Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories/Archive 22

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15 ← Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25

ADL

I changed "The ADL claims that" back to "According to these reports" because "claim" is a word to avoid and "According to these reports" is already an inline citation. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Comparison with Princess Diana Conspiracy theories

The reason why I added the part about Princess Diana was to clarify the sentence. Without it, the sentence doesn't quite make sense. If you go back to the article's old wording, it used to say, "9/11 conspiracy theories did not emerge immediately after the event, as most professional conspiracy theorists in the United States appeared to be as shocked as the rest of the population." Without context, this is a bit confusing because 9/11 conspiracy theories actually emerged very quickly. Within less than a month of the event, the theories had become so widespread that Bush mentioned them in his UN speech. Compare this with Moon landing conspiracy theories which emerged years after the event. So, I went back to the source to see what it said and it's actually a comparison statement with Princess Diana conspiracy theories. Here's what the source says: "Compared with other much-discussed events such as the death of Princess Diana, conspiracy theories about 9/11 emerged quite slowly." Without this comparison clarified, the sentence doesn't quite make sense. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

  • The source says "compared with other much-discussed events", this is the main point of comparison. Diana's death is just an example to illustrate this.
  • It also says: "Indeed, most professional conspiracy theorists ...". This is not saying "as most professional conspiracy theorist". You seem to want to make it sound as if the only sources of such theories were professional conspiracy theorists. This is not what the source says, and therefore is original research.  Cs32en  03:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

No mention of the "exploit theory"

The US government could have had many reasons to not tell the truth about the real perpetrators, and none of this reasons must mean, that the government itself did it, or let it happen on purpose. What if American extremists, like Neo-Nazis (The Turner Diaries includes a part about a suicide plane attack on the Pentagon) or Communists (the WTC as the incarnation of Capitalism), or even an endtimes cult (like Aum Shinrikyo in Japan) did it, and the US government just exploited the attacks, faked evidence to divert from the real criminals and blame it on Al Qeada, to justify their already pre-planned war against this terrorist organization. So it was neither MIHOP nor LIHOP, but exploitation. A. Nonym, 02:02 pm August 7, 2009

That would still be LIHOP with a different perpetrator. If you have any reliable sources that propose a similar theory, feel free to add it.ArXivist (talk) 15:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
What I meant is, that the US government not even knew about the attackers and their plans. They were totally surprised. So, no LIHOP nor MIHOP. The US government faked the evidence at scene, exploited the attacks as the attacks happened. As soon as they realized who the attackers were, they started to divert from them and blamed the Al Qaeda terror cell, which we all know; Atta, Al-Shehhi, and so forth. Because the US government hasty faked all the evidence, there are so many flaws in their story, like the living terrorists (many of the hijackers blamed by the US government were still alive after 9/11), no mention of the blamed terrorists on the early UA passenger lists, the Boeing that never hit the Pentagon (the biggest flaw in their whole story, the Pentagon attack), the passport of the terrorist (was it Atta's?) found in the streets of Manhattan (absolutely unbelievable), Mohammed Atta's bag with the Quran and the flight instructions found at the Boston Logan Airport (obviously placed there), the Black Boxes of the WTC planes that were supposedly destroyed (confiscated, because the real perpetrators were heard on them), the faked Bin Laden video a few weeks after - all this contradictions, all this obvious lies, because they hasty faked the evidence on that day. For the US government one thing was immediately crystal clear: no way in hell shall the truth about the real perpetrators ever see the light of the day. Like McVeigh and Nichols in 1995, American extremists were responsible for 9/11. A. Nonym, 10:22 am August 7, 2009
If you have reliable sourcing for this it would belong in another article. Edkollin (talk) 20:56, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Said theory is still a "9/11 conspiracy theory", so if s/he had a reliable source it should be included in the article in proportion to its prevalence. A. Nonymous see WP:RS for criteria for reliable sources.ArXivist (talk) 21:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I actually don't have a reliable source, because I thought it up. I've never read about this anywhere. This is what I think could have been happened. Just like Oklahoma in 1995, it was a cooperative job between American extremists and Islamists (see "John Doe #2" or al-Husseini for more about Oklahoma). And the FBI was probably involved too (just like in 1995, and even in 1993 - the first WTC attack). Could have been another sting operation went terribly wrong. A. Nonym, 04:51 am August 9, 2009
Ok, I have found many reliable sources that demonstrate, that American extremists indeed could be the perpetrators. Of course, I have no source, that the US government exploited the attacks. That is just the conclusion. A. Nonym, 05:33 am August 15, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.153.204.26 (talk) 03:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject.

The article currently has a tag that says it doesn't represent a worldwide view and that this issue should be discussed on the talk page. Unless I'm missing something (which maybe I am), I don't see a thread specifically discussing the worldwide view of the subject. Thus, I am creating this discussion. What exactly about the article doesn't represent a worldwide view of the subject? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The editor who added the tag included the comment, "Needs more global coverage- Tages-Anzeiger piece by Daniel Ganser, Harrit needs more coverage, Japanese Parliament Fujita Japan Times Article, Lots of Russian Sources Besides Russia TV(ref) (ref) (ref) , Blick , etc." (The links are added by myself, for convenience). I am ambivalent about whether or not this editor has a point. If it were up to me, I would trim this article down a bit, cutting out Icke's fiction (which is beneath conspiracy theory), and Harrit's science (which is above it.) The international pieces can each be judged for inclusion based on their relevance and notability. Wildbear (talk) 06:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
OK, I've shorted the section. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I've shortened the David Icke section a couple weeks ago and specified "US" or "American" when concerning Obama and the US military. Does anyone object if I remove this tag? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Consensus for shortening the article

Since it is this which is standing in the way of the article's concrete improvement, I think it would be best to have a discussion about what needs to be put in and what can be cut out. I propose the following:

  • Shorten 'History' section.

This has a bit too much detail. The content is fine, but I think some fine tuning can take a bit of weight off.

  • Distribute 'Mainstream account' throughout article.

