Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories/Archive 13

All the Conspiracies

Hey, i stumbled across this thing and i have no idea what it is. How bizarre? Anybody know what this is? http://www.alltheconspiracies.org --Need2feed 03:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is the same link you just added to half a dozen other pages, that I am going to go and remove. Please do not do that again. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Did they list the "coincidence theory" - this is a conspiracy by the mainstream that says any coincidence is true no matter hoe improbable or even impossible.

A bit POV, eh?

Hi. I noticed that this article seems to be basically "Present the conspiracy theory, then debunk it." It's an implicit assumption from the start that these theories are false. It's like changing the article to "9/11 conspiracy hoaxes" -- it's definitely POV. This is not to say that the entire article should SUPPORT these theories, and obviously some of them are trash, but for the most part it's unduly and prejudicially negative. 24.35.85.32

Let's vote! I agree. 9/11 conspiracy hoaxes--Cberlet 01:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, for example there is the theory that no plane hit the Pentagon. Then there is the note that hundreds of people actually saw the plane, saw the logo of the airline, and some even saw passengers through the windows of the plane. This article merely neutrally points out these facts. If one side of the argument is so strong that it makes the article appear POV to you, well, that's just the way the duck quacks. Weregerbil 17:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree Weregerbil, it is a conspiracy theory and should be subject to arguments for them and against them, just like any "theory." The great kawa 21:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see very many arguments pointing out the flaws in the official theory on the page about the September 11th tragedy. Perhaps this could be considered in the interest of fairness and neutrality? Coconuteire 21:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't it state in the article on conspiracy theories that "conspiracy theories lack enough evidence to be taken seriously" this seems to clearly place a difference between conspiracy theory and another. For example there is real evidence that the events of John F Kennedy's assassination were different than the official story (how different or what those irregularities mean or lead to is questionable, this is what makes it a conspiracy theory). On the other hand the flat earth society or the assertion that the U.S government orchestrated the 9/11 attacks have less merit because they have no evidence of any kind. For something to qualify as a theory it has to have some kind of evidence that anybody could see has some merit or its really just paranoia that has focused itself in one area or another.--Colin 8 23:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

"saw passengers through the windows" - totally new to me. That's a good conspiracy - how close to this plane were these witnesses? As a test - for the witnesses who saw the faces - can they guess the logo? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.105.80.219 (talk • contribs).

Glad we can give you new information! There is this collection of eyewitness reports, search for the phrase "make out faces". Or see here. I can't see a distance estimate in meters there. Seeing people through airplane windows is not as odd as it might sound at first. Airplanes don't travel at magical warp speeds. A low flying plane flies at two to three times as fast as a car drives. If you can see a passenger in a passing car there is no superhuman leap to seeing a passenger in a low-flying aircraft.

What do you mean by "guess the logo"? If you mean the American Airlines logo on the plane, the above-referenced link mentions several eyewitnesses who identified the airline and the make of the plane as it flew low above them, seconds before hitting the Pentagon. Weregerbil 16:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Vote on name change as proposed by 24.35.85.32

New name: 9/11 conspiracy hoaxes

• Agree - --Cberlet 01:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Agree -- Much closer to the "Truth" than to call them theories (which confers too much legitimacy if you ask me). Morton Devonshire^Yo 03:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

This 'vote' is clear WP:POINT and WP:POV pushing and will not foster a productive atmosphere. It equivalent to proposing moving George W. Bush to Village idiot. It may be correct, but it would offend. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 03:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Agree per Seabhcan. Change it. --Tbeatty 03:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

