Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Archive 30

New Poll

Most Americans Reject 9/11 Conspiracy Theories. I added this to the 9/11 Opinion Polls article. If we are going to use the general 30 to 40% numbers for the general pro "truth" viewpoint we should use these substantially lower numbers for specific theories. Edkollin (talk) 23:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I assume that the study's findings are broadly correct. The questions are, of course, as important as the answers. From the report on the study:

The online survey of a representative national sample of 1,007 Americans asked respondents to say whether they agreed or disagreed with a statement made by Ahmadinejad earlier this month.
Ahmadinejad stated on Mar. 6: “The Sept. 11 incident was a big fabrication as a pretext for the campaign against terrorism and a prelude for staging an invasion against Afghanistan."
Respondents were shown the entire statement, but were not informed that the Iranian President himself had voiced those views. In all, 62 per cent of respondents disagree with the statement, 26 per cent of respondents agree with it, and 12 per cent are undecided.

"Americans Disagree with Iranian President on 9/11 "Fabrication"" (PDF). Angus Reid Public Opinion. March 2010.

  Cs32en Talk to me  23:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I took a look at the survey attached here. It doesn't explain how the sample was selected, "representative national sample" just doesn't cut it! How did they ensure that their online survey was a "representative national sample". Statistically weighing Springboard America panelists for age, sex...etc hardly makes the sample representative of the whole nation. What makes it even more clear that it doesn't, is that it -statistically speaking- significantly differs from other stronger surveys conducted regarding this issue. The only value I can see in this study, is that it shows statistically significant differences between Democrat & Republican pollers.--Xevorim (talk) 03:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it makes a difference whether a poll asks whether 9/11 was "a big fabrication", or whether the interviewees are being asked, for example, whether they would find it possible that the 9/11 Commission did not investigate specific aspects of the attacks that may have led to perpetrators other than or beside al-Qaeda. "Big fabrication ... as a pretext for the campaign against terrorism" also implies a level of involvement of the Bush administration that many people in the 9/11 Truth movement do not believe was the case.  Cs32en Talk to me  12:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

True. I think the questions themselves should've been more neutral, so as not to try and affect the pollers answers.--Xevorim (talk) 12:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Anyone familiar with polling will notice that the questions are asked in such a manner as to make this a "push poll," one weighted for a single response, the equivalent of the "when did you stop beating your wife" question. Inserting Iran into a 9/11 poll question destroys all validity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gpduf (talk • contribs) 14:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

They say that they presented the wording without referring to Ahmadinejad. Still, the wording implies a lot of assumptions that go beyond simply suspecting that the U.S. administration did not investigate thoroughly enough or was/is hiding something.  Cs32en Talk to me  20:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Ucucha 21:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

---

9/11 conspiracy theories → September 11 attacks conspiracy theories — Per main article (September 11 attacks) and WP:SLASH. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

• Against - It's grammatically horrible, with multiple plurals. "Attacks theories". Ugh... --OpenFuture (talk) 08:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
• Comment How about September 11 conspiracy theories? In any case, shouldn't the title be in the singular form (September 11 conspiracy theory)? We have an article on Apple, not Apples, and the advice under Naming Conventions is to use the singular. The opening phrase would need to be amended to A September 11 conspiracy theory alleges that... Skinsmoke (talk) 13:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Support moving to September 11 conspiracy theories. Slashes in titles are not very good, because they are also used to indicate sub-pages. 199.125.109.57 (talk) 20:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose "9/11" has come to be synonymous with the events while September 11 happens every year. TFD (talk) 15:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Clarity is more important than consistency; as TFD says "9/11" is more synonymous with the events than just "September 11"; and the proposed new name reads confusingly like a sentence. Create a redirect from the proposed new name to the existing name if felt necessary. Barnabypage (talk) 15:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is by far the most common description of them. Edkollin (talk) 20:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose The movement that has done the most to advance these theories is the "9/11 Truth" movement, not the "September 11 Truth" movement. Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Consistency is great, but not when it's unhelpful ("9/11" is how its known). Johnuniq (talk) 08:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose this proposal. If you want to avoild the slash problem, change it to 9-11 conspiracy theories Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 01:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

DragonLair04's edit

I agree the material (at present, snyway; I haven't checked the history to see if someone removed the sources) is unsourced, but there is absolutely no doubt that it's correct and has been reported in the news media. However, it's clearly NPOV. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I think any material true or not that has had citation warnings one month plus is a candidate for deletion. In this case since it is believed there is sourcing would it break any guideline to update the date on the citation needed templete? Edkollin (talk) 22:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that it would be appropriate to change the date on any citation needed templates. A better way of handling it (in my opinion) would be to post notice on this talk page that citations need to be found within some reasonable amount of time (one month?), or the material will be deleted. I'm fairly confident that I've seen usable references for the material in question before, but I don't have time to dig for it at the moment. If no one else handles it first, I'll see what I can find when time allows. Wildbear (talk) 18:27, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

My concern would be that a lot less people look at talk pages the the main article. Anyway even though we don't have an official notice this thread is a unofficial notice. Edkollin (talk) 20:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Use of "unwarranted"

There was an objection made to a change I made to this segment:

"The NIST and many mainstream scientists refuse to debate conspiracy theorists because they feel it would give these theories unwarranted credibility."

