User talk:Complete Truth

Regarding your edit to Steven E. Jones:

Your recent edit to Steven E. Jones (diff) was reverted by automated bot. You have been identified as a new user or a logged out editor using a hosting or shared IP address to add email addresses, phone numbers, YouTube, Geocities, Myspace, Facebook, blog, or forum links to a page. Please note that such links are generally to be avoided. You can restore any other content by editing the page and re-adding that content. The links can be reviewed and restored by established users. Thank you for contributing! // VoABot II 21:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Judy Wood

If you don't mind me asking, where exactly did you hear about the deletion discussion for her article? I ask this as you don't seem to be a regular Wikipedia contributor and we don't exactly advertise AFD discussions. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 19:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It's linked at the top of Judy Wood's page. Complete Truth 23:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

What I meant is, is it being brought up at any off-wiki forums or blogs? It attracted a lot more attention in its first few hours than most AfDs do in their entire 5 day discussions. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 23:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

There are a lot of people involved in exposing Dr Wood's work. We know it's the single most important thing to do at the present time. Martial Law is coming to the United States. The North American Union is going to replace the US, Mexico and Canada. If you want a reason why wiki's "reliable sources" have not covered Dr Wood's material yet, watch this 10 minute video and you'll see. Pay special attention to the words that the newscasters on different channels use on a developing story on live TV. Complete Truth 23:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

But was her deletion discussion brought up anywhere but here [Wikipedia]? Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 23:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I will gladly answer your question. But I must first ask you to watch that video and give an opinion on it. (An opinion based on critical thinking.) Complete Truth 23:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It definitely is, at the least, "very suspicious" especially the language used immeadately after the blast. However, I am still somewhat skeptical. If it was a coordinated government conspiracy, it was not coordinated very well, NBC must not have gotten the memo. Also, if it was some sort of directed energy weapon, where did the explosion come from? The only explosive material that may have been in the towers would be gas lines. Did the government also manage to bring a few hundred pounds of high-explosive into the towers as well, without anyone noticing? Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 00:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Excellent questions. It's possible explosives were planted too. This would have been done to fool the "truth movement" down the controlled demolition road, and divert from exotic weaponry. One day after 9/11, the Vice President of the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology and demolitions expert, Van Romero, said in a local NM paper that he could tell it was a controlled demolition just by watching the TV. He specifically said that the towers could have been taken down with a "relatively small amount of explosives". However... it was recently discovered that Romero has ties to the Directed Energy Professional Society! He was obviously planted to fool people. The truth movement is completely infiltrated with agents. Greg Jenkins for example, the one who did that ambush video interview of Dr Wood, has ties to Los Alomas. And his previous work was funded by the NSA. Anyway, to answer your first question, I know of no forums or blogs where the deletion discussion was publicized. But Dr Wood's dustification theory is already proven. Look at the animation on the top of this page. Where'd the towers go? Where's the hundreds of tons of steel? Where's the building contents (i.e.desks, chairs, bookcases, computers, xerox machines, water coolers, filing cabinets, doors, sinks, toilets, etc)? Certainly something mysterious happened at the WTC... Complete Truth 01:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Steven E. Jones

I was reading too much about Steven E. Jones and the exposions and now I am reading for he is part of the conspiracy theory and the coverup. He is not for real? THERE WERE NO AIRPLANES? This is too hard to believe! What did President Bush and other top USA officials do for 9/11? Do you know of PNAC? Were they the ones have anything to do with the mysteries? I thank you to show me some links. Babalooo 04:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It is hard to believe. But it turns out all the evidence fits together. PNAC is a cover. Anything and everything that's ever mentioned in the corporate media is propaganda. Head on over here and learn what really happened!! Complete Truth 04:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I just watch the link. I don't think there real. Video can be always easily fake. Many people see the 2 planes with their eyes not on TV. What of them? Are they part of the coverup? 500,000 in Manhatten who see the 2 planes with their eyes? Are they all conspiracy theorists? Babalooo 04:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

See one of my new blogs for the answers Complete Truth 04:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

3RR

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing. --Aude (talk) 21:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Recent edit

Do not remove others' comments from talk page. Thank you. JoshuaZ 00:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, photographs are not reliable sources. Wikipedia policy is verifiability, not truth. Furthermore, your comments about demanding how anyone can sleep and other remarks are not civil and are unnecessarily strident. Please calm down. JoshuaZ 01:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I said those things for a purpose and stand by them 100%. Complete Truth 06:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Biographical material about living people

You have made an edit that could be regarded as defamatory. Please do not restore this material to the article or its talk page. If you do, you may be blocked for disruption. See the blocking policy. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Judy Wood nonsense