You want to change George Bush into a Village idiot. I agree. ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 03:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I want you to change it. I'll vote for it if you propose it. Knock yourself out. That american expression might be contrued as violent. As my wife would say: Fill your boots. --Tbeatty 03:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment All of the anti-conspiracy skeptics are behaving very badly with this joke vote. If one takes these comments seriously, then it appears that the "agree" voters are unable to edit this article neutrally. I don't believe that, but it seems to me that the endless pro- and anti-conspiracy debates have worn nerves thin to the point that the skeptics would vote to change the title to one in clear violation of NPOV. (Do not get me wrong: the overwhelming evidence is that the various poorly-defined conspiracy theories are false. Nonetheless, at this early date, it is better to report on them as theories and certainly not as hoaxes.) Phiwum 13:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment Also propose redirecting the all the conspiracy theorists to Village idiots with their own section. It's very clear that the indvidual bio's are POV forks. --Tbeatty 03:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Disagree - Interesting that after so much frantic branding and labelling with "conspiracy theories" and "conspiracy theorists" on here at every moment, a new direction must now be taken. Why? Probably because the term is no longer such a bad deal aferall, as the public awakens to the lies they have been told. Instead of it helping to distance the public from the cover-up, the public is seeing through the smokescreen and embracing the CTs. Thus, time to come up with something new to muddy the waters. You have no proof of "hoaxes," so those accepting this "title" obviously don't care one way or the other about the validity of the content of the page, only about discrediting those they disagree with. bov 04:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh come on. Proof has never been an issue with this article. Why start now? --Tbeatty 05:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Agree per Seabhcan. Change it. (yes, this is a direct copy) Brimba 05:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Change to 9/11 conspiracy hoaxes change article to comply with the facts...all the CT "hypothesises" and "theories" are hoaxes.--MONGO 08:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Disagree I don't think it is really appropriate that Wikipedia should really in effect coin neoligisms - it doesn't look like "Conspiracy Hoaxes" is a widely used term- it only has 449 Google hits whereas "Conspiracy Theories" has 1,960,000 hits. Also, in effect, to use this neoligism is to make a judgement in the title- are we going to change "God" to "God hoax", "Prayer" to "Prayer hoax", "Homeopathy" to "Homeopathy hoax", "Intelligent design" to "Intelligent design hoax"? Many people may think these subjects may be deserving of the term but I don't think any major reference work uses such titles. Right angle 09:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Disagree The word "hoax" should be reserved for cases where the defenders of a view have been so discredited as to stop defending it. That's far from the case here. Consider also these two uses of "hoax" [[1]]. The Great Moon Hoax is the right use of the word. 9/11 CTs fail to meet this standard of discreditation.--Thomas Basboll 10:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Disagree The theories don't hold water, but everybody calls them theories, not hoaxes. --Vindheim 10:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Disagree They are theories, unless you can 100% prove them false. Also Agree with Vindheim,Right angle & Thomas Basboll. "Snorkel | Talk" 10:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Disagree You might want to learn the common definition of the word "hoax" before agreeing. Putting an idea forth with the intention to deceive. That's not the case here, the originators of these ideas honestly believe them (no matter how absurd). As Right angle points out so well, that's the key. *Spark* 12:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strongly Disagree Wow, can you get any more POV than that? I disagree strongly as per Right Angle. .V. 13:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Please, nobody make any page moves without consensus. That can become very disruptive. There is a mechanism to rename pages, at requested moves. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral - I think, in general, "Conspiracy Theory" already carries with it the idea that something may be hoax, unless you are a hardcore conspiracy theorist. I don't think the change is necessary, but I won't fight it. - Crockspot 14:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Disagree (if this were a real !vote, it would be Oppose) Although there is no credible evidence to support the theories, and some of the propsers may think they're hoaxes, they're not generally believed to be hoaxes. We're required to use commonly used names, not accurate names. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Disssaagree A group of editors, patting eachothers on their backs, is having fun again. (disclaimer: this comment is not about everyone voting "for" - don't feel offended by it, if you don't feel you should)SalvNaut 16:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Did you actually look to see who was !voting how? This is a broad personal attack that has no merit in regards to this discussion, and should be retracted. Crockspot 20:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The comment was made to those who put it up, and to the style in which they did it. I'm sorry that some might felt offended, I've added a disclaimer, and I agree that I made a mistake making such a broad accusation.SalvNaut 21:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Disagree per Right angle and per Crockspot. When I read "Conspiracy theory" as an article title, I starts off with a high degree of suspicion. There is no need to slap a blatant POV title on an article. We should strive for NPOV. These theories may be wrong, but surveys and news coverage show they are notable. Edison 17:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Disagree "Hoax" is PoV. "Conspiracy theory" is a perfectly notable term.--Rosicrucian 20:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Disagree Per Phiwum, Right Angle and others. An absurd waste of time and an assault on any Good Faith left. Maybe someone will propose changing it to How Bush Did 9/11 next! - F.A.A.F.A. 21:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Disagree The name is already pejorative with the phrase 'conpiracy theories'. 'Hoaxes' just adds insult to injury. This material mostly should be incorporated into the September 11 2001 attacks article instead of renaming to another inappropriate name. It's also completely unclear whether hoax in the name refers to the Bush Administration's explanations for the attacks or the explanations of the attacks in the present article.. --Cplot 00:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Let's not open up the whole "alternative theories" can of worms again.--Rosicrucian 01:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Neutral Disagree As much as I believe the vast majority, if not all, of these theories to be hoaxes, I cannot say that I would see changing the title of this article to "9/11 conspiracy hoaxes" as compliant with NPOV. I'm not set enough on the issue to vot any way other than neutral at this time. Nevermind, considering the current title of the page, I've changed my vote to Disagree --Wildnox 01:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Disagree . A separate article could be written if an editor finds credible sources that claim a conspiracy theorist put forth a theory to intentionally deceive. Although most theorists believe in what they are saying I am sure intentional deception has occurred but nobody I am aware of has looked at it from that angle. Unfortunately if an editor does it on his/her own it is original research. I think the "this is the theory here are the basic arguments for/against" way of writing this article is informative for the reader and does not bias the article against conspiracy theories. 69.114.117.103 06:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)
• Disagree. This is a blatently POV name. Conspiracy Theory is a common term and is 'entirely' appropriate as the name of this article. Conspiracy hoaxes is not a common term and is not NPOV. Conspiracy theories describes these accurately. Titanium Dragon 11:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I just wanted to say, this is really sad considering that this poll seems to be done mostly out of spite. I know that some people here are sensitive about these matters, but don't use NPOV the wrong way -- that is, don't be excluding acceptable things because they don't fit how you percieve the situation. You might see them as hoaxes, but you need to take a step back and really look at the situation before passing your POV judgment on it. .V. 11:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Disagree As ridiculous as I think some of these theories are, it is an extremely POV and unencyclopedic thing to do. These are conspiracy theories, and they should remain as such. The great kawa 21:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Disagree A hoax is an attempt to trick an audience into believing that something false is real. (see Hoax). This is not about tricking someone into believing something, I think many people believe this. (If this is a hoax, so is the whole 'Bin Laden Tora Bora' story and the 'Saddam WMD Al-Q' story) 80.171.70.80 23:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• disagree: Per Cplot, Bov. Ombudsman 23:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• "disagree" -the U.S. govnt was/is behind all this. -strouse
• Strongly Disagree While I am a part of the 9/11 Truth Movement, I believe many theories to be hoaxes, for example the pod theory, the Pentagon missile theory, the fuel tanker theory and of course the official theory. To lump all of the "non-mainstream" theories together as hoaxes is not only embarrassingly POV for Wikipedia, but it is shockingly ignorant, even though many of them are hoaxes. As an encyclopaedia, Wikipedia must strive to ensure absolutely concrete neutrality on all issues, no matter how many immature neocon nutjobs and blind pod people want it to be otherwise. Coconuteire 22:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Disagree, a theory is a theory. You can't change the meaning of "conspiracy theory" or "theory" itself. Its moronic.