The issue is the insertion of the word "unwarranted" here. Its inclusion in the source is given as a justification for including it saying it only represents the opinion of those mentioned. The term is not a direct quote from any of these sources, but the article's description of their statements or beliefs. However, this sort of word is a perfect example of a word to avoid and just because the source uses it doesn't mean we should. Unfortunately I cannot think of an appropriate change other than removing the word to address the impact on neutrality from keeping it. Any suggestions?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I haven't examined the edit yet, but in general, following the wording of the sources is a good idea. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I consider the sentence questionable, even though an accurate quote.

"The standards and technology institute, and many mainstream scientists, won't debate conspiracy theorists, saying they don't want to lend them unwarranted credibility."

However, without "unwarranted", there's a clear implication that NIST/scientists might believe the theories, but still don't want to lend them credibility. That is what many 9/11 conspiracy theorists state they believe, making it even more important that we don't give that theory WP:UNDUE weight. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Only if the wording can be taken as neutral or is part of a direct quote. As phrased here it is not entirely clear whether the article is stating credibility is unwarranted or the individuals mentioned. In order to make that clear I can only think a rewrite of the sentence is needed, but I'm not sure what would be the best way to rephrase it.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Fake Bin Laden Tapes?

In a 2010 B.B.C. Documentary about 911 Conspiracy Theories a former R.A.F. Photographic expert was asked to study the Video Tapes found by the Pentagon of Bin Laden confessing to the 911 attacks and judge whether they were genuine. The R.A.F. expert was emphatic that the man in the 'Confession Tape' was the same man as the man identified as Bin Laden in a comparison video. Asked if the video could be faked the expert was again emphatic; 'yes video of this type can be faked, but the Pentagon does not have the equipment to construct such fakes. I am not allowed to tell you how I know this, but I definitely know they do not have such equipment. The Pentagon could have outsourced the work, but people would talk, this is a tightly knit business, and no body has ever said anything about this'. Asked why Bin Laden looks different in the confession tape the expert said, 'that is caused by distortion created in placing Text into the video frames'.Johnwrd (talk) 19:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The tapes always first appeared on Al-Jazeer TV, which is a known ANTI-Western network, so I find it improbable and almost impossible that they would voluntarily accept a tape that even remotely could have been made or authorized by the US government. TyVulpine (talk) 23:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Unclear writing

In the section "Jewish and Israeli involvement", the first paragraph (reproduced below) is not clear. As written, it does not actually address the claim. Specifically, it states

1. Theory - 5,000 Jewish employees skipped work that day.

2. Fact - 270-400 Jews died in the attack, including five Israeli citizens.

3. Fact - A partial U.S. State Department list includes 76 Jews/Israeli citizens who died in the attack.

4. Fact - 270 corresponds proportionately to % of self-identified Jews living in the area.

What is missing is how many Israeli citizens/Jews were employed at the building and normally expected to be at work on that day. As it stands, the factual statements which are supposed to rebut the theory actually have no connection to it. Assuming appropriate statistics can be found, can this be written better?

"There are theories that 9/11 was part of an international Jewish conspiracy. According to Cinnamon Stillwell, another myth popular with 9/11 conspiracy theorists[116] is that 4,000 Jewish employees skipped work at the World Trade Center on September 11. This was first reported on September 17 by the Lebanese Hezbollah-owned satellite television channel Al-Manar and is believed to be based on the September 12 edition of the Jerusalem Post that stated "The Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem has so far received the names of 4,000 Israelis believed to have been in the areas of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon at the time of the attacks."[117] Both turned out to be incorrect; the number of Jews who died in the attacks is variously estimated at between 270 to 400.[118][119][dead link][120][121] The lower figure tracks closely with the percentage of Jews living in the New York area and partial surveys of the victims' listed religion. The U.S. State Department has published a partial list of 76 in response to claims that fewer Jews/Israelis died in the WTC attacks than should have been present at the time.[122][123] Five Israeli citizens died in the attack.[124]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.157.188 (talk) 21:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I doubt there are more then these voluntary post mortem surveys cited. Jewish is not a recognized minority used for affirmative action and those equal opportunity surveys one is asked to fill out for employment. Edkollin (talk) 07:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

No, what you ask for is not missing. It points out that the number of victims, 270-400, matches the expected percentage. That means that there was *not* a massive "missing from work" by Jews, because if it had been, then that number would be significantly lower, especially since 4000 Jews are more than the amount of Jews that is likely to have been working in WTC in the first place. If that claim was even remotely true, then the amount of Jews that died would have extremely low. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Typo/missing information

In the section 4.1, it says that "it took an F-16 22 minutes to reach", the source says it took in fact one hour 22 minutes to intercept. http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/debunking-911-myths-planes#intercepts 96.51.23.117 (talk) 23:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. The text as it was was directly copied from the PM article, so I reworded and tightened the statement. If there are other instances of copying from that or any other source without clear quotation, please also remove them. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Reply to TyVulpine

This has to do with proper practices and improving the article, as directed by Wikipedia policy. First of all, you inserted your comment into the middle of a conversation, making it appear that the comment following yours was replying to you. This is an issue of format, and an easy mistake to make. No big deal. Next, TyVulpine wrote:

• "Simply SUSPECTING a "conspiracy" is no proof there IS one, it's often only in the minds of the people CLAIMING it that there is one, and that cannot be considered proof of anything." No one (that I am aware of) questions that 9/11 was a conspiracy. To allege otherwise is to suggest that the event was the work of a lone individual. So "proving" a conspiracy is a non-issue here; it's already assumed that there was a conspiracy. The unresolved issue is who were the conspirators.
• "NO demolition starts at the top of a building" So we are supposed to believe that fires can destroy a steel-frame building from the top down, but explosives and/or incendiaries can not? That's getting pretty far-fetched (i.e nonsense). How does this comment suggest an improvement to the article?
• "and with the absence of flashes, bangs or noticable fireball explosions" There were numerous accounts of sounds of explosions and flashes of light. The accounts given by emergency personnel, as acquired via FOIA by the New York Times, provides many examples. Complete documentation: (ref), and a condensed version: (ref). Numerous accounts of explosions were also collected by the news media, and currently available as video clips. If you are going to suggest a change to the article, back up your assertions with reliably sourced documentation. Wildbear (talk) 04:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Please don't discuss the theories. This is not a WP:FORUM. And discussing with denialists is pointless. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Original Research?

The last couple of changes [1] has included a lot of links to arguments for and against conspiracy theories. Should that really be on this page, that smells of WP:OR. Shouldn't this article be *about* the conspiracy theories, and hence talk about them and link to resources that discuss the theories? It's not a place to list all arguments for or against conspiracy theories, right? --OpenFuture (talk) 18:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The scope of the article is being defined by the content of the theories, not by whether a particular source explicitly describes them as "conspiracy theories". The wording of the title, which describes the content that falls within the scope of the article, in turn is based on the preponderant description that is being used by reliable sources. Therefore, sources that contain information about the content of the theories, or that evaluate that content, would be prima facie admissible. Whether any such source are is valid in a particular instance then depends on other aspects on our sources policy.  Cs32en Talk to me  22:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Name change and movement of content in regards to "The Official Account is Also a Conspiracy Idea"

Due to the implications of the previous discussion topic on this page (Even the official story describes a conspiracy), I propose this article be renamed "The 911 Conspiracy" and content from September 11 attacks section on Attackers and their background be moved here and put under the Mainstream account section. Zzzmidnight (talk) 18:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

wp:snowball --OpenFuture (talk) 19:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I would disagree with this move. "Conspiracy theories" is used appropriately here. ClovisPt (talk) 19:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

"The snowball clause is not policy, and there are sometimes good reasons for pushing ahead against the flames anyway; well aimed snowballs have, on rare occasions, made it through the inferno to reach their marks."Zzzmidnight (talk) 19:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

There's more than one type of 911 conspiracy theory. Bad name. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Calling WP:SNOWBALL is a polite way of saying "stop wasting yours and ours time". --OpenFuture (talk) 20:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, I can not waste your time for you.Rolyatleahcim (formerly known as Zzzmidnight) (talk) 21:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Each time you write your nonsense here, you are wasting everybody elses time. And yours. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand your argument and your opinion, and like you, I reserve the right to express mine.Rolyatleahcim (formerly known as Zzzmidnight) (talk) 21:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Straw man --OpenFuture (talk) 21:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I am not concerned with your time.Rolyatleahcim (formerly known as Zzzmidnight) (talk) 05:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

With the effect that nobody listens to what you say. Was that the intended outcome? --OpenFuture (talk) 05:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

If you would like to discuses my intention of participation on WP, lets do so on my talk page.Rolyatleahcim (formerly known as Zzzmidnight) (talk) 18:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

This editor is promoting merges all around, disregarding article focus, talk pages and editorial consensus without so much as a word of acknowledgement. In this article he seems to think it suffices to post mere oneliners to overthrow such consensus. If there is a serious point to be made, which I will assume for good faith's sake, bring it forth. Else, this seems quite an effort to waste everyone's time. 78.55.214.161 (talk) 21:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

If you wish to have a dialog regarding a proposed merger of mine, please have it with me on the corresponding talk page, here it is ad hominem. Also, I ask that you please take responsibility for wasting your own time; I can not do it for you.Rolyatleahcim (formerly known as Zzzmidnight) (talk) 21:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Further more, you should look no farther than my first comments in this discussion to see my "point", I accept that you are not in favor of the proposal. Rolyatleahcim (formerly known as Zzzmidnight) (talk) 21:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 216.54.111.194, 26 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

Sentence related to citation #94, under 'Criticism,' last paragraph, should read "strains credibility." "Strains credulity" is improper usage of the word.

216.54.111.194 (talk) 18:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done SpigotMap 19:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I changed it and got reverted, so you need to build consensus to change it again. SpigotMap 20:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It's sourced. If the source says credulity, it should say credulity. I do also not see how it's improper usage. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The Official Account is Also a Conspiracy Idea

The official account tells of a conspiracy and the idea that 9/11 wasn't a conspiracy is disproven even before it starts and has no substance and even by Wikipedia's own guidelines would be considered a fringe "theory". The article even says "mainstream conspiracy account".