We could have its short summary in the lead, and each theory's section could start with the mainstream account. Alternatively, shorten it.

  • Cut 'Variants' section.

This could be summarised with a single sentence in the lead.

  • Compact 'Reaction' sections.

We currently have four meaty sections simply explaining reaction to the theories, which go into way too much detail. I think we should have a signle 'Reception' section, with a 'Criticism' subsection, and cut down a lot of the the content. We have a whole paragraph dedicated to Bill Maher, for instance.

  • Add details in 'World Trade Center collapse' and 'Hijackers' sections.

We are currently missing information on, firstly, theories regarding the molten metal found in the building rubble, and secondly theories about the hijacker's FBI involvement (some theories say they were living with an FBI informant). Maybe the second is too obscure, but the first is cited in every conspiracy website I've seen, and I don't think the article would be complete without it.

Any thoughts on article shortening? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.111.188 (talk) 13:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

It would be nice if there were details about the "molten metal" to include in the article. I haven't seen any from reliable sources, even in the 911ct context. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Here are some references for "molten metal" found in the remains of the buildings:
  • "In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel." Alison Geyh, PhD. Johns Hopkins Public Health Magazine (ref)
  • "Feeling the heat, seeing the molten steel, the layers upon layers of ash, like lava, it reminded me of Mt. St. Helens and the thousands who fled that disaster". Ron Burger, public health advisor. National Environmental Health Association (ref)
  • "They showed us many fascinating slides" he continued, "ranging from molten metal which was still red hot weeks after the event, to 4-inch thick steel plates sheared and bent in the disaster". Dr Keith Eaton. Journal of the Institution of Structural Engineers (ref)(pdf, page 6)
  • "As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running." Structural Engineers Association of Utah (ref, page 3)
  • "Sarah Atlas and her canine partner, Anna, a black-faced German shepherd, were deployed by New Jersey’s Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue. [...] Fires burned and molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet." University of Pennsylvania (ref)
  • "Thermal Imagery of the progression of molten steel hotspots from September 18 to September 25." City University of New York (ref)(pdf, page 5)
  • "Underground, it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from Building 6." 9-11 Commission, Public Hearing (ref) Wildbear (talk) 20:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Great work Wildbear, surely these are all reliable sources? 213.40.227.42 (talk) 19:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I believe that all of these sources would qualify as reliable source. If sources such as these did not qualify, it would open the floodgates for a whole lot of material on Wikipedia to be challenged and removed. Editors here can correct me if I'm mistaken. Wildbear (talk) 02:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
It seems likely that some of those appear sufficient for mention, although many of the statements are demonstrably false (even if sourced) and others are editorials, and the 9-11commision reference was testimony, and hence WP:SPS, although possibly allowable as testimony by a recognized expert. Thanks for the references. The first few I checked didn't support the assertion that there was molten steel, only, at best, that there appeared to be molten metal. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Here are a few thermal images which seem to confirm the high temperature but not molten metal, if anyone needs them. Hilariously, only the twin towers and building 7 have these hot spots underneath them.
[1]
[2]
[3]
And these hot spots are indeed very hot. The coolest area is 1160 fahrenheit, jet fuel burns at 550 fahrenheit. Must've been the extreme friction of the collapses. 213.40.221.181 (talk) 22:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
A more detailed reference for the hot spots is available from the USGS here. However, we can't use the raw hot spot data together with the anecdotal references on molten metal to draw any conclusions for Wikipedia. Someone else has to put the facts together. Conspiracy theorists and/or the Truth movement would fault the NIST for not investigating the reports of molten metal, and for not attempting to acquire and analyze samples of the stuff (whatever it was). Mention of this omission from the investigation (and the consequential criticism) might be appropriate, with suitable references applied. Wildbear (talk) 23:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
What I have always wondered is how do all these people know that what they saw was steel? All carrying portable metallurgical analysis kits? When we understand that they are pulling "steel" out of thin air, I wonder how reliable these peoples' statements are about the "molten" part. 62.78.198.48 (talk) 09:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, they were firefighters, and they saw bright-yellow hot liquid pouring off skyscraper metal, which they know is steel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.114.100 (talk) 11:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Do you have a reliable source for "bright-yellow hot liquid"? Do you have a reliable source that explains that steel is the only substance that is yellow? Do firefighters (wherever such may be the source) routinely receive molten metallurgy analysis training? Just trying to map "reliable source who really knows what he is saying" vs. "jumping into conclusions and guesstimates with no real knowledge in the subject". 62.78.198.48 (talk) 18:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, no, I doubt the firefighters had time to carry out chemical analysis of the molten metal. But if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.254.7 (talk) 11:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
And that is the kind of jumping into conclusions that people do, while an encyclopedia doesn't. Rather we should take it as a red flag for people jumping into conclusions. What did they really see, and what did they assume? Something orange = molten steel? Or something shiny = molten steel? Conspiracy theorists interpret things to twist an ambiguous statement into support for their belief system; other people or an encyclopedia won't. This is not so much as "walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, therefore duck" as it is "walks, therefore duck". There are many more things that walk but aren't ducks, and there are many more things that are orange or shiny or whatever they saw that are not molten steel. 62.78.198.48 (talk) 18:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I do see your point, perhaps the molten steel would be hard to reliably source. However I think the hot spots which remained under all three building piles for weeks after their collapses should be mentioned. We could present it as "numerous conspiracy theory websites claim that molten steel/hot spots were found..."213.40.227.42 (talk) 19:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Shorten 'History' section.
I agree. Nobody needs 10 sources about Ayman al-Zawahiri accusing Iran and Hezbollah of intentionally starting rumors, and I find the link to Death of Diana, Princess of Wales, conspiracy theories rather odd, too.
  • Distribute 'Mainstream account' throughout article.
I generally agree. The section is conceptually odd. We need to keep in mind that there is a main article about September 9/11 on Wikipedia, so there is no need to repeat every statement from that article in this article here. We can safely assume that a reader somehow notices (e.g. by reading the lead) that this article is about disputed theories that are generally considered to be wrong by reliable sources, as defined in this context.
  • Cut 'Variants' section.
Either expand to include other major distinctions between theories (e.g. Pentagon-focused and WTC-focused theories) or include the content somewhere else.
  • Compact 'Reaction' sections.
Should be consolidated into a "Reception" section. Calling the media reports a "reaction" may be original research anyway (although the concept of officials and institutions reacting to the emergence of the theories in general can be sourced to reliable sources). Some details can be removed.
  • Add details in 'World Trade Center collapse' and 'Hijackers' sections.
For 'World Trade Center collapse', there is the separate article World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories, so any details should be added to that article. Details about the hijackers can be found in Hijackers in the September 11 attacks and 9/11 advance-knowledge debate. Both are not sub-articles to this article, so more details on relevant statements about the hijackers in the context of alternative views of 9/11 may be added here. I'll add both articles as "see also" links to the section.
  Cs32en  14:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I am against distributing the "mainstream section". It has been 8 years since the attacks and 5 years since the 9/11 commission report. The readers need a summary section of what the conspiracy theorists are disagreeing with. Otherwise most of the suggestions at first glance seem reasonable. I don't think the Bill Maher show is notable enough for a whole paragraph. Summarizing should not mean going crazy on a cutting binge. I have seen to many articles destroyed this way. 9/11 conspiracy theories is a complicated subject. The article needs to be longer then most other articles Edkollin (talk) 18:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what we can do about shortening the history section. But we may want to take a step back and ask ourselves, "Do we even need a history section?" What if we deleted it and just jumped right into meat of the content? To be sure, some of the content should be saved. Al Qaeda's accusing Iran and Hezbollah of starting conspiracy theories is good content (athough I don't know where it would go.) The final paragraph of the history section can be saved for a new Internet Phenomenon section.
  • The final two paragraphs of the Mainstream Account section can probably be deleted. They don't really add much to the article and last paragraph may have some WP:SYN issues. (I don't think any of the cites are actually about 9/11 conspiracy theories, but I haven't had a chance to look into this yet.)
  • I think we need the LIHOP and MIHOP explanations. This is important within 9/11 conspiracy community and it's been covered by reliable sources.
  • As Cs32En points out, we already have a full article on CDCT so readers can go there for details.
  • I'm not sure we need the Pax Americana and Invasion sections. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The opening paragraphy of Coverup Allegations can probably be deleted. It cites 3 fringe sources and then 6 reliable sources, none of which appear to be about 9/11 conspiracy theories. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Also, we don't need an entire paragraph on "birthers". I think we can cut this paragraph as well. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Good suggestions everyone, although, AQFK I'd disagree on Pax Americana and Invasion sections - I think theyre important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.114.100 (talk) 11:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
The History section could be lengthened because of the principle, "That History teaches us we do not learn from History." Hegel There are no mentions of two major antecedents in political history, that of Hitler and the burning of the Reichstag and of Nero and the Burning of Rome. The "divide and conquer" mentality of "the big lie" were used in all three: in the first instance to turn Rome against Christians, in the second to turn Germany further against Jews, and in 911 to turn U.S. citizenry against apparent forces of Islam. The short analysis of Ockham's Razor is amusing to apply, because in a multiply complicated scenario with lies present, it simply means we have a complicated set of false explanations compounded by dishonesty: the Second Law of Thermodynamics obtains the best result -- communications entropy, which were well exhibited before, during and after 911 itself. (71.51.76.205 (talk) 13:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC))