Would you please stop adding Judy Wood's nonsense to 9/11 articles? It is a ridiculous and extereme fringe theory. Pablo Talk | Contributions 06:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Dr Wood's theories are based on scientific princibles and I firmly believe that she is 100% right. Instead of calling her theories "nonsense" (which is exactly what the 9/11 perps want you to do), how about looking at the evidence for yourself? Complete Truth 06:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I have looked at the evidence, and almost everyone disagrees with her. Your 100% certainty that she is right does not qualify as grounds for inclusion in the article. Pablo Talk | Contributions 06:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not a manner of you or I agreeing or not agreeing with Judy Wood. It's a manner of the scientific evidence she shows and her involvement in the 9/11 Truth Movement. You said that "you" looked at the evidence. And then you say "almost everyone" disagrees with her. Who is "almost everyone"? What specific issues do YOU not agree with? Complete Truth 07:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring on Steven E. Jones

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Weregerbil 07:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

3RR on Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Pablo Talk | Contributions 07:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:3RR

A WP:3RR report has been filed on you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. Please stop edit warring. Thank you. Weregerbil 07:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPA

Please stop taunting and making up theories about other editors' motives in your edit summaries. Thank you. Weregerbil 08:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Please stop pushing your own POV by censoring information. Complete Truth 08:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:WEIGHT. Pablo Talk | Contributions 08:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[1] made on July 16 2007 to Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center

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 08:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

3RR on Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Pablo Talk | Contributions 01:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Pablothegreat85 is removing information that should be in the article. Why do you allow this? Last time, he reverted more times than I did, yet you blocked me. What is your objective? Complete Truth 01:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I did not block you and I did not make more reverts than you did (I don't think you realize that I am Pablothegreat85). Pablo Talk | Contributions 01:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

No I did not realize that. In this case we can discuss this, since there's no third person. Why are you removing the DED/Kirtland Air Force Base info? What is the purpose of removing it? Please explain. Also please explain why you didn't respond to my earlier comment (above) asking you to describe specific issues that Dr Wood brought up that you disagree with. Complete Truth 01:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

This is exactly why I removed it. The addition misrepresented the source. I didn't respond to the earlier comment because I never saw it. I will respond now. I disagree with Judy Wood's theories because they ignore so many things that have been learned about the collapse of the Twin Towers. It is unimportant how I feel, however, because my personal opinions don't beling in the article (nor do yours). Pablo Talk | Contributions 01:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

You're right, personal opinions don't belong in the articles, which is why I like these user pages! Please explain specifically what Dr Wood ignores. Are you aware, btw, that NIST ignored the vast majority of data points that Judy Wood addresses? Complete Truth 01:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Since I don't have all night to write about her, I'll address perhaps my biggest beef I have with her and her research. The demolition she uses in comparison is the Kingdome. I believe that her research depends heavily upon her observations and comparison of the Kingdome and WTC collapse. First, the Kingdome is a much, much smaller building, and is therefore a terrible building to use for a comparison. Second, the Kingdome had all of its furniture removed; it was just a skeleton when it was demolished (this means less dust). Third, the Kingdome was not hit by an airliner travelling 500+ mph. Fourth, when she shows picture comparing the aftermath of the two collapses, she is completely unaware of scale. Ground Zero was much, much larger than the area that the Kingdome remains took up. I'm sure there are more problems I have with this comparison, but these are the only ones I could think of right away. Pablo Talk | Contributions 04:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

You said the towers were bigger. Why then, were the seismic impacts insignificant?

Note what Shyam Sunder at this NCST meeting says: [2]. mp3 file: [3].

"The signals' strength due to the collapse of the towers were not of any magnitude that was seismically significant from an earthquake design standpoint or from the design or a failure of a structural component or of I would say of a piping system that might be used in a structure, so ah there wasn't anything that gave us pause in terms of that being a significant seismic event to have ruptured the pipeline."

Also, regarding Dr Wood's Request for Correction to NIST archived on the US Dept of Commerce website, please explain why I can't post a link to it, as well as NIST's reply. Thanks. [4]

Complete Truth 03:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Peak oil

I removed the video link you placed at that article. The video never goes into any level of detail that is useful, and the whole premise which ties all of his data points together is unfounded. He says the US can never drill in Alaska because of OPEC's investment in the national debt. In fact, the biggest holder of debt is Japan, followed by China, UK, Brazil... and then all the "oil exporters" combined (owning about 1/6 what Japan owns). Also, if what he says about the gold trap in the 80s is true, it would hold true for the debt as well (we sell them all this debt when the dollar's worth a lot, then the dollar tanks and they're up a creek while we export goods all over the world again). NJGW (talk) 05:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Free energy suppressors

Hey hello,

I thought perhaps you could lend a hand researching the topic (on the talk page). - Thanks - , Go-here.nl (talk) 04:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

September 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on John Hutchison. 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 a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Enigma ^message 06:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Why are you breaking wikipedia rules by adding "message board" links?

Complete Truth (talk) 06:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for a period of 24 hours for disruptive editing. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator. For alternative methods to appeal, see Wikipedia:Appealing a block. Daniel Case (talk) 15:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Notice of ArbCom decision

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. Before any such sanctions are imposed, editors are to be put on notice of the decision. This notice is not to be taken as implying any inappropriate behaviour on your part, merely to warn you of the Arbitration Committee's decision. Thank you. Hut 8.5 18:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)