And all crimes committed by the Mafia, street gangs, biker gangs, terror groups, etc. are all necessarily conspiracies. And before the verdict they are all conspiracy "theories". Conspiracy is a very mainstream concept. The fact those other crimes and 9/11 all involve conspiracies is irrelevant or secondary and is neither the point nor the question.

And a theory is a fact, not an hypothesis.

The article should be called either Alternate 9/11 Conspiracy Ideas or 9/11 Conspiracy Ideas but including the official account. And phrases such as "mainstream media have rejected 9/11 conspiracy theories" should be changed to "mainstream media have rejected alternate 9/11 conspiracy ideas." --BlueRider12 (talk) 15:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Have a look here: Conspiracy theory. ClovisPt (talk) 15:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, that was rejected by consensus dozens of times. Check the talk page history. If you can provide a new argument that "Conspiracy" is an NPOV name, go ahead, but read the history first. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It's a difficult to look at the history as it is not by topic or keyword. But the point is you're using the biased, catachretic defintion, not the legal 1, and 9/11 was a criminal act. The Conspiracy Theory article is totally biased, very Wikipedian, in other words. In reality, it is the people who are saying there no conspiracies and who commit atrocities who have the mental problem.--BlueRider12 (talk) 15:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you are confusing two meanings of the word "conspiracy". Literally, you're right. But in common usage, we don't normally consider criminal activity to be a "conspiracy" of the shocking, scandalous sort. The 9/11 conspiracy theories, and the JFK assassination conspiracy theories, suggest that people who we would normally trust, our own government officials, were somehow involved in the crimes. They were planned out at a higher level of power than common crimes. Another example would be "assault". Most people understand this to be a physical attack that results in injury, but legally it can include threats of violence or just pushing someone away from you. Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the use of "conspiracy theory" as an insult is a relatively recent thing. I agree that people who use it as an insult are very naive. Perhaps they also believe that everyone is hired according to merit, and that companies and government officials always tell the truth and always obey the law? Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theory" = "fringe theory which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by conspirators of almost superhuman power and cunning." Hence, the official count is not a conspiracy theory. It involves a conspiracy, yes, but it's not a conspiracy theory, nor actually a "theory" in any reasonable sense. A theory is a set of ideas which are used to explain something. The official account does not explain anything, it's just a collection of facts.OpenFuture (talk) 10:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Not Article Related:: Edkollin (talk) 20:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

This is of course one reason (of many) why conspiracy theories are so popular. They actually give an explanation, a "reason" if you will, and makes it easier psychologically to deal with an event that otherwise is almost arbitrary. It creates an understandable and tangible "evil", instead of the actual mix of chance, ignorance and incompetence. See for example how quickly conspiracy theories arose in regards to the crash that killed the Polish president recently. People simply can not accept that it was an accident, because that means we live in a scary uncontrollable world. But if the Russians shot the plane down, well, then humanity is still in control. So that must be it then. People used to fill that "control hole" with gods, but nowadays we usually don't believe gods make plane crashes happen. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Since we are debating the topic not the article which in my view is not the sin Wikipedia makes it out to be if done once in awhile. It sometimes can help editors understand where other editors are "coming from" thus helping the working relationship, of course it can backfire for the exact same reasons. I have never understood the widely held mainstream view that belief in conspiracy theories is somehow comforting. If I found out for a fact that my own government did order an attack on there metropolitan area while I live and work I can't conceive finding that revelation comforting. The Polish President death conspiracy theories are possibly different in that it would have be another country ordered it. I say possibly because that other country is stocked with thousands of nukes. Edkollin (talk) 20:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I guess the argument could be that a conspirational world would at least be ordered, the fronts would be clear, you know what to expect, events can easily made sense of, ambiguity reduced. Even though I don't think it's the complete picture, I think that is part of what makes conspiracist thinking attractive if you consider the alternative: a complex, if not at times chaotic world, in which events have to be judged not only according to shifting moral grounds and social, political and cultural backgrounds, but also according to complex nets of conflicting ideologies, struggles and alliances, and in which coincidence cannot be ruled out a priori. Reduction of ambiguity and complexity can indeed be somewhat comforting, a world in black and white grants clear options, even calls for action, eventually granting clear models to build one's identity on. Even if potentially leading severe fear, this can be considered, well, comforting. 92.225.209.126 (talk) 15:50, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Resume Article Related:: Edkollin (talk) 14:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

After reading this thread, I come to ask- Would any of you get behind a name change of this article to "The 911 Conspiracy"?Zzzmidnight (talk) 01:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC) t

Nah, a name like that implies that the article would be about the real conspiracy by Al Qaeda terrorists to attack the the US, which is obviously not the topic of this article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

1. Having said "the real conspiracy", your comment is shown to be partisan.

2. This article does include that information.

Zzzmidnight (talk) 18:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

"Having said "the real conspiracy", your comment is shown to be partisan." So? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