Revert

Cs32en, you removed very relevant material to the section. Please explain your removal, what do you mean by "dispute about the proper attribution of the information to the source is resolved"? Imad marie (talk) 23:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The source for the information is an article written by Cinnamon Stillwell. Stillwell is, accordint to her own website, "the West Coast Representative for Campus Watch, a project of the foreign policy think tank directed by Daniel Pipes, the Middle East Forum". She also founded the online discussion group 9/11 Neocons. Stillwell obviously has a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy that she is writing about, so she is not an independent news journalist. Because of this conflict of interest, we need an in-line attribution of the information to the source. I restored the prior state of that part of the article, so that consensus on how to present this source can be achieved by discussion. Of course, I do not insist on any particular wording. Yet, the attribution must contain the information that Stillwell is not a news journalist, but a political activist.  Cs32en  23:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Your WP:OR and subsequent conclusions might be of interest to some people, but are ultimately irrelevant as far as Wikipedia is concerned. The San Francisco Chronicle is one of the largest newspapers in the United States with circulation measured in the hundreds of thousands with an established editorial process. It is clearly a reliable source by any stretch of the imagination. Your claim that this is a "bogus source" is beyond ridiculous. Further, since when do reliable sources require in-text attribution? If that was true, the Barack Obama article couldn't say, "Barack Obama is President of the United States." Instead, it should say "According to the Washington Post, Barack Obama is President of the United States." Obviously, that's nonsense and nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt at POV-pushing. When citing WP:RS, attribution using the reference tags is appropriate. As I said before, if you disagree, please take up the issue at the WP:RSN. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I fail to understand your argument. We have multiple sources that reported that "eyewitnesses reported that the 5 Israelis were filming the attacks with 'puzzling behavior'": The NYTimes [4], The Forward [5], Haaretz [6], ABCNews [7] and many other sources. Are you saying that the origin of all those source is an article written by Cinnamon Stillwell? And even if that was the case, NYTimes, ABCNews and others, have decided that this information is credible, and we should follow. Imad marie (talk) 07:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I will restore the content now. Cs32en; if you feel that NYTimes, ABCNews, Haaretz, and others, do not meet RS, then please take the issue to WP:RSN as per Quest's suggestion. Imad marie (talk) 19:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi again. This really is a misunderstanding. I did not remove anything from the NYT, ABC, or Ha'aretz. The issue is that the information taken from the article written by Cinnamon Stillwell must be attributed to her. I'll correct that again, and I'll leave the information from NYT and other sources in the article, of course.  Cs32en  19:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes there is a misunderstanding. Why do you think that the sources I provided (NYT, ABC, and Ha'aretz) used information from an article written by Cinnamon Stillwell. I read the articles in the sources and I found nothing about Stillwell. Imad marie (talk) 20:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that the sources you provided used any information from the article written by Stillwell. These are really two separate issues.  Cs32en  21:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, the main problem with those sources is that none of them are actually about 9/11 conspiracy theories. Without a source tying the "dancing Israelies" to 9/11 conspiracy theories, it's WP:SYN. We need a WP:RS tying them together. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Misunderstanding is from my side. I thought you were the one to remove the content when it wasn't actually you. My apologies. Imad marie (talk) 07:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
There are sources connecting the events like [8] and [9]. Imad marie (talk) 07:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Can somebody add a section that brings up the controversy surrounding Sibel Edmonds?