neutral, A hoax is more of a fraud, or something 100% proven wrong, so if you want to keep NPOV, we should probably stick with "theories". Although, with this defenition, flat earthism is also a "theory" and not a "hoax", since there are people in this day and age who defend it.

• Strongly Agree Theory implies that there is some credible evidence to merit these speculations and opinions which there is not. --Strothra 20:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Richard Tardibuono

Strongly Disagree : Well, this proves my point - this article is biased against conspiracy theorists. DanCrowter 17:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposal regarding section on Jews & Israel

The section on Jews and Israel is both inadequate and excessive. Inadequate because theories blaming Jews and Israel--theories widely believed, especially in the Arab world--deserve still further refutation. And excessive because the section--which takes up about 15% of the article--goes to a such a level of detail, unmatched by other sections in the article, that it throws the article off balance.

I therefore propose that the section be briefly summarized and a separate article spun off.

Usefully, the spin-off article could be linked both to 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and to Anti-Semitism.

For inclusion in 9/11 Conspiracy Theories, here is the summary I propose.

Comments?

CLaims related to Jews and Israel

Some conspiracy theories hold that Israel or organized Jewry played a key role in carrying out the September 11 attacks. According to the Anti-Defamation League, "anti-Semitic conspiracy theories have not been accepted in mainstream circles in the U.S.," but "this is not the case in the Arab and Muslim world." The Anti-Defamation League has published a paper, Unraveling Anti-Semitic 9/11 Conspiracy Theories, identifying the claims made and responding to them. Several websites of the 9/11 truth movement have also worked to debunk such claims and expose websites and individuals engaging in Anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial.

This topic is discussed in greater detail in the article Allegations of Complicity by Israel and World Jewry in the 9/11 Attacks.

A claim that 4,000 Jewish employees skipped work at the WTC on September 11 has been widely reported and widely debunked. The number of Jews who died in the attacks--typically estimated at around 400--tracks closely with the percentage of Jews living in the New York area. Five Israelis died in the attack.

Ariel Sharon, in 2001 Prime Minister of Israel, cancelled a planned trip to New York around the time of the attacks. Some have interpreted this as evidence he was warned to stay away. In fact, however, the rally at which he had been scheduled to speak on September 23, 2001, to a crowd of 50,000 had been cancelled a month earlier.

On September 17, 2001, the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz' reported that the FBI, four hours after the attack, arrested for "puzzling behavior" five Israelis who had been filming the smoking skyline from the roof of their company's building. The Israelis were said to have been videotaping the disaster with cries of joy and mockery. On June 21, 2002, ABC reported that the FBI concluded that two of the men were Israeli intelligence operatives but had no advance knowledge of the September 11 attacks. The five were released and deported to Israel on November 20-21, 2001.

Now the FBI is involved in a conspiracy theory - by the way, did they ever find out why those Israelis were so happy?

According to The Daily Telegraph (September 16, 2001), Israel had sent two Mossad agents to Washington in August to warn both the FBI and CIA of an imminent large-scale attack involving a cell of up to 200 terrorists. The Telegraph quoted an unnamed senior Israeli security official as saying "They had no specific information about what was being planned but linked the plot to Osama bin Laden and told the Americans that there were strong grounds for suspecting Iraqi involvement."

END

Cordially,

O Govinda 08:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure we need the spin off article. But I do like this reduction of the section.--Thomas Basboll 08:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I Agree, I think the shortened piece is a lot more concise and will help remove some POV/bias. I too think a spin off article is wholly unnecessary. "Snorkel | Talk" 09:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The new section looks good, but I oppose spinning off an article. Antisemitism is intrinsic to many conspiracy theories, and it needs to be included to give an accurate description that is not US-centric, or internet-centric. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course, the proposed section should be placed on the place of current one. Spin-off article - if there is some further analysis of those reported by secondary sources... but I suppose it would rather be about Jews & conspiracy theories in general (bankers' conspiracy, etc. not only 9/11). Not enough material now, imo. SalvNaut 21:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It is mostly agreed that this section is article worthy due to the widespread belief in these theories in the Muslim World. Cites for poll results demonstrating this would help 69.114.117.103 07:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)

Since there have been no objections, I am making Govinda's suggested edited. This deals with two POV issues mentioned below, allowing us to move forward toward an NPOV article. I have, however, left out the link to the not yet agreed-upon spin off article.--Thomas Basboll 12:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Thomas Basboll, for implementing those edits. I don't see a consensus for a spun-off article, and that's all right with me.