It does not further the agenda of developing nonpartisan content, and therefor should be disregarded. Zzzmidnight (talk) 19:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Who told you that Wikipedia is supposed to be non-partisan? Wikipedia only requires editors write in an editorially neutral manner. That is to say, we present POVs according to their presentation in reliable sources. There are very few, if any, reliable sources which support 9/11 conspiracy theories, and the article should accurately reflect this fact. Please see WP:NPOV for a more detailed explanation. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Would I be correct to say, there are very few reliable sources which support conspiracy theories except mainstream versions? Yes or no; the discussion, prior to my arrival, leads one to conclude that mainstream accounts amount to a conspiracy.Zzzmidnight (talk) 19:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, the mainstream account is not a conspiracy *theory*. See above. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

IOW, a conspiracy and a conspiracy theory are two different terms. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

While there are real conspiracies, "conspiracy theories" follow a paranoid interpretation of events that does not rely on normal rational analysis. We cannot put them on the same level as rational interpretations of events. TFD (talk) 07:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

By your logic, if a person theorized the existence of an actual conspiracy it could not be done rationally. Also, you are saying that a rational interpretation of an event is equivalent to the event it self. Rolyatleahcim (formerly known as Zzzmidnight) (talk) 16:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

In regards to OpenFuture, you would be right to say that the facts of the day are not a theory, unlike the mainstream theory based on them. There are many facts about the day, some supporting conflicting theories.Rolyatleahcim (formerly known as Zzzmidnight) (talk) 16:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no mainstream theory. I repeat: The mainstream account is not a theory, it's a collection of facts. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

It used to be a "conspiracy theory" that the CIA assassinated people and was involved in coups. It used to be a "conspiracy theory" that President Nixon was involved in the Watergate burglary. It used to be a "conspiracy theory" that companies hid dangerous product defects and would pay off the victim's families, because it was cheaper than fixing the product (Ford Pinto gas tank explosions). So, no, not all "conspiracy theories" are crazy - they just challenge the conventional wisdom by saying that what we are seeing may not be what it appears to be. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

No, it didn't, really. You also have trouble distinguishing an alleged conspiracy from a conspiracy theory. It's not the same thing. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

All conspiracy theories are about "alleged" conspiracies.Rolyatleahcim (formerly known as Zzzmidnight) (talk) 16:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but not all alleged conspiracies are conspiracy theories. Most of the examples above are neither theories nor conspiracies, and none of them are conspiracy theories. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Rolyatleahcim, following 9/11 a reasonable person would theorize that any number of groups could be responsible: CIA, Mossad, Saddam Hussein, Al Qaeda, etc. A conspiracy theorist would find or manufacture evidence against one of these groups and ignore all others. A rational person would wait for the evidence before deciding. Truthers picked on the US government, while others picked on Saddam Hussein. But reasonable people waited for the facts: it was Al Qaeda. Americans are particularly prone to conspiracy theories because they are unable to accept that the actions taken by their government may lead to undesirable consequences. They cannot believe for example that US actions in the Middle East (e.g., supporting Israel over Palestine) might create enemies and instead blame global events on a shadowy evil force. Whether or not US policies in the Middle East are fair, it is not unbelievable that 19 people living there would be upset enough to plan 9/11. TFD (talk) 22:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

No that is not what a conspiracy theorist is; A conspiracy theorist is someone who theorizes the existence of conspiracies to explain events. Your explanation about why Americans are prone to believe conspiracy theories is also a fallacy. Rolyatleahcim (formerly known as Zzzmidnight) (talk) 06:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

You are expressing an American conspiracist viewpoint. Since the US is the only worthy country in the world, only evil people would attack it. Since it is omnipotent, anyone attacking it must be controlled by the US government. So the government is therefore evil and every bad thing that happens can be attributed to it. TFD (talk) 06:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I made no such, nonsensical, suggestion. Simply, I assert that there may be rational conspiracy theorist, and that Americans are no more prone than anyone else to develop conspiracy theories. Rolyatleahcim (formerly known as Zzzmidnight) (talk) 06:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, rational conspiracy theorists exist, but not for long. The rational conspiracy theorist has to stop being a conspiracy theorist very quickly after encountering facts and logic. But the vast majority of conspiracy theorists are denialists, who ignore all evidence against their theories and manufacture evidence supporting their theories using an over-active imagination coupled with wilful ignorance, simply because they have to be a denialist to continue being a conspiracy theorist. But you are right that Americans is no more prone to conspiracy theories, and US led conspiracy theories are common outside of the US too. The reason is rather that since the US is the most powerful country, all bad things tend to be blamed on the US government, by default. We could have long explanations on the psychology of this, but it's all off topic here. :) And I doubt any conspiracy theorist would be open to explanation of why he refuses to accept facts any way, so it would also be quite pointless. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