She broke the gag order placed on her by the CiA and talked about how she came across information proving that the CiA was working with Osama up until the day before 9/11/01... I believe such an explosive witness warrants a section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parapadrifter (talk • contribs) 17:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that up - I've not researched that yet. As for its inclusion into this article, I'll try to find some reliable sources. 213.40.227.42 (talk) 19:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
She's got an axe to grind with the Turks, long story short, she found out that US Intel was working with a NATO ally (Turkey), and she found this whistle-blower worthy. The intelligence community disagreed. Since then, it's been blown up into "the US was working with muslins (sic)", and other related claims. WRT 9/11, she made claims about about not having enough arabic speakers, and yet, wanted to get arabic speakers (who were Turks) fired, over a work backlog. Ronabop (talk) 06:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
This has spun off into something other than a discussion about this article. This is not a forum. If there are improvements to the article, please restart the discussion and try to keep it on-topic. Thanks,RxS (talk) 17:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Popular Culture

I added a link to a clip of a television pilot for the Lone Gunman which aired 6 months prior to the Sept 11 attacks. For an article that's supposed to be about conspiracies, this is relevant to the subject and can be elaborated on as either a coincidence or a leak or precognition. I don't understand why it has undo and can be deleted as I don't see any discussion about it.

Furtherore, this whole page seems more to be about debunking the 911 conspiracy theories and doesn't even discuss COUNTILPRO or disinformation that's used to discretit or make truther's look like nuts. Nor do I see any info about the Northwoods CIA plan to attack US Civilians as a false flag operation to blame the Cuban gov't which was ultimately refected by Kennedy and was relesed to the public with the Freedom of Information act. It seems as though any credible conspiracies are deliberately being deleted, edited or debunked. Which should all be put on another debunking site and let the credible conspiracies that are available on many other websites are news magazines be given their due respect and analysis. THis should not be a site for people doubting the conspiracy as they undermine the page, let them have their own debunking page.--Kathleenks (talk) 13:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Also I don't see any info on NPAC http://www.newamericancentury.org/ wha "t does Pax have to do with the conspiracy? Nor do I see anything on Secure com or Marvin Bush. And it's all out there, but it seems that it's being deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kathleenks (talk • contribs) 13:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The episode of The Lone Gunmen that you refer to has as much significance as specific covers of Mad Magazine. The public's pecreption of conspiracy theorists as being nuts has nothing to do with COINTELPRO. Northwoods was scrubbed and did not require killing any Americans. Project for a New American Century never specifically stated any alleged plan to fake any attacks on the United States, and Marvin Bush left SECURECOM in 2000. These facts were known years ago, and the refusal of those who believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories to accept them is what makes them nuts. Having said that, the myths and the facts should both be noted. ----DanTD (talk) 14:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I do not think The Lone Gunmen episode has much significance. It is not used by truthers or debunkers in any arguments. The writers of that show had at best some foresight and the network had a history with the X Files of popular CT shows. Marvin Bush and Northwoods do belong as they are key arguments used by truthers as to why it is plausible the government would deliberately kill its own people and how supposedly explosives could be put in for a controlled demolition undetected. Although not exactly the same thing, allowing speculation by non psychologist debunkers as to the mind set of truthers, but not allowing arguments by truthers as to the plausibility of their arguments seems inconsistent. By the way the material about Marvin Bush and his cousin I wrote was was not all complementary to the truthers. Their company was sued and described as incompetent.Edkollin (talk) 19:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I've encountered plenty of truthers who use that Lone Gunmen episode to make their case. While I can understand the use of that as well as Marvin Bush and Operation Northwoods as coverage of their arguments, the facts still contradict those arguments. ----DanTD (talk) 20:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I have encountered the lone gunmen only sporadically of truther websites but and have never seen it used by so called reliable sources. I have mostly seen the Lone Gunmen used on weird coincidences type articles. It would not strain credulity that as the President's brother even though he left the company Marvin Bush still had influence or that he intentionally left the company a year early to cover his tracks. And if a domestic terrorist plan got as far as approval by the Joint Chiefs of Staff a domestic terrorism plan may have gotten approved by the a later President or Vice President. What there is not is any proof of is that Marvin Bush ordered explosives planted or in any way intentionally compromised security at the WTC or that a domestic terrorism plan was ordered by Bush or Cheney. It is difficult to prove a negative so there is no hard proof that these conspiracies were not ordered. That is why the arguments revolve around whether a controlled demolition happened. Even if it could be conclusively proved that there was a controlled demolition there would be no proof of who ordered it. An even if a controlled demolition did not happen that has no relevance as to whether a LIHOP conspiracy did or did not happen. Be that as it may if you find verifiable information the the Lone Gunmen is an important truther argument add it to the article. And Wikipedia is based on verifiability not truth. Verified main arguments by truthers and debunkers need to be presented no matter how incredulous it seems to us. So I think we are in basic agreement about the article.Edkollin (talk) 00:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Saying that the Lone Gunman episode is like Mad Magazine is condesending as the word nuts for an intelligent, serious discussion. The episode not only predicted planes flying into the Trade Center it showed that tv writer's (if just a coincidence) have a lot more imagination than the people who were in charge of security for NYC and WTC, if for nothing else. The fact that Northwoods was scrapped is insignificant to the point that it shows what individuals in our government are capable of like the gulf of Tonkin, like the Pentagon papers. like MK ULTRA, Like Torture, LIke the Patriot ACT, Like Watergate. The fact that the President's brother was involved in the security of Dulles Aiprort, United Airlines and the WTC is significant as the bin Ladens's and the Bushes and the British all investing in the Carlyle group which invested in military contracts. And as far as the PNAC, the members of the group were quoted as saying that this ideology could occur faster if "there was another Pearl Harbor," not to mention the fact that it has been noted in Vanity Fair, Harpers, New Yorker that Paul Wolfowitz has been wanting to take out Iraq for years because of it's strategic location and natural resources. COUNTILPRO is significant when you include Alien Shape shifting which is not a popular conspiracy and serves to undermine all other credible conspiracies. Furthermore if people editing this cite use words like nuts or say that although you are participating in the article you don't believe any of it, there's absolutely no objectivity and this whole page is more about debunking the conspiracy. You have a whole paragraph on how commercial Boeing jets don't have remote control but don't even offer the possibility that they could have been altered. Also I read that Boeing had a plan 3 years prior to Sept 11 to use remote control in their planes to prevent hijacking. That will be released in the coming years (hm why would that news be surpressed?). THe information is out there but you are allowing it to be censored. It's not even worth editing this page becausw it's obvious that the debunkers are in control of it. COUNTILPRO is alive and well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kathleenks (talk • contribs) 10:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Saying that the Lone Gunman episode is like Mad Magazaine is degrading to the magazine. For what it's worth, the episodes "Final Conflict" of Martial Law had "Scorpio" getting the low bid on commercial aircraft naviagation systems, and was going to remotely crash them into buildings around the country. Seems better than "Lone Gunman", although not as precisely matching. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