Cordially, O Govinda 12:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The 4000 number listed above - I believe this was the number of Israeli citizens who didn't show up for work - not local Jewish American citizens ( who were left out to dry with the goyim ). That there were only 5 Israelis working in the WTC seems unlikely. The news reports seem to have almost all major execs out for the day too - whew there that's not anti-Semitic ( well maybe, depends on who the major execs are I guess).

PS type 911 4000 on the web and you get a lot of sites that are admittedly a little goofy ( maybe ) but then you get a lot of sites that mention Har'tez, etc if you want documentation from both sides. Odiga is an interesting source too. This angle will burn you - try putting 4000 911 in millions of search directories - they will never find these sites again. ( just a useful dirty trick ) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]).

It's unlikely that there were 4000 Israelis working at WTC. But this was already debunked above, so there's little for me to add. We probably should report the claim in this article, with a note it is highly implausible, if not impossible, and leave it at that. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry the above numbers are wrong - there were no Israelis who worked at the WTC who died. 1 was a visitor ( business ). the others were on the planes. It should have been 0 Israelis.

Neutrality dispute

Could someone please restate the complaint(s) about this articles neutrality? At this point, there may still be a few odds and ends, but I don't think there's a general lack of neutrality left. The most constructive approach would be to list the first three sentences that seem POV, we can then move on to the next three, and so on. I think the solution will be pretty straightforward in most cases.--Thomas Basboll 12:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

1. "Hundreds of eyewitnesses who saw the aircraft close up as it approached the Pentagon describe it as an American Airlines Boeing 757". This has three citations next to it. The first is basically a collection of things that people have posted to a message board (which hardly is a reliable source of information.) Based on WP:V, "Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources." This is not a reliable source. The second citation consists of a similar page, but with links -- many of which are broken, and many of which lead to similarly unverifable claims. Even the ones that are legitimate are not "hundreds." The last link is similar to the 2nd, although with better citations. Even so, this is still not "hundreds".
2. "This claim has small tidbits of fact but is essentially false." This is in reference to a quote that says "...the FBI arrested five Israelis four hours after the attack on the Twin Towers while filming the smoking skyline from the roof of their company's building. The FBI had arrested the five for "puzzling behavior". They are said to have been caught videotaping the disaster in what was interpreted by some as cries of joy and mockery." Directly after... "On June 21, 2002, ABC published a report that five Israelis seen filming the events of September 11 in New York and looking "happy" were subsequently arrested, claiming (on the authority of The Forward) that the "FBI concluded that two of the men were Israeli intelligence operatives" but had no advance knowledge of the September 11 attacks." So this is correct, but the above sentence claims it's not.
3. "This unsubstantiated and widely debunked claim made by Al-Manar, the television station of Hezbollah, a sworn enemy of Israel..." It's not "widely debunked". If it is, nobody has any sources here to show that it is such. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by .V. (talk • contribs).

For #3: [2][3]. If you need more, google is your friend. Weregerbil 16:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. It looks like two and three are going to go out in the edit that has been proposed above. I agree with you on 1.--Thomas Basboll 21:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Neat. There's also a slight concern I have about the article. This is just a general thing to keep in mind when people are editing. The current format seems to be "This group says X. However, Y group says Z..." and then is followed by some explanation quote from group Y. The problem is, it's unduly biasing group Y's claim because they're the only ones who have direct argumentation (the conspiracy theoriest usually just gets a cite.) This gives the impression that group Y has the valid argument, because they're statements are basically unrebutted (so it seems as if their logic stands.) Sections with such statements are: World Trade Center collapse as controlled demolition (Conspiracy theoriests get a 3 word quote, refuting group gets a huge block of text), Allegations of cover-up, Claims that some of the hijackers are still alive, Claims related to Jews and Israel, Media reaction, and Criticism. Keep in mind that not all follow the scheme I listed above, but it's a similar setup (sometimes with viewpoints instead of groups, etc.) .V. 03:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

These issues have now been dealt with. Please see "more neutrality problems" below [4].--Thomas Basboll 12:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

"Mainstream" vs. "official"

Keep in mind that this article is not about 9/11 but about (roughly speaking) a system of beliefs about 9/11. We need to represent the major components of that system. Among 9/11 CTists there are of course vague references to "mainstream" accounts of 9/11, but they mean something very specific by "official account". It is the meaning of that concept in the 9/11 CT belief system that we have to accurately describe, not the mainstream account itself. Though the CT version of the account, i.e., "the official account", is a pretty fair representation of mainstream views, it has a different focus and is much more committed to certain details. Consider some differences between "the mainstream account" and "the official account". The mainstream account doesn't really have an opinion about Building 7, but the official account has a working hypothesis. (That is, building seven isn't part of the mainstream narrative, even though there is an official investigation about it.) The mainstream account doesn't include "puffs of smoke" coming out the side of the building; but the official account explains them as jets of compressed air pushing debris out the windows. The mainstream account doesn't include the war games, but the official account says they actually speeded the military response to the attacks. It is because CTists ask questions that the mainstream media do not that their version of what "officially" happened differs from what people generally believe happened. That's why I think we should go back to calling that section "the official account".--Thomas Basboll 23:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

So, while I can appreciate wanting add under the heading "mainstream account", "This account has also been documented by news media throughout the world, including Al Jazeera,[13] The Times of India,[14] the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC),[15] the BBC,[16] Le Monde,[17] Deutsche Welle,[18] the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC),[19] and The Chosun Ilbo of South Korea.[20]" It is not true of "the official account" because the official account only emerges by the kind of close reading of official answers to non-mainstream question that conspiracy theorists engage in.--Thomas Basboll 23:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