That is a fallacy. When an idea is dis-proven, it does not negate the facts that led the theorist to the theory. The rational conspiracy theorist would embrace facts and logic, and remain skeptical; inquiring into the possible implantation of facts that contradict conventional realities.Rolyatleahcim (formerly known as Zzzmidnight) (talk) 14:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. In this case, there are no facts which support your the theories. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

it does not negate the facts that led the theorist to the theory. - Facts?!? :-D You are under the illusion that rational people take decisions and have opinions based on facts. This is wrong. The rational person is the one who are willing to change his mind when proven wrong. That's the important difference. What leads the theorist to the theory is *always* emotions. But this is now highly off-topic. If you want to discuss this more, lets do that somewhere else. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin; no. There are legitimate points of interest in relation to this event that lead the predisposed to continue there skepticism, sometimes logically. And OpenFuture, whether or not theories are created based on emotion (Thank God for it), there may at times be completely legitimate foundations for conspiracism. Why the author of this discussion was correct is because, whoever carried out this attack (be it reptile aliens or anyone else) did conspire, and discussion on that is done as theory. You may be right to say "the mainstream-account BASED on facts", but the facts are NOT the mainstream account it self; facts are nothing with out context. It is this context that provides discretion for the main 9/11 article's editor, informing them which facts are relevant and which facts are not. This context is a theory, the difference is that it is a more informed theory than those in this article. Rolyatleahcim (formerly known as Zzzmidnight) (talk) 06:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Conspiracism is just a paranoid variety of denialism, and is per definition irrational. There can not be legitimate foundations for it. No, there is no theory context for the mainstream account, outside scientifically accepted facts, such the universal applicability of the rules of physics, and the non-existence of an army of invisible demolition engineers. All facts are relevant. Fantasy, imagination and wishful thinking is not.--OpenFuture (talk) 07:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

By saying there can be no legitimate foundations for conspiracism, you are saying there can be no legitimate foundations for any conspiracy theory. What an interesting theory...

Rolyatleahcim (formerly known as Zzzmidnight) (talk) 12:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

It is not a theory. I think you maybe should look up what the words conspiracism and conspiracy theory mean, because I don't think you know. Oh, and theory. Probably it's best you look up what conspiracy means as well, just to be sure. For the last time: Although all conspiracy theories contain claims of conspiracies, that does *not* mean that all claims of conspiracies are conspiracy theories. And similarly, although conspiracisms has conspiracy theories at it's center, that does *not* mean that any conspiracy theory automatically is conspiracism. Is there anything in this that is unclear? --OpenFuture (talk) 13:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

If I'm a detective, and I think the evidence points to a particular suspect, and I have amassed quite a bit of circumstantial evidence to back up my hunch, can the suspect's lawyer have all my evidence barred from court by labeling it a "conspiracy theory"? That's a handy trick! Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me you added this under the wrong heading. Please move it to the right one as your comment here doesn't have anything to do with the discussion where you added it. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Whats unclear, is what you think I don't understand. Rolyatleahcim (formerly known as Zzzmidnight) (talk) 02:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you don't understand what the words above mean, since you consistently use them incorrectly. This is why I asked you to look them up. I though that was obvious, I'm sorry I was unclear. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from using my use-of-language as a strawman. If it is my statement "By saying there can be no legitimate foundations for conspiracism, you are saying there can be no legitimate foundations for any conspiracy theory." that you have a problem with, I would be more than willing to explain why it is valid. Rolyatleahcim (formerly known as Zzzmidnight) (talk) 15:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

It isn't valid. The statement is incorrect. I explained why in my comment at 13:33, 27 May 2010. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Because I disagree with you, let me go ahead and explain why my statement is accurate. Conspiracism is a world view based on a conspiracy theory. Holding any conspiracy theory to be true may act as a catalyst for an individual's further development of their worldview. Thus if all conspiracism is invalid, all conspiracy theories must be. Which is NOT the case! Rolyatleahcim (talk) 04:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

As I explained above, that does not follow. You are making a fundamental logical mistake. Just because all cars have wheels, not everything that has wheels is cars. And just because conspiracism contains conspiracy theories, that does not mean all conspiracy theories is conspiracism. You are basically saying that because a car that ran out of fuel will stop, your bicycle will stop unless you drink gasoline. That of course makes no sense.

This is the last time I will explain this logical mistake to you, I've now pointed it out three times, which made me assume you understood that particular part of fundamental logic. In this I was wrong and I offer my apologies. I've found that I'm not able to teach people the basics of logic and reasoning, so if you don't understand you will have to ask someone else. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

If I have made a mistake here, it was arguing with you about this issue. The burden of proof is on you if you are to make any argument that conspircism is inherently a flawed worldview. I would say you have made the assumption that conspiracism must always be based on false conspiracy theories and may never have at its core legitimate conspiracies Rolyatleahcim (talk) 19:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with logic - Finally something we agree on. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I would say you have made the assumption that conspiracism must always be based on false conspiracy theories and may never have at its core legitimate conspiracies - Unfortunately, you are now again incorrect. I liked it better when we agreed. --OpenFuture (talk) 22:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

If I am incorrect, than do you admit that conspiracism may be based upon valid conspiracies?Rolyatleahcim (talk) 01:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

That is at least theoretically possible, yes. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Cumulative Examination versus Separate Theory Examination