I apologize if it appears that I'm insulting Mad Magazine, but Doug Gilford's Mad Cover Site actually has a section with front and back covers making the claim that the magazine predicted the 9/11 attacks. Having said that I don't think it was meant to be taken as seriously as those who say the same about that episode of The Lone Gunmen. What the conspiracy freaks ignore about Operation Northwoods is that it did not involve killing Americans. Also, the Gulf of Tonkin Incident was a genuine attack by North Vietnam, and has nothing to do with Northwoods. What they ignore about advocates of the Pentagon Papers, is that the Indochinese Communist Party expanded the war into Cambodia nearly two decades before advocates of those papers accuse Nixon of doing so, and that Ho Chi Minh escalated his support for the Pathet Lao and Khmer Rouge before his death in 1969. What they ignore about the Bush-Bin Laden connection is that the Bin Ladens who associate with Bush have disowned Osama Bin Laden, and that the Carlyle Group isn't some hive-mind of rich folks who secretly control every event in the world. They also overlook the fact that the "new Pearl Harbor" that PNAC describes could just as easily have been the arrival of Hurricane Katrina. In addition, they ignore the fact that Iraq was a sponsor of both Pan Arab and Jihadist terrorism, and that Saddam Hussein was an ego-mainiac and a blood thirsty war-monger who saw himself as the new savior of the Middle East. As for Boeing putting remote controls in planes, they've denied any attempt to do so, and have openly stated that they don't put them in 757's and 767's. And if COINTELPRO is "alive and well" as you claim, then good. But it still has nothing to do with why most people reject the propaganda of 9/11 denialists. ----DanTD (talk) 14:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
No, I believe that Mad Magazine site is parodying Alex Jones's claims to have predicted 9/11, rather than the ones referred to in this section. That being said, we need a mainstream source that notes that others claim that the The Lone Gunmen (TV series) pilot forshadows 9/11, without noting that the last episodes of Martial Law (TV series) forshadow yet another conspiracy theory. Otherwise it's just a conicidence. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, I see both Mad Magazine and The Lone Gunmen as coincidneces, and that section on Mad Magazine's "foreshadowing" was around almost immediatley after the attacks, which was before Alex Jones gained the kind of noteriaty that he has today. The section of that website is not a parody of Alex Jones, but was actually reflective of "Mad ESP," in which some aspect of life is reminiscnet of previous articles and other segements in the magazine. An example would be a future "Where Are they Now" spoof that claims George Lucas produced a movie that bombs at the box office, and years later he released Howard the Duck and Willow. But I agree with you that it's better to have a mainstream source that notes these claims. ----DanTD (talk) 17:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
DanTD, stop flamebaiting. You keep slipping in insults which don't pass unnoticed- calling everyone who doesn't see things as you do "nuts" and "conspiracy freaks" and catagorizing everyone who questions the official story into a single mind-set. It's unpleasant, condescending and immature.
It's because of zealous users like you who think they have all the answers that this article is so full of bias and empty of substance.Killdec (talk) 16:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
No, I don't view everybody who denies the fact that the attacks were carried out by Al-Qaida as being of a single mind-set. I'm perfectly willing to cover as many perspectives on this issue as possible, but I'm not going to pretend that Al-Qaida wasn't responsible on behalf of those who claim to be "questioning the official story." ----DanTD (talk) 17:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
You're going to keep pretending that the CIA aren't responsible for Al Qaeda though?
Ever heard of Operation Cyclone? That's when they funded ($630 million a year), armed and trained the Afghan Mujahideen in the 80's-
radical islamic terrorists who now make up the core of Al Queda and the Taliban. Killdec (talk) 19:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
The Mujahadeen, Al-Qaida, and the Taliban are not the same organizations. Al-Qaida didn't even exist until 1988. The Taliban didn't exist until 1994. So in answer to your question, no I'm not pretending they're not responsible for Al-Qaida. I'm facing the fact that they aren't. ----DanTD (talk)
Tell that "fact" to Bin Laden, he has been closely involved with all 3 for decades. Mujahideen literally means "Person in Jihad", Taliban was founded on the basis of Jihad, and can you tell me what Al Qaeda's core principle is? I never said they were the same organisation, but their goals are identical, as are half of their leadership. The history of all 3 are laced together, tight.
I wonder where they got all their money and weapons from.. ($630 million a year from the CIA perhaps? They, along with the Pakistani ISI did also fund the Taliban).Killdec (talk) 21:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
The goals of the Mujahadeen were simply to expel the Soviet Union and their puppet dictatorship from Afghanistan. The other two are the ones who are seeking to force Sharia Law on as many people as they can. So no, they're not identical. And no, the CIA DID NOT fund the Taliban, even if the ISI did. And that allegation is questionable as well. ----DanTD (talk) 12:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Heh, again, I'm afraid you're WRONG. That wasn't the "goal" of the Mujahideen- that was the goal of the CIA giving the Mujahideen all of that money (to create a "Vietnam" for the USSR). The goal of the Mujahideen, the reason why it was founded, was to wage jihad against the infidels and to enforce Shariah Law (the exact opposite of what you just said). These ideals are identical to that of the missions of the Taliban and Al Queda. As for the 'allegation' (stating the fact) that the ISI funded the Taliban, look up Christian Science Monitor, 3 September 1998, "half of Taliban manpower and equipment originate[d] in Pakistan under the ISI"
I'm begrudged to direct you here to wisen up, as seeing your "work" on this article, as the "conspiracy freaks" as you so eloquantly put it, contradict with your 'perfect reality' you will almost certainly not read or heed the diversity of opinion, refer to the sources, and will probably end up polluting the article with your "take". Also, Congressman Ron Paul says here: "We should recognize that American tax dollars helped to create the very Taliban government that now wants to destroy us. In the late 1970s and early 80s, the CIA was very involved in the training and funding of various fundamentalist Islamic groups in Afghanistan, some of which later became today's brutal Taliban government." he also states in the same article: "Bin Laden himself received training and weapons from the CIA, and that agency's military and financial assistance helped the Afghan rebels build a set of encampments...those same camps became terrorist training facilities for Bin Laden, who uses some of the same soldiers our military once trained as lieutenants in his sickening terrorist network."
And before you think about slandering Ron Paul, remember, in the words of former Treasury Secretary William Simon, Dr. Paul is the "one exception to the Gang of 535" on Capitol Hill. He's the one who tells it how it is. Killdec (talk) 17:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