"Mainstream account" is more accurate, and allows us to mention all the other mainstream sources that agree with the government. These tend to be ignored by conspiracy theorists. The government is part of the mainstream account, but not the only component. --Aude (talk) 00:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

More accurate of what? The whole point is that this section should not represent the mainstream account but, as it were, the conspiracy theorists' account of the mainstream account. The CTists do not try to refute just what people, in the main, believe; they try to show inconsistencies in what, precisely, official sources say. This needs to accurately identify the real target of the CT critque. "Mainstream" is therefore less accurate.--Thomas Basboll 07:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

AudeVivere suggested that "mainstream" is more broad than "official", while Thomas has shown that parts of "official account" do not find their way into "mainstream". The only reasonable conclusion is that those are different and none overlaps the other. So using any term as a substitution of the other is considerably less accurate. But then, CTiers argue with official reports, goverment's line of explanation (air defense, no foreknowledge, etc.. btw: foreknowledge has found its way into mainstream as of now). CTiers rarely take sole media speculations and argue with them. Official account is in most cases more appropriate in this article. SalvNaut 12:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The network, cable and most print media do more then just "document" the mainstream account. They take the account at face value. When reporting on Al Queda they assume that organization did it by themselves with the same certainty as the sun coming up in the morning. When reporting on warning signs missed they present it as a shocking example of bureaucratic bungling a la 9/11 commission report not as a deliberate government cover up. True in the last year there have been a flurry of stories about conspiracy theories and theorists but in the day to day reporting of the aftermath of 9/11 the mainstream account is taken at face value. So by saying in the article that the media “documents” the mainstream account is truthfull but misleading. How to have the article report that the media takes the account at face value without doing original research will be difficult but must be tried so as to not mislead the reader. 69.114.117.103 07:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)

Ed - "not mislead the reader". I almost fell out of my chair laughing. This is wikipedia by the way - you must have hit the wrong button.

Glad to have made your day but the motive for page after page of discussion pages can not be 100% to satisfy the ego's of the writers somebody somewhere must be doing this at least partially for the readers sake. But to the point do you agree or not with the main point I was trying to make? (Note to all editors: GET STURDY CHAIRS) 69.114.117.103 18:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)

I've deemed the arguments stronger on my side (surprise! ;-) ). The scare quotes are made in the spirit of compromise.--Thomas Basboll 22:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

i think we should have the heading as "the 'official' account". It keeps in mind that usually only CTists refer to it as the officla account, bu that it is still the account used by the government, and therefore official. DanCrowter 16:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

More neutrality problems?

This method seems to be working. Please list the first three (reading from the top of the article) reasons that this article's neutrality is currently disputed. We can then fix them, and move on to the next three. Please identify specific sentences that lack NPOV.--Thomas Basboll 23:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

1. With reference to discussion about 9/11 CT and psychology below. Psychological arguments against conspiracy theories are numerously presented under Criticism section. There is no psychological approach from the side of proponents presented. For example, in his talk "9/11 The Myth and the Reality"[5] D.R.Griffin speaks about various "myths engraved" into common consciousness, he exposes the official story of 9/11 as "a sacred myth". Ken Jenkins gives presentation on people's inherent resistance to learning the truth about 9/11 ("Overcoming People's Psychological Resistance to 9/11"speech). More examples can be found, I suppose. Shouldn't this approach find its way into this article? SalvNaut 15:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
2. ?
3. ?

New section on Flight 175 "pod"

I was surprised to see that there was no section on the alleged "pod" on Flight 175, so I added a section on it, which included the alleged "flash" as the plane hit. Please do not remove this without contacting me.DanCrowter 18:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

For a controversial statement you need to demonstrate that (a) Popular Mechanics knew about the claim and chose not to address it, and (b) that this has fuelled speculation on the subject. Otherwise the only option is to remove the comment as it is original research. --Davril2020 18:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Also (c) there are some theories out there that are so wild that wasting magazine column inches to them makes little sense. Fly a plane to a building and a fraction of a second before fire a missile? (Wouldn't the missile get to the wall pretty soon anyway...) Knowing that a dozen television cameras will be on it? Modify a passenger jet to carry missiles? All this from a web site that bases its speculation on ideas such as that an object cannot reflect light to more than one direction at a time.

This is a slight problem here: the weirder the theory, the less likely a reliable source is to say why it is nonsense. Thus the absolutely weirdest theories invented by the most fringe conspiracy web sites are the ones that get left unexplained. Just wait for the invasion of in-orbit particle weapons that were used to down the towers...

