User talk:Brian78046

Welcome!

Hello, Brian78046, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! DougsTech (talk) 08:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 10:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry warning

Please be aware that when you make edits under an IP address, then make the same edits as a registered user, some might accuse you of sock puppetry. I see that you still haven't taken my comments over on the IP's talk page to heart. Since this is the only article you've edited, I'm starting to believe that you're essentially a single-purpose account. No there's nothing wrong (in terms of policy) of being an SPA, but you need to be aware that your edit patterns demonstrate a single-minded effort to insert your opinions about NORAD's culpability in the 9/11 attacks. As I've noted repeatedly on the IP talk page, our definition of original research includes using legitimate references to synthesize a conclusion that is not included in those references. When reliable sources start stating the things you allege are "facts" in the way you state them, then they are appropriate for the article. Until then, your conclusions, regardless of their validity, is simply not appropriate for Wikipedia, and might be better suited for a web forum or a blog. AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My post is based on old research, not new. You believe my research is new because it is the first time you have heard about NORAD's operational air sovereignty mission before 9/11. This is all new to you, but not to the history of NORAD as cited in my impeccable citations.

By the way, you will notice that citation #11 is new. This citation is dated 1 April 2000 and is the Air Force's AIR DEFENSE COMMAND AND CONTROL OPERATIONS instructions report in force on September 11, 2001 (as a matter of fact, the document is still current according to the Air Force Departmental Publishing Office Customer Service Desk). The Air Force report provides instruction and the references that outline procedures to be followed by units/elements of the Air Combat Command (ACC) Air Defense System (ADS).

Chapter 3 (page 9) says, "CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES REGION AIR OPERATIONS CENTER (CONUS RAOC) 3.1. Mission. The First Air Force Commander (1 AF/CC), in his role as the CONUS NORAD Region Commander, provides CINCNORAD/Commander US Element NORAD with TW/AA, surveillance and control of the airspace of the United States and appropriate response against air attack."

My posting on NORAD now has a citation not only current for September 11, 2001, but the Air Force report is still current to boot.

Regards,

Dean Jackson

Washington, DC

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brian78046 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Veggy (talk) 00:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Your account has been blocked because you blatantly used it to evade the block on your IP which resulted from your 3RR violation, an editing pattern which you clearly continued with this account. I warned you before that the kind of editing that you are determined to engage in will not be tolerated. Wikipedia is not your soapbox. AKRadecki^Speaketh 00:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Why was my contribution to American Airlines Flight 77 removed? I cited a document from the United States District Court of Virginia (http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/flights/P200055.html) that says Ted Olson received one phone call from his wife Barbara Olson that lasted zero seconds! The Justice Department says the phone call was an "unconnected call". Why would Wiki want to spike this factual news, but allow the grossly erroneous, and outdated information on Ted Olson's phone calls from Barbara Olson?

Since when were Federal Judicial documents considered inconsequential by Wiki?

Dean Jackson Washington, DC

At this point, I'm more focused on your deliberate attempt to circumvent our policies. Doing so doesn't exactly do much for your credibility. AKRadecki^Speaketh 00:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In an effort to be fair to you and what you are trying to add, I went and looked at your ref. What I found does not support your assertions, and is an excellent illustration of why our reliable sources policy is so vital to the project. The source does not say at all what you are saying in your edits, your conclusions are generated by you, which is clearly original research. The source you quote only says that a single call from Olsen's seat (3E, IIRC) was made to DoJ and was not connected. This source does not say that this was the only call made by her. You might notice that the other sources quote her call as saying she and the other pax were moved to the back of the plane, so it is perfectly logical that any subsequent calls by her wouldn't have been from that particular seat phone. In case you hadn't noticed, there were several other calls made from unidentified passengers, and when that fact is correlated with other phone records, the existing sources which state that she made 2 calls is entirely plausible. This illustrates why we rely on reliable sources, meaning primarily mainstream media and other such sources, to vet the information here. What is clear to me is that you have a particular agenda that you are trying to push, that you come to your own conclusions based on selective interpretation of a single ambiguous primary (not secondary) source, and that you are trying to use Wikipedia against our policies as a soapbox to push your conspiracy theory. Thus, you can consider this to be your final warning: continued deliberate attempts to circumvent our policies, whether our 3RR policy or our policy on reliable sources, will result in an indefinite block of your account. AKRadecki^Speaketh 02:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I have to admit, your reading of the Court's website material is correct! I can't prove Barbara Olson didn't make those two calls claimed based on the FBI's data. My apologies.

Also, the last thing I would ever do is to evade the facts and push an agenda with no regards to the facts! That is not the way I was brought up. I do have an agenda, that is true, but I would never intentionally allow an agenda to dictate what I write once I've been shown to be in the wrong.

Anyway, my estimation of Wiki has increased, and I'm thankful you were around to delete my postings nearly as soon as I posted them! How embarrassing if my erroneous comment had been allowed to remain!!!

Regards,

Dean Jackson Washington, DC

PS

Speaking off the record on Flight 77. Did you see the CNN interview with 9/11 Commissioner Tim Roemer? Take a look (it's only 31 seconds long):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UX01twhfUK4&feature=related

Now I live in Washington, DC and several years ago a work colleague (whom I was bugging about 9/11) told me he had a discussion with a Ronald Reagan National Airport official who informed him that on 9/11 the Pentagon had six anti-aircraft missiles on the premises (five on the roof hidden in fake A/C coverings and one hidden on the ground). This account by my work colleague matches perfectly (except for the sixth missile) with the other testimonies of Pentagon missiles, most notably by Ronald Reagan Advisor Barbara Honegger and French researcher Thierry Meyssan (Thierry Meyssan says he was told of the missiles by French and Jordanian military officers who were given a tour of the Pentagon).

