Against. I vote against not because it isn't funny, but because it isn't scientifically accurate. If you listen closely, you can hear a structural engineer crying. ICameHereInACloche 05:23, August 17, 2011 (UTC)
It was not written to make a political statement. But I refer you to Richard Gage. Besides, if you are looking for facts, you are at the wrong place. The purpose of Uncy is fun, nothing else Mattsnow 06:03, August 17, 2011 (UTC)
This piece reminds me of when Fox News attempts humor. It always ends up horrifically biased, and we all know that bias is not a replacement for humor. Because some official government source can be easily refuted with a chorus of nuh-uhs, I refer you to our fellow sister comedy site Cracked, an obviously trustworthy source for cold, hard facts. Oh, and god bless America and shit.--ICameHereInACloche 15:29, August 17, 2011 (UTC)
Against. And the world's 6000 years old? mAttlobster. (hello) 21:40, August 21, 2011 (UTC)
It's funny how one can write an article full of lies on the Holocaust and be praised but not on 9/11. That being said I totally understand that it could be not humorous enough, but voting against (or for) for political reasons or beliefs is silly. I mean, we judge humour. :)Mattsnow 18:54, September 8, 2011 (UTC)
I think most of your stuff is excellent, but I didn't find this funny. It's not a political position - how can not believing some conspiracy theory be political? I read it as: anyone who doesn't believe 9/11 was some conspiracy is stupid. Did I get it wrong? mAttlobster. (hello) 19:26, September 8, 2011 (UTC)
That's what transpires a bit yes, you are right. I like to voice my opinions in my articles, but the priority is being funny but I don't really think anyone not believing 9/11 was a conspiracy is stupid. That's a stance I took to make it funny in my point of view. Thanks Matt for answering and voicing your opinion. If it didn't work for you, I am pleased you voted against. I expected it would have mitigated "reviews", since the subject is controversial. Thanks for saying most of my stuff is good, but I guess you know my opinion about that event by now, and I am not on this site to try to convince anybody, rather I like to make fun of things I know (and in this case, have a strong opinion about, But I also made fun of some ridiculous conspiracies like in Bohemian Grove. But if it doesn't get featured, so what? I had fun writing it! Mattsnow 21:10, September 8, 2011 (UTC)
Against. Too uneven in my view. Also the tone is wrong for a supposed official report compared to the unofficial one. Sorry. RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 08:16, September 8, 2011 (UTC)
I agree I changed tones a whole lot in the WTC7 section, is that the main uneven passage you were talking about Romartus? Please answer me, I'll try to improve it for an hypothetical 2nd run down the road, since the article is gathering dust on Pee for a great while now. Thanks for not just saying Against. Mattsnow 21:10, September 8, 2011 (UTC)
I did buy and read the original which was why the official bit didn't chime as close to parody. The idea is good, I will assist with the 'official bit' if this fails a VFH nomination. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 07:52, September 9, 2011 (UTC)
Weak against. The article seems like a boxer that wants to deliver a biting knockout blow to the 9/11 Commission Report, but instead settles for just turning around, pulling down his trunks, and laying a loud sloppy fart on it. I wanted him to put up a better fight. pillow talk 22:22, September 9, 2011 (UTC)
Against. All politics aside, per Hype. That and even though it's meant to be satirical, I feel like I've already heard all of the lines stated by sarcastic conspiracy theorists in their videos. -RAHB 05:04, September 11, 2011 (UTC)
Comments
If anyone's wondering, there is a review request; sat there over a week with no takers. 1234~04:07, 17 August 2011
I think there's a feature article in here somewhere. It just needs some reworking. The tone/voice is definitely wrong IMO for an alleged commission/panel to be speaking. Just the graphic with the F on it is wrong, it's supposed to be the commission speaking - in that context you would put an A+ on the graphic with words of praise. Now, if it were an article titled "Jimmy Bob Mackenhammer's review of the 911 Commission Report", it's suddenly much more appropriate for the tone and voice. There's not that much wrong with it. You can fix this!-- 19:51, September 8, 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I'd really like to see an article about this featured. I hesitated at first if I should make fun of those who believe 9/11 was a big lie, but I took the harder path, I did it knowing it would not please everybody. But as Romartus said, the tone switches from time to time, and that takes away from it. I'd really like someone who voted against or abstain to do the Pee Review on this, which is gathering dust in the urinals. BTW, I think I do my fair shake of Pee Reviews, and my bladder is always running wild on the articles! :D Mattsnow 21:20, September 8, 2011 (UTC)
The nomination was not successful. Low health: 19%; +6... quasi feature?1234~21:18, 14 September 2011 This article did not pass VFH and was removed on 21:18, September 14, 2011 (UTC). This page is now archived; do not edit it, it will have no effect.
Mattsnow 03:39, August 17, 2011 (UTC)
For. 
21:18, 14 September 2011
