with some exceptions on both counts, and GWH's comments on civility in this forum are well made). What is being debated is that there are no reliable sources, in WP terms, for what you are claiming. If you can come up with reliable, verifiable sources, please do so. You may feel that by definition "the Government" or "they" are in control of what we're terming "reliable sources". If so, then so be it. You may have a slightly wrong idea about what WP is. It is not a vehicle for the Truth. It is a tertiary encyclopædic source, reporting what has already been reported elsewhere. That is what it's for. That is why it is neither a vehicle for original research nor a platform to "give explainations to the people who died" (I suspect it would take more than WP to offer explanations to the dead anyway). Please read, rather than discounting as "attacks by faceless/nameless people" what has been said, read the pages you're being pointed to, such as WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOT and WP:FRINGE (that last is not intended as an insult, please read it to discover why. Tonywalton  17:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Alright, okay . . . I really appreciate you tolorating me this long. It has really opened my eyes . . . I have looked for books like, "Misplaced Pages for Dummies" and critical books about editorial process here. It sounds shocking that you admit you're not interested in Truth, etc. Sounds like Orwellian Double-Think and Thought Control to me. I thought the purpose of discussion pages was to improve the article. I see your points. I'll read all you have suggested and any books too. Thanks! :) Raquel Baranow (talk) 20:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Looking for a book? Look no further than Misplaced Pages: The Missing Manual. – ukexpat (talk) 20:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Nope, WP isn't about the truth (or The Truth either, come to that. This may come as a shock, I agree. The applicable part of WP:V says very clearly "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." There's even an essay on it, here. It's not that "we" (and I speak for myself, not the thousands of other editors) are not interested in "truth", just that that is not, basically, what WP is about. WP is about re-presenting and correlating pre-existing information. The standard (reached by consensus though this is ultimately not a democracy) is as stated here. Maybe you could try being part of the process of reaching consensus on occasion, rather than throwing around baseless accusations of editors being "faceless/nameless people". As for "the Government" remember that this is very much a global project; your "the Government" isn't my "the Government"; we get all sorts on here. This is taking up a lot of space here, please feel free to continue the discussion on my talkpage. Tonywalton  20:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's resolve this! I'm kinda new here . . . I had a heart attack five days ago, have a problem with my best friend of 15-years . . . I thought I could improve some articles which I'm an expert in or have some knowledge of and accidently got into hot water . . . I'd like to just cool it now . . . I plan to go on vacation in a coupla weeks. I'd like to retain my abality to comment on and edit innocuous articles. Thanks everyone! I copied this entire discussion to my talk-page for further reference. Raquel Baranow (talk) 23:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Heart attack

You said on WP:AN/I you'd had a heart attack a short time ago, Regardless of anything to do with edits on Misplaced Pages, best wishes for a swift recovery! Tonywalton  00:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Ack! I'm very sorry to hear about that happening to you. Yes. Please don't stress out over this. Your health is important. Best wishes for a smooth recovery and long healthy life from here... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)