DanDT is seriously misinformed and was incorrect on every point especially about Northwoods, and the Gulf of Tonkin, and the bin ladens denieing Osama is what a conspiracy theorist would call a cover up. I believe it was in the annaual report of boeing a few years ago that I read that info, trust me they have the tecknowlogy, look thru their annual reports, but if i saved it I'll post it here for you. Inform yourself with the Gulf Of Tonkin by reading it McNamar's own words, for one thing and you can read wikipedia on Northwoods, start with those because you seem to only be listing to the corporate oil and gas and pharmaceutical propaganda controlled news. Then come back to the discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kathleenks (talk • contribs) 03:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Bill Maher

I've removed the Bill Maher paragraph because it was unsourced. If anyone wants to save the content, here it is:

Comedian/TV host Bill Maher has made several critical remarks on the conspiracy theories, refusing to debate the issue on his "Real Time with Bill Maher" show as he thinks it's a waste of time. One segment had him openly stating that only a crazy person could "witness two jet airliners filled with jet fuel slam into buildings on live TV, triggering a massive inferno that burned for two hours and then think 'Well, if you believe that's the cause...'" and suggested they recheck their medication. A memorable "Real Time" episode had a group of 9/11 "Truthers" interrupt a segment, yelling out for Maher to tell the truth and Maher physically ejected one from the audience and had the rest escorted out when they wouldn't be quiet. On another episode, former General Richard Clarke said that the conspiracy theorists made two big mistakes in that "one, they believe the government is competent and two, they think the government can keep a secret."

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

BTW, the first quote is wrong. Maher actually said, "Crazy people who still think the government brought down the Twin Towers in a controlled explosion have to stop pretending that I’m the one who’s being naïve. How big a lunatic do you have to be to watch two giant airliners packed with jet fuel slam into buildings on live TV, igniting a massive inferno that burned for two hours, and then think, well, if you believe that was the cause... Stop asking me to raise this ridiculous topic on the show and start asking your doctor if Paxil is right for you."[10] though I don't have a WP:RS for this. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that's wrong. It's merely a generalization of what Maher said, compared to the exact quote which you posted in the second message. ----DanTD (talk) 12:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
If it's a generalization, then it shouldn't use quote marks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. ----DanTD (talk) 13:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Can we get an exact quote? Ronabop (talk) 06:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
The exact quote is in my second post to this thread. But we do not have a reliable source to cite. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
OK, I found a source that we can use for Mahar's quote: [11]. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Here's a filled in cite template for the first quote. <ref name="BillMaherSept2007">{{cite web | url = http://www.hbo.com/billmaher/new_rules/20070914.html | title = HBO: Real Time with Bill Maher: New Rules: September 14, 2007 | accessdate = 2009-09-16}}</ref>

References/notes/external links — cleanup needed

In reverting a blanking of the references, I noticed that the bottom of this article is messed up. There is Notes containing the references, References containing some external links, and External links (previously References before my previous edit) containing more external links. Please, someone get in there and fix it up. I worry that I am doing more harm than good. Thanks. -Jordgette (talk) 00:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the edit by IP address before you caused the issue and it looks like you resolved. Good work on the paragraph on the NGC show. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to reorganize / split

As we all know, this article needs help. A glance at the contents shows what a patchwork it is, with Flight 93, Hijackers, and Phone calls among the Main theories. Meanwhile, most agree the article is too long, and as this topic's popularity continues to grow, it won't be getting any shorter. So, I propose creating the following structure:

  • Intro, History, Mainstream account left alone
  • Move Variants to Main theories section
  • Events under question — new section focusing only on alleged inconsistencies, with brief subsections:
    • WTC collapse (move theories to next section)
    • Pentagon damage (move theories to next section)
    • Crash of Flight 93 (move theories to next section)
    • Phone calls
    • Release of hijacker identities
    • Cockpit recorders
    • Bin Laden tapes
  • Main theories (Variants moved to section intro)
    • Foreknowledge (shorten; there is a separate article)
    • Controlled demolition of WTC (shorten; there is a separate article)
    • Pentagon damaged by missile
    • Flight 93 shot down
    • Cover-up allegations
    • Involvement of foreign governments (move Jewish and Israeli involvement here)
  • Other theories
    • Remote-controlled planes
    • "No plane" theories
    • Reptilian shape-shifting aliens
  • Possible motives
    • Pax Americana
    • Invasions
    • Suggested historical precedents
  • General criticism (move any examples of specific criticism to the theories sections)

Finally, summarize Media reaction and create new article, 9/11 conspiracy theories in the media, divided into sections for news, "debunking" programs, popular culture, etc. This information is going to balloon and balloon in the coming months and years, so perhaps now is as good a time as any to break it out.