(Incidentally, see WP:OWN for your "contact me first" requirement.) Weregerbil 19:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Sepeaking in general, I do think we should not present only the "reputable" conspiracy theories, or only those popular among educated, internet-using Americans. Of course the pods are nonsense. Controlled demolition is nonsense too. We're describing a sociological/psychological phenomanon, and we should be sure and not sanitize it, whether by removing the antisemitic theories, or the (more) goofy ones. That said, everything does need to be sourced, original research is not allowed, etc. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, Tom. It is not merely a "sociological/psychological phenomanon" (sic). There are people of all shapes and sizes, from the not-so-bright to the extremely intelligent, with all kinds of different jobs that you can imagine, living in all kinds of different conditions and environments and leading vastly different lives who are suspicious of the official theory or who are part of the 9/11 truth movement. I believe the pod theory is nonsense but controlled demolition seems far more plausible. It's very easy to say that every 9/11 "conspiracy theory" is nonsense and leave it at that. If anything, the sociological/psychological phenomenon is how violent and irrational some people get when presented with conspiracy theories which argue against the official conspiracy theory. Coconuteire 22:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it always amazes me how many people just ignore the case on the basis of their core belief, being guided by their instincts and ignoring the fact that so many intellectuals have spoken, and are still speaking, shouting about US goverment using 9/11, gov. complicity, WTC7 demolition, WTC1&2 so obvious features of demolition. They ignore latter, I suppose, mostly because some experts "investigated" the WTC collapse... but didn't experts investigate JFK assasination and one-bullet-theory? Didn't experts investigate "lack" of global warming? Bad science happens quite often when money and influences come in play. Terrible science made by NIST (to be fair to some: guidance and conlusions were terrible) is one of the strongest signs of a cover-up... but to see that clearly, you have to take a close look by yourself... SalvNaut 01:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the pod idea is probably part of the history 9/11 CTs. But I agree with Coconuteire that CD is not just "nonsense too". 9/11 CTs are not just a psychological or sociological phenomenon; like political ideas and religious ideas they are complicated systems of belief (that are related to further systems of beliefs in various ways). But when describing them, perhaps the anology to psychology does make sense. The role of violence in the description of schizophrenia must be dealt with very cautiously -- there is no reason to leave the reader with the impression that schizophrenics have disordered speech-patterns and "are violent too". The many 9/11 CTists who do not believe in pods, no-planes, and anti-semitism must not be needlessly associated with these ideas.--Thomas Basboll 08:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Popular Mechanics should have known about the "flash" theory, as it is fast growing in popularity. Also, the whole mentality of most of the participants on this page is is preventing a neutral view. The idea seems to be "say what conspiracy theorists believe, then demonstarte why it's not true". And anyway, I have recently edited the statement I put in, so that it is not WP:OR - 911 IPS commented that they did not mention the flash issue, and you can read the article and see that the flash is not mentioned. I think the statement that "Popular Mechanics did not adress the flash issue in their "Debunking the 9/11 Myths" article", followed by a link to show this, is OK. DanCrowter 20:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Building seven collapse time

From the article: the final collapse sequence lasted approximately 7 seconds, with constant acceleration close to gravitional. (Seismic evidence and videos of the penthouse of the building show the collapse took 37 seconds; conspiracy theorists make their analysis of the final collapse sequence only.) The cited source makes no mention of the words "final collapse". It makes no mention of the real collapse time, only the incorrect 7 seconds. Is there a reliable source that shows conspiracy theorists actually being aware the real collapse time and, with that time in mind, still coming up with a conspiracy theory about it? With the currently quoted source the word "final" appears to be original research. Weregerbil 16:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Whole collapse sequence lasted 37s, but the part analyzed by researchers starts when the roof (not penthouse) begins to go down (and it last approx. 7s). It's obvious from the paper. It analyses video from the moment in which roof starts going down. It does only that and exactly that. This is pointed out in the article and I see no further problems. SalvNaut 17:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The author of this paper makes no claims if there was anything happening before final collapse onset or not. If you feel that word "final" is innapropriate, please use a better one. SalvNaut 17:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

From the paper: The observed acceleration, 9.06 m/s2, if maintained, would bring the roof to the ground in 6.2 seconds, very close to free fall in a vacuum, 6.0 seconds. There is no sign of the slow start that would be expected if collapse was caused by the gradual softening of the steel.

This appears to say that the author of the paper is unaware of the initial 30 seconds when the building started to collapse. Do you find wording in the paper that confirms he knew about the real collapse time? Do you find mention that he was looking at only a part of the collapse? If the source doesn't say that we can't say that. Thanks! Weregerbil 17:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

In the light of what is analyzed there, the words "slow start" should be understood as "slow motion of the roof". I'm not saying anything about authors knowledge, I just simple emphasise what is being analysed there (whether it's appropriate or not, let the reader decide). More excerpts:

Below are two frames captured from a video of the collapse of WTC 7. In the one on the left we see that the eastern penthouse has disappeared and the roofline has sagged. This indicates that the collapse has just started. There are now a few broken windows clustered under the area which has sagged, indicating that the wall in that region is already becoming distorted.

It can be seen that author was aware of the penthouse collapsing before, but he names the moment of sagging the roofline as a start of the collapse. SalvNaut 17:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

In the next paragraph he describes the collapse proceeding half a second later. So still no confirmation he knew the collapse had at that point been happening for thirty seconds, just not visible to the camera. His entire premise is that a 7-second collapse is somehow significant; but obviously there was no 7-second collapse, only a 37-second one. If he did know about the real collapse time he would be making a very confused argument. I believe that is called a straw man in English? Weregerbil 18:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

There was a 7-second visible collapse. This man analyzes just this - a visual evidence he has access to. His point is simple - collapse due to fires shouldn't look this way. I think it's ok with the article now. Anyway, my point with this sentence was to introduce common argument among 9/11 researchers. The paragraph lacked it before. SalvNaut 18:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

And this is the core of the conspiracy fantasy: the man looks at visual evidence that is severely limited. If he were to zoom in to one brick of the building (yeah, I know it was not a brick building) he might see the brick fall in 0.1 seconds. And "collapse due to fires should not look like it happens in 0.1 seconds." Well duh! An "analysis" like this is garbage in, garbage out. Once you realize that the 7-second fantasy is purely due to selecting a vantage point that obscures what is really happening the whole "analysis" becomes rather silly. Remember the one about a blind man thinking an elephant is like a snake? Weregerbil 11:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

