User talk:Scott/9/11 WTC controlled explosion

There is nothing funny on this article at all. This is Uncyclopedia not 911Truth.org. As much as I agree with this theory, this is not the place for it. Someone clear it up, cos I can't be bothered. Spongey 12:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

How did this article made it to uncyclopedia? Be humurous and respectful at the same time. Himynameismyname 14:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

This article is satire of a real 911 conspiracy theory, only it is funny because it says Pepsi soda and Mentos candy caused the WTC and Pentagon to collapse. Plus it uses logic errors and fallacies like the real 911truth.org uses in their conspiracy theory. Read up on Johnathan Swift and A Modest Proposal for what satire is supposed to look like, or pick up a copy of Mad Magazine as well for modern satire. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 16:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

From Pee Review

Can someone look at this article?--Scott 04:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if this sounds insulting, but is the grammar supposed to be incorrect? Only that could be a nice subtle dig at the sort of people who swallow these conspiracy theories, but if not it really needs to be fixed up. --Sir Jam 17:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I always have problem with grammar. Your not to first to say that and I'm use to it. I'll try fixing it today.--Scott 00:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

And It's still work in progress too(I wouldn't do a Pee Review if it wasn't).--Scott 00:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

It would be funnier with the bad grammar (no offence). Goshzilla 03:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I actually fixed the grammar, but made it funnier. Like the smoke in the WTC building 7 photo is not smoke but gas from the pepsi-mentos raction which made foam, lots and lots of foam. So that it fits the conspiracy theory better. Instead I made it more of a left-wing conspiracy nut rant and fixed the grammar, and added in more details to support the theory and also make it funnier. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 00:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Removing the disclaimer and BF Insane category

I think that by doing that it made the article less funny. Now there won't be a link to the Wikipedia article that this article parodies and people will start to think we are serious here about a 911 conspiracy theory. It should be noted that this whole article is one big joke to make fun of the conspiracy theories out there. Which makes this article one big troll, and we are not supposed to write trolls here, because they start flamewars. There should be at least some hints in the article that it is not a serious article, even still conspiracy theory people will confuse it with a real conspiracy theory because they are BF insane and ignore disclaimers anyway. This means more people with tinfoil hats will take this article seriously. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 00:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)