It seems that there is some debate within the discussions on this talk page, whether examining mainstream conspiracy theorist's allegations or examining aspects of 9/11-centric conspiracism integrally is a more comprehensive method for this article. I believe, because no single conspiracy theorist holds the exact same set of views as any other, it makes more senses to use the latter method. This would mean, that rather than including information on the bases that it is discussed by mainstream theorist (which many other conspiracy theorist do not trust, being that they are conspiracy theorist), information would be included on the bases that it could be conductive to a conspiracy theorist's arguments. An example of this is the information regarding the individuals who carried out the 9/11 commission report; should information about these individuals be included on the biases that mainstream theorist allege their involvement or should we include this information on the bases that it is conducive to the arguments of conspiracy theorist in general and examine why that is (including remarks made by mainstream conspiracy theorist: which is often conductive to strengthening the beliefs of fellow theorists)? Rolyatleahcim (talk) 02:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

information would be included on the bases that it could be conductive to a conspiracy theorist's arguments - No. Any information can be conductive to a conspiracy theorists arguments, as these arguments aren't based on rationality and logic. Information is included because a *reliable source* claims that it is used as an argument for a conspiracy theory. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

This article is about 9/11 conspiracy theories, but you seem to be saying we can only present material that is discussed in WP:RS. That policy assumes that issues are dealt with objectively and fairly by the media and mainstream researchers, but in this case that's not happening. This is illustrated by an almost complete ban on topic. There is no discussion or debate in the mainstream. And the silence is deafening. Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

You are correct, all media and mainstream researchers are in on the conspiracy. And most Wikipedia editors as well, including me. WP:RS is designed by me and Jimbo Wales with the specific aim to suppress knowledge of who is really behind 9/11. (Hint: It's kittens). --OpenFuture (talk) 14:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Being a reliable source, would you create an article regarding that issue OpenFuture, so that we may cite it?Rolyatleahcim (talk) 16:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

All we can do is report what 911 conspiracy theorists have said as reported in reliable sources and provide analyses of their theories that has been published in reliable sources. Anything else is original research. TFD (talk) 16:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Point taken. Rolyatleahcim (talk) 17:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Rice pre attack warnings

"On April 9, 2004, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice told the 9/11 Commission that attacks using hijacked aircraft had not been anticipated by the White House. President George W. Bush told a new conference in April of 2004 that, "Nobody in our government, at least, and I don't think the prior government, could envision flying airplanes into buildings on such a massive scale." However, in the two years before the 9/11 attacks, NORAD conducted exercises in which hijacked jets were used as weapons. One imagined target was the World Trade Center, while another proposed drill involved a hijacked plane being flown into the Pentagon."

The above good faith edit was added to the World Trade Center Controlled demolition section. The material is reliably sourced but has no relationship to World Trade controlled demolition theories, nor at this point to any 9/11 conspiracy theories. We need reliable third party sources that confirm that 9/11 conspiracy theorists do use this as an argument that there was advanced knowledge. Then it can be added to the advanced knowledge section Edkollin (talk) 14:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Please note that the title of the section is "World Trade Center collapse". It is connected to a conspiracy theory - why would Rice and Bush claim that the attacks were unforeseen when the military was wargaming them? Note that their denials are not personal denials that they knew of this, but denials that the government had foreseen the possibility such attacks. These are the types of "mis-statements" that are evidence of a conspiracy. Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Here is the 9/11 conspiracy page you requested, which points out Rice and Bush's denials: Rehearsing 9/11: How Training Exercises Foretold the Attacks of September 11 http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20090130040348425 Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Here is another 9/11 conspiracy page referring to this: Where Was The US Airforce On 911? http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/WATWherewerethefighters.htm

I've put this back into the article in the "Foreknowledge" section, not because it actually indicates foreknowledge, but at Edkollin's suggestion and because there is a long discussion of NORAD there. Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

A Quest for Knowledge has removed it again for this reason: "Per WP:OR, WP:SYN, not to mention WP:NPOV. Seek talk page consensus before adding problematic material." There is no WP:OR there is no WP:SYN and it is NPOV. Please refer to the reference and please undo your deletion. Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Why would the fact that government officials were unaware of military exercises be evidence of anything? This kitchen sink approach is bloating this article. AQFK did the right thing. RxS (talk) 03:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There are several problems with this content. First, the cited article by USA Today makes no mention of 9/11 conspiracy theories. Connecting this information to 9/11 conspiracy theories is original research, or more specifically synthesis. You need to find a reliable source which connects these two dots. Second, the added material lacked balance. 9/11 conspiracy theories isn't just a minority viewpoint, it's fringe viewpoint. If this material is included in the article, you need to explain the majority viewpoint, too. Unless you do so, it's against our neutral point of view policy. Third, 911truth.org and www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex aren't reliable sources. While these may be acceptable as primary sources about themselves, without a third-party reliable source to cover them, it's undue weight to include them here.

Sorry if these policies sound complicated, but when you're dealing with a tricky subject such as this, all of this needs to be taken into consideration. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

This is not an op ed page. If the dots are connected by reliable sources there it can still be added to the article even if there is no reliably sourced "mainstream" explanation for the apparent specific discrepancy we are discussing. This is addressed in a general way by the article in the mainstream section's discussions of the 9/11 commissions conclusions about failure of imagination and lack of communication. Edkollin (talk) 23:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The deleted material was a direct paraphrase of the news article: "On April 9, 2004, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice told the 9/11 Commission that attacks using hijacked aircraft had not been anticipated by the White House. President George W. Bush told a news conference in April of 2004 that, "Nobody in our government, at least, and I don't think the prior government, could envision flying airplanes into buildings on such a massive scale." However, in the two years before the 9/11 attacks, NORAD conducted exercises in which hijacked jets were used as weapons. One imagined target was the World Trade Center, while another proposed drill involved a hijacked plane being flown into the Pentagon. According to (a) statement released by NORAD, "Numerous types of civilian and military aircraft were used as mock hijacked aircraft. These exercises tested track detection and identification; scramble and interception; hijack procedures; internal and external agency coordination and operational security and communications security procedures." NORAD had drills of jets as weapons http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-04-18-norad_x.htm

Either Rice and Bush were so incompetent that they were unaware of what their own military was doing, or the information was not reaching them, which means the U.S. government is completely dysfunctional, OR THEY LIED, which would be evidence of a cover-up. The news story points out that these kinds of attacks were foreseen by the military, which both Rice and Bush denied.