W., please see my comment at the bottom. If I'm not mistaken, the 37 collapse time would imply that from the time the west penthouse collapsed, the rest of the building collapsed in about 1 second. I think this is apples and oranges. FEMA did not time the part that Jones finds so puzzling.--Thomas Basboll 11:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

FEMA's timing and description of the final 7 seconds of the collapse appears on page 5-23 section 5.5.4 of the report[6]. The collapse starts internally, proceeds for 30 seconds, and finally the front wall of the building follows the rest. Yup, just blindly staring (if there is such a thing as "blindly staring") at the front wall and ignoring all other reality will indeed lead to the incorrect conclusion that the collapse took 7 seconds. Weregerbil 12:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I've read the timeline. The timeline starts at 5:20:33 and ends at 5:21:10. That's 37 seconds. But the west penthouse disappears at 5:21:08, leaving only two seconds til the end of FEMA's collapse timeline. By comparison, Jones' collapse must end at around 5:21:17. That is, if we must compare the two collapse accounts, it is 44 vs. 7 seconds. And this has little consequence for Jones' argument. Whatever may have happened inside the building in the 37 seconds earlier, Jones does not believe that the remainder of the building would come down as quickly as it did.--Thomas Basboll 12:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

To which Jones thing you are referring? The source in the Building Seven section is one Frank Legge [7]. He explicitly says the collapse starts at the disappearance of the eastern penthouse; in reality at that point the collapse has been progressing for 30 seconds already. I would like to refer you to my initial question in this discussion: "Is there a reliable source..." etc. Weregerbil 13:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Jones ("Why Indeed...") and Legge concur on the collapse times. Legge just offers a different way of measuring it. I take it you are referring to this (Legge): "Below are two frames captured from a video of the collapse of WTC 7. In the one on the left we see that the eastern penthouse has disappeared and the roofline has sagged. This indicates that the collapse has just started. There are now a few broken windows clustered under the area which has sagged, indicating that the wall in that region is already becoming distorted." But all this means is that the words "just started" must allow for a give or take of about 5 seconds to match up with FEMA (which uses approximate times too). But he obviously begins his calculations when the roofline begins to drop -- it is the speed of the drop that he calculates. He doesn't time the collapse to the ground. Legge is not denying that there may have been internal events in the 30 seconds prior to this. And FEMA (to repeat) doesn't time the collapse after initiation.--Thomas Basboll 13:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The Legge paper says collapse has just started when the penthouse disappears. According to seismic measurements that is simply not true; the building had been falling apart for 30 seconds outside the view of the camera. We shouldn't do WP:OR and claim that Legge means something else than what he says. "Does not deny" is not enough when he says when he thinks collapse started. Weregerbil 13:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'm not quite sure why we can't reach agreement on this. The thing that puzzles CTists is the speed with which the roofline collapses. You are not suggesting the FEMA says it has been slowly falling for 30 seconds, right? But can you see that FEMA does not include the fall of the roof to the ground in their timeline? I.e., that Legge is measuring a value that is not provided by the FEMA report (at least here).--Thomas Basboll 13:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Building Seven (con't)

Well, the roof collapses at the speed at which it collapses after the innards of the building have collapsed... First the structural support of one floor fails, then everything above comes down. This happens regardless of what removes the initial floor; gravity does not know nor does it care when it pulls the rest of the floors down. In this case (and contrary to Legge's claims) the initial collapse occurs relatively slowly, over the period of 30 seconds, not within a fraction of a second as would happen with explosives. FEMA does not say when the last brick stops moving because the cloud of dust obscures the view (Legge paper, page 2, second to last paragraph). Claims of knowledge of that time are guesses. Weregerbil 14:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Another quite developed theory by debunkers (and they say that conspiracy theorists have wild imagination). Personally, I find it unplausible that innards of the building collapsed first (well enough to allow final collapse happen in 7s), with rumbling that was registered by seismographs, while at least 3 sides of the building (seen on videos) remained standing intact (how would this be possible? floors would have to rip off the walls leaving them standing?)... but, it doesn't matter what I or you think. Can't you see it's your POV? And you try to put your POV in the article by implying that whatever Legge was measuring it has no meaning because it contradicts what FEMA stated. Well, it's wrong to think this way. I'll repeat it over and over - Legge analyzed the "final" collapse sequence and just that. That seemed enough for him to state his assumptions about the cause. You find it not's enough, ok, let the readear decide for himself. I, for example, find his explanation much more plausible than wild theories about innards collapsing,ground shaking, outer walls standing. Anyway, apart from what you and I belive, there is no place for a hidden, false implication that Legge's analysis is in contradiction with FEMA's timing, as it is not ("apples and oranges" - it couldn't be said better). If you feel that 37s remark has to be there, then let's not put it in opposition to 7 seconds. My proposed edit would be to replace "according to conspiracy theorists the collapse took 7 seconds" with a statement of an easily observable fact that roof of the building collapsed in approx. 7 seconds to the ground. SalvNaut 21:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