No matter what you might think of Thierry Meyssan and Barbara Honegger, it's interesting that my work colleague's airport contact would repeat the same thing (except the Ronald Reagan airport official included a sixth missile battery, and disclosed where the missile batteries on the roof were hidden).

Also, the Pentagon itself has its own air traffic control room in the basement that watches all incoming aircraft from 300 miles out, and they use primary radar to do this (if an aircraft's transponder goes off, the military still sees the aircraft via primary radar/satellite tracking).

When you add all this up, you might be able to understand why I have an agenda on 9/11.

It's fine to have an agenda. I'd suggest you checkout blogspot.com...that might be a better place to publish. One of the reason's I maintain a blog there is because it's easy to use and there's no one else putting their nose into what I write. AKRadecki^Speaketh 23:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Collapse of the World Trade Center

I saw your fruitless efforts on Collapse of the World Trade Center. I fixed it for you. Now you please study how to edit on WIkipedia before you make any further edits. For the benefit of us all. Thank you. Debresser (talk) 21:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

9/11 arbitration case

In a 2008 arbitration case administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any user working on articles concerning the September 11, 2001 attacks. If you continue with the behaviour on Collapse of the World Trade Center, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. Thank you. --Aude (talk) 04:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please take time to review Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, especially those regarding use of reliable sources and fringe theories --Aude (talk) 04:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

October 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Collapse of the World Trade Center has been reverted, as it appears to introduce incorrect information. Please do not intentionally add incorrect information to articles. All information in this encyclopedia must be verifiable in a reliable, published source. If you believe the information that you added was correct, please cite the references or sources or before making the changes, discuss them on the article's talk page. Please use the sandbox for testing. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Ginsengbomb (talk) 05:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did with this edit to Collapse of the World Trade Center. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Ginsengbomb (talk) 05:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did with this edit to Collapse of the World Trade Center. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Ginsengbomb (talk) 05:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Van Romero's remark is under the heading, "Initial opinions and analysis." My quote from Van Romero IS his INITIAL opinion! You may want to read the last sentence in his so-called retraction. Van Romero says, "I'm not trying to say anything did or didn't happen." That is NOT a retraction!

And you took down the comment for Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, which has to date, 928 signatures of professional architects and engineers demanding a new investigation into how the towers collapsed! How can Wikipedia ignore nearly 1,000 architects and engineers! Why would you delete this?

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Collapse of the World Trade Center. Ginsengbomb (talk) 05:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In case it helps explain why I am continuing to treat your edits as inappropriate, I will use one example -- you continue to add a quote from an individual that your own cited article clearly states was later -retracted-. Please stop. Thank you. Ginsengbomb (talk) 05:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. DMacks (talk) 05:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits, such as those you made to Collapse of the World Trade Center. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. I may not block you, but this article is a special enforcement zone, so you will be blocked if you continue to add conspiracy theory information to this article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In your last comment to me you said I was blocked because my Van Romero comment was deceptive because Romero changed his mind. My Romero comment was legitimate because I placed Romero's observation under the heading "Initial opinions and analysis". Since Romero's initial comment was placed under the heading "Initial opinions and analysis," why would you find fault with it? This makes no sense. Initial means first, not last! Now you say I may be blocked for posting conspiracy theory.

What conspiracy theory are you talking about? It is a fact that New Mexico Tech's Van Romero's INITIAL observation was that "well placed" explosives brought down the towers.

It is a fact that there are 940 professional architects and engineers that are demanding a new investigation into the collapse of the towers.

It is a fact that NIST didn't test for explosives, and it is a fact that NIST spokesman Michael Newman says there is "no need" to do such testing, even though the towers and WTC 7 exhibited all the signs of demolition. Why wouldn't NIST simply test the dust they have from Ground Zero for explosives? Such tests would surely destroy the 9/11 Truth Movement if no explosives were to be found.

Your edit says that NIST says there were no explosives in the towers, yet you fail to say that NIST failed to test for explosives in the towers! This is gross sophistry on your part.

Dean Jackson Washington, DC

Not in order.

Romero's comment might be appropriate, if sourced to a credible source. I didn't check whether you did so.
The references you mis-added as external links are not allowable in this article, being 9/11 conspiracy theory sites. Refuting some of your specific claims:
1. It is a fact that an organization claims to have "940 professional architects and engineers that are demanding a new investigation into the collapse of the towers." In most cases, there is no supporting evidence that (a) they are "architects and engineers", and (b) that they signed up, as opposed to 911AE using their names without permission. Furthermore, even if it were correct, it wouldn't be notable, among the hundreds of thousands of engineers.
2. NIST says both that there were no explosives in the towers, and that they didn't feel the need to test. That's different than your statement that they didn't test, and the assertion that "WTC 7 exhibited all the signs of demolition" is not credible, nor referenced to a credible source. Your assertion that testing the dust for themates (technically, not "explosives", as you claim here), and finding none, would "destroy the 9/11 Truth Movement" is absurd.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And, in case you haven't been warned about this before,

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Collapse of the World Trade Center. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Rubin,

I will contact the Albuquerque Journal in an attempt to get a copy of Van Romero's September 12, 2001 article.

Regards,

Dean Jackson Washington, DC

That's not the only problem with your edits. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Vandalism. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]