Hmm...Wikipedia changed its article on the World Trade Center bombing

KansDem

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Nov-28-05 01:50 PM
Original message

Hmm...Wikipedia changed its article on the World Trade Center bombing

The first WTC attack in 1993...

The article used to conclude with a section describing FBI involvement in the planning process. However, that section has disappeared.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_bombing

But it used to contain information very similar to this:

Law-enforcement officials were told that terrorists were building
a bomb that was eventually used to blow up the World Trade Center,
and they planned to thwart the plotters by secretly substituting
harmless powder for the explosives, an informer said after
the blast.

The informer was to have helped the plotters build the bomb
and supply the fake powder, but the plan was called off by
an F.B.I. supervisor who had other ideas about how the informer,
Emad Salem, should be used, the informer said.

The account, which is given in the transcript of hundreds of
hours of tape recordings that Mr. Salem secretly made of his
talks with law-enforcement agents, portrays the authorities as
being in a far better position than previously known to foil
the February 26th bombing of New York City's tallest towers.

and...

The transcript quotes Mr. Salem as saying that he wanted to
complain to F.B.I. Headquarters in Washington about the
Bureau's failure to stop the bombing, but was dissuaded by
an agent identified as John Anticev.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/OK/wtcbomb.html

I wonder why Wikipedia removed this information? It was rather damaging to the FBI...

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Tesha

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Nov-28-05 01:51 PM
Response to Original message

1. Wikipedia can be edited by any yahoo.

If you think an article should say something different, simply go
there and edit it.

Tesha

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

ET Awful

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Nov-28-05 01:52 PM
Response to Original message

2. Wikipedia doesn't remove information, it's a cooperative project in which

readers edit and contribute information. If you feel the information should be there, edit the Wiki entry.

Wiki didn't remove the information, another reader did.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

yurbud

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Nov-28-05 01:53 PM
Response to Original message

3. false flags and agent provocateurs will make having an

honest foreign policy difficult.

They can always whip up a new enemy, and when you tell people about stuff like this,even though it is well documented throughout history.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

TechBear_Seattle

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Nov-28-05 01:55 PM
Response to Original message

4. Wikipedia doesn't change information: contributors do

If you want to see why a page has changed, look at the "Discussion" and "History" tabs.

Judging by what you posted, I would guess that the content was removed because it does not meet the standards of verified information and neutral point of view.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Jara sang

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Nov-28-05 01:57 PM
Response to Original message

5. Wikipedia sucks.

I reference it occaisionally, but I'm going to stop.

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/wikiwoo.htm
http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

alcibiades_mystery

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Nov-28-05 01:57 PM
Response to Original message

6. So change it back

Anyone can change an article in Wikipedia. There is no broad conspiracy as far as that's concerned.

:eyes:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

phaseolus

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Nov-28-05 01:58 PM
Response to Original message

7. The information's back in now

...as of a few minutes ago. Thanks, whoever did that...!

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

vonslagle

(100 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Nov-28-05 03:06 PM
Response to Original message

8. Obviously BushCo�

is working to conceal a fact that we all know:

They were working with the terrorists, and knew about the bombing long before it happened.

They had the Patriot Act ready to go beforehand, all they needed was a catastrophe, so all the sheeeple would go voluntarily into martial law.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

nolabels

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon Nov-28-05 03:16 PM
Response to Reply #8

9. Or worse they were the ones directing them

Corruption is a many faceted thing. What might look crooked to some would seem like doing ones job to another. They are sworn mostly to uphold the status quo from which their bread is buttered. Why would anyone think they as a lot or group might do something different on a wholesale level is beyond my comprehension.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Mon Apr 29th 2024, 10:02 PM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.