This reorganization would make each section/subsection more cohesive and digestible: First we'd have a series of questions, and then we'd have the theories proposed to answer those questions. The questions and the theories don't necessarily correspond 1:1, which is why the current approach of lumping things together (e.g., putting Phone calls and Hijackers under Theories) isn't working.

Thanks for considering. -Jordgette (talk) 02:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Some thoughts: (a) A gradual approach might be better, as large changes tend to provoke edit wars, even if made as an attempt to find a compromise. (b) Not all "see also" articles and sub-articles are focused on alternative theories, so we cannot outsource everything that we maybe would want to move to sub-articles. (c) I concur that questions and theories are two different subjects and may be treated separately. I'm not sure at this point whether the topic (i.e. controlled demolition) or the dichotomy questions/theories should be the first-level structure. (d) The "media" article is probably a difficult task, as we would need media reporting on the media as sources. (e) We don't know whether the information is going to balloon, well, hopefully we'll have enough time to integrate the information into Wikipedia as it arrives. (f) I agree with some other suggestions for reorganizing the article, such as having a subsection "Involvement of foreign governments". (Do we have the Pakistan/ISI allegations covered somewhere?)  Cs32en  13:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Lee Hamilton and Without Precedent

The paragraph about Lee Hamilton's criticism of the 9/11 commission is terribly misleading. If you look at the interview[12], he actually says that he thinks the 9/11 commission did a good job telling the story of 9/11:

"We had two responsibilities - first, tell the story of 9/11; I think we've done that reasonably well. We worked very hard at it; I don’t know that we’ve told the definitive story of 9/11, but surely anybody in the future who tackles that job will begin with the 9/11 Commission Report. I think we’ve been reasonably successful in telling the story. It became a best seller in this country and people showed a lot of interest in it."

When asked about conspiracy theories, he rejects them:

"The charge that dynamite, or whatever, brought down the World Trade Towers, we of course looked at very carefully - we find no evidence of that. We find all kinds of evidence that it was the airplanes that did it."

As for the quote about being set up to fail, he's talking about politicians making mistakes, not 9/11 conspiracy theories (which he already rejects):

"Politicians don’t like somebody looking back to see if they made a mistake. The Commission had to report right, just a few days before the Democratic National Convention met, in other words, right in the middle of a political campaign. We had a lot of people strongly opposed to what we did. We had a lot of trouble getting access to documents and to people. We knew the history of commissions; the history of commissions were they.. nobody paid much attention to 'em. So there were all kinds of reasons we thought we were set up to fail. We decided that if we were going to have any success, we had to have a unanimous report, otherwise the Commission report would simply be filed."

As for the FAA and NORAD, Hamilton says that were able to issue a subpoena and get the information they needed:

"They gave us inaccurate information. We asked for a lot of material and a lot of documentation. They did not supply it all. They gave us a few things. We sent some staff into their headquarters. We identified a lot more documents and tapes, they eventually gave them to us, we had to issue a subpoena to get them. Eventually they told us we had the story right, they had it wrong, it took a while to get to that point, but we eventually got here."

Anyway, I'm deleting the paragraph. Perhaps this content can be saved but in its present form, it's terribly misleading and doesn't portray an accurate account of what Hamilton is actually saying. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Good catch, good call. RxS (talk) 23:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Telephone calls [Original title: Sounds like bullshit!]

> Further, Flight 77 passengers made phone calls reporting that their airplane had been hijacked. For example, passenger Renee May called her mother to tell her that the plane had been hijacked and that the passengers had been herded to the back of the plane. Another passenger named Barbara Olson called her husband (US Solicitor General Theodore Olson) and said that the flight had been hijacked.

- First of all, at the speed of a jet airplane it is impossible for a handset to follow the passing of terrestrial mobile cells and therefore lasting connection / call cannot be made.

- Secondly the 9/11 airliners were made of aluminium metal, very effectively shielding any emitter antenna trasmitting from inside the fuselage. Therefore any claim of GSM/CDMA calls made onboard by passangers is very highly unlikely.

