This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Tommy SUCKS
I added not supossitions, only the link to the PDF experts report of the last analysis of explosives the 11-M. These analysis has been made by 10 experts on behalf of the accusation and the defense and recorded in video to avoid manipulation during the analysis
-- Southofwatford 18:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC) This should state simply the description of the explosive without introducing disputed ideas about whether it was used in the Madrid bombings or not. At least until the trial for those bombings has been held at which point we can make some kind of judgement. Until then I suggest all that we need is the link, which already exists, to the page on the March 11th bombings. The "Smoking Gun" link should in my view go the same way as the section that it links to - in the bin. It is not neutral information, and should not be treated as such - as it forms part of a campaign of changes to English language accounts of the Madrid bombings by supporters of conspiracy theories.
I edited the suposed use in 11-M bombing because it is not a fact ¿or not?. It is only supossed and today there are a lot of clues in another direction. An there are more clues, as days are coming in this direction.
I reversed your edit. Read carefully the text, please:
allegedly...got it?. It is nor presented as a fact, but as a allegation. And, yes, it is a fact that the allegation has benn made. Randroide 17:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Two months after the Madrid bombings, the chief of the Police experts TEDAX, says at the commision that there was nitrogliceryn traces, two years later, says that he don't know nothing about explosives and he makes a mistake, he wants to say dynamite. He's a liar.
He's a liar just because you say it? Is it because he doesn't say what you wish to hear?
Randroide 10:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Just for the record, Randroide has in the past publicly admitted in other discussion pages to using Wikipedia to promote his own political agenda.
Randroide, an Encyclopedia, no matter how much this bothers you, is not for promoting what you believe to be "allegedly" true. You can use your objectivist pseudophilosophical pamphlets for that.
You should be banned from Wikipedia.
Just for the record:
Please, stop talking about me and start talking about the content of the articles. Thank you. Randroide 08:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Page 51, DNT is NOT in the Goma-2 ECO formula. This PDF is endorsed by the Spanish Ministerio de Industria Y Energía.
"El Pais" is contradicting a primary source. Randroide 13:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I disagree - the primary source in this case is the results of the analysis carried out on the explosives, which is what the El País source refers to. That primary source makes it clear that dinitrotolueno was found (in notably small quantities) in the master sample of Goma-2 ECO provided for comparison, and also in other samples of the same explosive recovered from different sites. So if anyone is contradicting the other source you cite then it is the scientists who carried out the analysis and the samples they used - not El País. Southofwatford 13:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Obviously, there´s something wrong here.
I suggest to wait until the official report is released. Randroide 13:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, we should wait because they still haven't concluded all of the tests - but the issue that requires explanation is the presence of DNT in samples of Goma-2 Eco, because there is no doubt from the analysis carried out that it was present in different samples of that explosive. Southofwatford 14:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
...[]...en todos los escenarios de la matanza -piso de Leganés; vías del AVE en Mocejón (Toledo); mochila de Vallecas y Renault Kangoo-, y en todos los focos de las explosiones -salvo en el piso de los terroristas- aparece esa sustancia. Y también se detecta en la muestra patrón de Goma 2 ECO de «Mina Conchita». Es decir; en ningún caso se puede mantener que el DNT es incompatible con esta dinamita y que necesariamente indica la presencia de titadyne, el explosivo habitual utilizado por ETA...[]...Expertos de la lucha antiterrorista consultados por ABC consideran por su parte que «probablemente hubiera sido bueno haber practicado antes esta prueba, porque habría resuelto las dudas de mucha gente y ahorrado acusaciones que se demuestran sin fundamento». [3]
Randroide 13:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Goma-2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://catedu.unizar.es/ciencias_aragon/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=155&Itemid=100&limit=1&limitstart=2When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:01, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Tommy SUCKS
I added not supossitions, only the link to the PDF experts report of the last analysis of explosives the 11-M. These analysis has been made by 10 experts on behalf of the accusation and the defense and recorded in video to avoid manipulation during the analysis
-- Southofwatford 18:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC) This should state simply the description of the explosive without introducing disputed ideas about whether it was used in the Madrid bombings or not. At least until the trial for those bombings has been held at which point we can make some kind of judgement. Until then I suggest all that we need is the link, which already exists, to the page on the March 11th bombings. The "Smoking Gun" link should in my view go the same way as the section that it links to - in the bin. It is not neutral information, and should not be treated as such - as it forms part of a campaign of changes to English language accounts of the Madrid bombings by supporters of conspiracy theories.
I edited the suposed use in 11-M bombing because it is not a fact ¿or not?. It is only supossed and today there are a lot of clues in another direction. An there are more clues, as days are coming in this direction.
I reversed your edit. Read carefully the text, please:
allegedly...got it?. It is nor presented as a fact, but as a allegation. And, yes, it is a fact that the allegation has benn made. Randroide 17:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Two months after the Madrid bombings, the chief of the Police experts TEDAX, says at the commision that there was nitrogliceryn traces, two years later, says that he don't know nothing about explosives and he makes a mistake, he wants to say dynamite. He's a liar.
He's a liar just because you say it? Is it because he doesn't say what you wish to hear?
Randroide 10:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Just for the record, Randroide has in the past publicly admitted in other discussion pages to using Wikipedia to promote his own political agenda.
Randroide, an Encyclopedia, no matter how much this bothers you, is not for promoting what you believe to be "allegedly" true. You can use your objectivist pseudophilosophical pamphlets for that.
You should be banned from Wikipedia.
Just for the record:
Please, stop talking about me and start talking about the content of the articles. Thank you. Randroide 08:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Page 51, DNT is NOT in the Goma-2 ECO formula. This PDF is endorsed by the Spanish Ministerio de Industria Y Energía.
"El Pais" is contradicting a primary source. Randroide 13:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I disagree - the primary source in this case is the results of the analysis carried out on the explosives, which is what the El País source refers to. That primary source makes it clear that dinitrotolueno was found (in notably small quantities) in the master sample of Goma-2 ECO provided for comparison, and also in other samples of the same explosive recovered from different sites. So if anyone is contradicting the other source you cite then it is the scientists who carried out the analysis and the samples they used - not El País. Southofwatford 13:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Obviously, there´s something wrong here.
I suggest to wait until the official report is released. Randroide 13:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, we should wait because they still haven't concluded all of the tests - but the issue that requires explanation is the presence of DNT in samples of Goma-2 Eco, because there is no doubt from the analysis carried out that it was present in different samples of that explosive. Southofwatford 14:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
...[]...en todos los escenarios de la matanza -piso de Leganés; vías del AVE en Mocejón (Toledo); mochila de Vallecas y Renault Kangoo-, y en todos los focos de las explosiones -salvo en el piso de los terroristas- aparece esa sustancia. Y también se detecta en la muestra patrón de Goma 2 ECO de «Mina Conchita». Es decir; en ningún caso se puede mantener que el DNT es incompatible con esta dinamita y que necesariamente indica la presencia de titadyne, el explosivo habitual utilizado por ETA...[]...Expertos de la lucha antiterrorista consultados por ABC consideran por su parte que «probablemente hubiera sido bueno haber practicado antes esta prueba, porque habría resuelto las dudas de mucha gente y ahorrado acusaciones que se demuestran sin fundamento». [3]
Randroide 13:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Goma-2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://catedu.unizar.es/ciencias_aragon/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=155&Itemid=100&limit=1&limitstart=2When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:01, 20 October 2017 (UTC)