You misattribute my description of the collapse; I was describing NIST's working hypothesis of WTC 7 collapse. See page 25 of this. WTC 7 was a steel tube inside another steel tube. The inner tube fell first, during the first 30 seconds ("vertical progression"), and the outer tube was pulled in after it by the connecting floor structure ("horizontal progression"). This very page of this very report has already been referred to below. As to what conspiracy theorists think, please remember: sources! The Legge text describes a sudden collapse that lasts 7 seconds at the acceleration of gravity, with no initial "slow start". FEMA and NIST describe the collapse starting 30 seconds earlier, progressing up and sideways, considerably slower than free fall. We describe both sourced views. Weregerbil 13:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

(Continues below [8])

But that's why Legge does his calculation (not guess) based on the video. Do we agree that the time period from when FEMA's collapse sequence starts and Legge's ends is about 44 seconds, not 37? Also, there is nothing to indicate that anything very significant is happening to the internal structure of the building in the first 30 seconds, i.e., before the first penthouse collapses. Finally, keep in mind that the outside wall is a major load-bearing structure. Until 5:21:08 (the last two of FEMA's 37 seconds) there was still a penthouse on top of the building.--Thomas Basboll 14:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Where does he say when the roof hits the ground? He calculates a theoretical value of an object falling from that height but I don't see him saying that was the time the roof actually did stop moving. In fact, page 2 second to last paragraph explicitly says he will compare the theoretical value and (what he describes as) the early portion of the collapse only. As to "nothing significant happening in the first 30 seconds": well, seismographs did measure the ground shaking when the building fell down; whether a collapsing building is significant is a matter of opinion I guess. Weregerbil 14:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, hmmm. Seismographs measured an event at 5:20:33 but where do you get the impression that the ground was shaking because the building was falling down? The building was certainly still standing until 5:21:03, when the first outward signs of structural damage could be seen (the penthouse disappearing).--Thomas Basboll 14:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

A 0.6 magnitude Richter Scale seismic event was observed to start at that time and last for 18 seconds. Weregerbil 15:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

To compare, the impact of the first plane caused a 0.9 magnitude signal lasting 12 seconds. But I know nothing about the seismic data. In any case, I think we need to be clear about what CTists are claiming is strange. And mere shaking of the building (comparable to the airplane impacts) is not going to be enough to settle the issue for them. Like I say below, they would probably argue that that's explosives going off.--Thomas Basboll 16:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no doubt they would argue that. If a building falls in 7 seconds it's so quick because bombs went off. If a building falls in 37+ seconds it's so slow because slow bombs went off for 30 seconds. And that's why the fall time is so significant and so often (mis)quoted: no matter what the number of seconds, it proves it's bombs! (This is straying pretty far from with this page is for.) Weregerbil 17:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. We are trying to decide whether these two sentences are accurate representations of the tension between the official story and the conspiracy theories:

Third, researchers emphasise the style in which WTC7 collapsed: according to conspiracy theorists the collapse took 7 seconds, with constant acceleration close to gravitional. [55] (Seismic evidence and videos of the roof of the building show the collapse took 37 seconds; conspiracy theorists base their assumptions on video footage that shows only the collapse of the outer wall.[56])

Here the two occurences of the phrase "the collapse took" seem to me to mean very different thing. The CTists have no (detailed) position on those 37 seconds, and FEMA has no (detailed) position on the 7. That is, each account would grant the facts that the other emphasizes, but the article makes them seem to contradict each other. Those two sentences are therefore an inaccurate statement of the dispute.--Thomas Basboll 17:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

PS: given the pretty careful accounts of how the "fall time" was determined by both Jones and Legge, I don't think the idea that CTists "misquote" it can be justified.--Thomas Basboll 18:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Nothing very signficiant???

"An initial local failure at the lower floors (below Floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event), which supported a large span floor area of about 2,000 ft. Vertical progression of the initial local failure up to the east penthouse, as large floor bays were unable to redistribute the loads, bringing down the interior structure below the east penthouse." [9]

The failure of the east penthouse roof structure was the first visible exterior sign of structural failure. This initial failure and vertical progression up to the penthouse took some time, about 30 seconds. The initial failure and events leading up to the failure at the east penthouse is very significant. --Aude (talk) 14:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. "Significant" is the wrong word. Obviously whatever happened in those 30 seconds was significant. In the article right now there is a claim/counter-claim construction that runs basically: CTist say 7 seconds but it really took 37. What I am arguring is that the 7 seconds the CTists talk about begins when those 37 seconds are over. I wouldn't be surprised if the CTists have bombs going off all through the building. Before those 7 seconds begin. But I don't know if they would say thirty-seven seconds of that sort of thing is realistic. (gotta run, I'll be back in about an hour).--Thomas Basboll 15:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

From FEMA report:

Approximately 1 or 2 seconds after the west penthouse sinks into WTC7, the whole building starts to collapse.

Even FEMA phrases this 7s sequence this way: the whole building. Don't try to picture 9/11 researchers like those who can't see a difference between 37 and 7. Their arguments are strong, even if there was something happening before the roof sagged. SalvNaut

I'm having a hard time following this. As I read the FEMA report and Jones' paper, this is another example of the two explanations leaving each other's turf alone. (The first is how the NIST report stops at collapse initiation, where the CD hypothesis picks up.) FEMA seems to be saying it took about 37 seconds until "the whole building collapses" but they don't say how long that collapse then took. So the 7 seconds vs. 37 seconds is comparing apples and oranges. The CTists can grant FEMA's 37 seconds and still time the rest of the collapse at 7 seconds.--Thomas Basboll 19:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I've opened the discussion on the CD hypothesis talk page.[10]--Thomas Basboll 21:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)