Please use a bit of commonsense before addig stupid material to wikipedia articles, people will not take wikipedia seriously if you include plain impossible content in articles! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.82.243.142 (talk) 20:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the "impossible content" in the article: (1) Most of the calls were from Air Phones, not cell phones; (2) the cellular carriers confirm that the few cell calls that were made from the low-flying aircraft did in fact connect, although they were soon dropped; (3) have you ever made a call from a plane that was parked at the gate? How was that possible if you were shielded by the aluminum fuselage? Then again, if you have reliable sources backing up your claims of impossibility, perhaps they should be in the article. I encourage you to go looking for them. -Jordgette (talk) 21:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Did Boeing admit that the planes used on 9/11 were models not fitted for airphones? 213.40.97.88 (talk) 12:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
No, actually, not that anyone would have asked Boeing rather than the airlines. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
You can find stuff like interviews of Verizon Airfone operators who talked to people aboard. Unless telephone operators are part of the Illuminati too...? We have elected politicians, soldiers, air traffic controllers, pilots, security staff, firemen, everyone in news and media (the BBC knew!), demolition companies, ...and now telephone operators? Who is left? Me and you, and you must be suspicious of me. 62.78.198.48 (talk) 17:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Airplane speed matters little. A cell phone is a two-way radio. Just like your car radio works when you drive at 150 km/h, a cell phone will work just fine on a plane traveling 300 km/h. Planes don't travel at relativistic speeds. Hand-off between cell towers may fail if their common coverage area is not large enough. But at countryside cell towers' range can be 30 km or more, giving you 5-10 minutes at 300 km/h before a hand-off is needed. And, as noted above, most calls were satellite phone calls anyway. AFAIK there were two cell phone calls, both from Flight 93, which, as it happens, was flying low over countryside. It is peculiar that eight years on simple stuff like this still puzzles people. 62.78.198.48 (talk) 08:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Court documents produced by the FBI show that some of these phone calls did not happen. The conflicting accounts, appearing even long after the initial reports, add to the confusion.  Cs32en  08:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Evidence? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
In answer to a few of the points raised.
Someone did ask Boeing. They confirmed flight 77 didn't have airphones. The other flights did.
Aircraft speed doesn't matter as much as altitude. Up to 600 mtr altitude you will connect 100% of the time but this %age reduces with height to 50% chance at 1,500 mtr and less than 1% chance of connection above around 2,000 mtrs.
The FBI investigated all the calls from all the flights and did in fact find that two claimed calls from Flight 77 were never made. Unfortunately these particular calls were heavily reported by the media because they contained the only mention of what weapons the hijackers had. The FBI found that Barbara Olson actually made only one call, not two as claimed, and that call lasted 0 seconds (did not connect)[13]. Because the mainstream media didn't report this finding, theorists use this as proof indicating other calls may not have been made despite the same FBI report confirming the other calls. Rather than it being peculiar that "stuff like this still puzzles people", when information is seen to be ignored, avoided, exaggerated or falsified it is normal human behaviour to take one of three positions, either claim a conspiracy theory, claim all conspiracy theorists are nutjobs or use a more common sense approach by listening to any position held by a significant number of people in conjuction with the evidence without judging the people involved. Wayne (talk) 17:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I would have assumed that a "0 seconds" connect time reflects a "time field not completed" (especially, if the call would have been in progress at the time of the crash), rather than a "call did not connect". That evidence is not necessarily relevant, although it could rationally be discussed. (Something which hasn't happened here or in the real world.) As an aside, does the cell phone company record the actual connect time, or merely the time the cell is attempting to connect? Since those companies that charge for time start charging from within 30 seconds after the call initiation, rather than from any actual connection, information on actual connect time may not be maintained properly, unless the calls were made to a phone that charges for received calls. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if some people had a cell phone number different than the survivors thought they had, leading to failed verification. It's only after 9/11 that the association of cell phone numbers to names was required to be maintained by the phone companies, and it's, even now, not illegal to borrow someone else's phone.
And the third position is not really tenable, either. A more common sense approach would be to listen to any position held by a significant number of people, where the position is credible. This would eliminate most of the theories postulated here.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Evidence? (As opposed to claims.) 62.78.198.48 (talk) 19:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Therein lies the problem. Who determines which positions are credible? What criteria do we use for that determination? We can easily dismiss those with a handful of adherents such as aliens and the no planers but what about the theories with a majority support such as some theories concerning a government cover-up? Even the CD theory has significant support and will continue to do so until the theory is investigated. Keep in mind that the first reporting of the CIA’s involvement in cocaine trafficking led to condemnation of the claim by all the mainstream media, in their own words, as "a groundless conspiracy theory" and several national newspapers own investigations, falsely as it later turned out, even refuted the story. A year after the original story the newspaper that carried it was forced to print a retraction and the reporter was sacked and never worked as a journalist again. Today, consensus is that the original story was "neither false nor fantastic" but true. Now why do you suppose this CIA story sounds so similar to 911 conspiracy theories? It may have seemed false but without a proper investigation (which excluded biased media investigations) it would still be a conspiracy theory today with its supporters considered nut jobs. Wayne (talk) 17:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Directed Energy Weapons or Star Wars

An editor added a bit about the conspiracy theory that a directed beam weapon was used to destory the WTC.[14] The edit was reverted because it was not sourced to a WP:reliable source.[15]. However, here is one WP:RS that maybe used: [16] Are there any others? If so, post here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

That's a possible RS about the people with wild theories and laughable claims, not an RS about anything that actually happened.... good source for the Conspiracies article, but not here. Ronabop (talk) 05:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
This is the conspiracies article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Just for the record. Wikipedia policies related to sources apply equally to all claims, whether they are claims about people with wild theories or about people with other sorts of theories.  Cs32en  10:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Quotefarms

The section Flight 93 is still a quotefarm, and the long quote from the FBI in the Hijackers section is unnecessary, as the exact wording that the FBI chose is irrelevant for this article. A mutual revert restriction on the editor who removed the quotefarm tags (which I had inserted a while ago) and myself will start by tomorrow, so I'm not going to revert the editor. I do think, however, that this is a problem that needs to be fixed.  Cs32en  23:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not a quote farm. This is what a quote farm looks like: Foundation for Thought and Ethics, Tim Storey, Wiseman hypothesis, TV Newser, etc. Need I go on? To be frank, this appears to be yet another one of your attempts at POV-pushing. You don't like the content so you're coming up with the flimsiest of excuses to delete or reduce it. If there's any doubt in your mind as to what a real quote farm looks like, see the above examples. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
A Quest For Knowledge, you seem to like these long and excessively detailed quotes so much that you are defending them by pointing to other questionable stuff on the encyclopedia. Let's start improving the article instead. You may want to insert a subject, such as "an engine", in the quote that you have edited recently. Also, I don't see the point in specifying "high velocities" as "500 mph or more", and I don't think the question of how many seconds an engine would tumble is relevant, as any dispute apparently focuses on the distance, not the time frame.  Cs32en  08:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
No, I'm simply pointing out that it's not a quote farm by showing you examples of what real quote farms look like.
It's relevant because speed is measured by distance divided by time. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:9/11_conspiracy_theories/Archive_22&oldid=1079511784"