I also demonstrated that this is being cited as evidence of a conspiracy by 9/11 conspiracy groups, by providing the links to two web pages above. Please undo your deletion. Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think it can be chalked up to incompetence, but the reason is besides the point. You still need third-party reliable sources to connect the dots. You also need to include the mainstream viewpoint to balance out the fringe viewpoint. Without putting 9/11 conspiracy theories in context, it's a WP:NPOV violation. No information is far superior to bad or misleading information. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean "balance out"? A source that says Bush didn't say what he is quoted as saying? A source that says NORAD didn't run these exercises? There is no fringe viewpoint being expressed - the deleted lines and the supporting WP:RS just state the facts as reported by the press. Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Your "connect the dots" link goes to the WP:SYN page, but that says you can't combine material from two sources to state a new thesis. There is only one source here, and no original assertions. You are also setting the hurdle higher than Wikipedia by requiring me to find a WP:RS that explicitly accuses Rice and Bush of lying and staging a cover-up regarding the NORAD exercises. The deleted lines simply show that NORAD foresaw the attacks, which Rice and Bush denied had happened. Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC

As you say there are "no original assertions". Somebody reliable has to make one. Since it is one article I agree with you that it is not WP:SYN but if you added it to the article then the article would be implying that Bush and Rice purposely lied about the exercises because they were in on a conspiracy. By adding the material you are indirectly connecting the dots thus it would be WP:OR That is not a hurdle higher then Wikipedia it is basic Wikipedia policy. Yes the hurdles the policy requires you jump are intentionally difficult and higher at times then the mainstream press has to follow. Edkollin (talk) 18:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Right. And as such, with no thesis and original assertions, it simply doesn't have anything to do with any conspiracy theories. It's only when you start taking it as an argument for a conspiracy it becomes relevant, but doing THAT is connecting the dots, and requires a source, which you don't have. Is it clearer now? --OpenFuture (talk) 06:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

So if the government says Oswald was the lone gunman, and a news report says "analysis of sound recordings taken at the scene of the shooting show it extremely likely there were two gunman", I have to find a reliable source that asserts a government cover-up? I think not. The point is that there is evidence of two gunman. The point here is that Rice and Bush made statements about the 9/11 attacks that were false. Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

"I think not." - Well, think again, then. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

"What do you mean "balance out"?" Let's say the topic is the shape of the Earth. One point of view is that the Earth is spherical (more or less). Another point of view is that the Earth is flat. The spherical Earth viewpoint is the mainstream view point; the flat Earth viewpoint is a fringe viewpoint. If, in an article about the flat Earth, you add content supporting the fringe viewpoint('Earth is flat'), you have to balance that out by explaining the mainstream view point. You can't just add content supporting fringe theories without explaining the mainstream viewpoint. So, you need to resolve the WP:SYN and WP:NPOV issues.

BTW, I should mention that one of the more common complaints about the article is that it is too long. I'm not sure that making it longer is a good idea, but if we include this info, we need to do it right. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

If anywhere, this seems to belong into the advance knowledge debate article. And even there it would only be acceptable if it can be shown that it has come up in the debate, else it would once again be synthesis and instead of reflecting the debate (or at least trying to), the article would actively engage in it (which wikipedia tries not to). 87.166.92.123 (talk) 12:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

So you're saying that information directly from this WP:RS about the 9/11 attacks is inadmissible because it doesn't give some excuse for Rice and Bush making false statements about the 9/11 attacks? I think arguing they did it out of innocent incompetence is the fringe theory! That's probably why no such excuse is given in the article. But you also want the article to explicitly state that they were taking part in a conspiracy? What are you basing this requirement on? Does that mean that any information from a WP:RS that supports theories that are considered "fringe" is automatically excluded, by circular logical, because it is not the orthodox view? Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

No, that's not what we are saying at all. Read my comment from 06:46, 26 May 2010 again. Explain what you find unclear. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

What you're saying is that a WP:RS has to present an explicit conspiracy theory to make it admissible in the article. But because a theory has been labeled a "fringe theory" it will not be presented in a WP:RS as a plausible theory, therefore it is impossible to find a reference. Once it appears in a WP:RS as a plausible theory, it is no longer a "fringe theory", therefore "fringe theories" can never be referenced. But these theories do, in fact, exist. You just can't find out about them on Wikipedia because the information has been deleted from the article. Ghostofnemo (talk) 15:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

No, that's not what we are saying at all. Read my comment from 06:46, 26 May 2010 again. Explain what you find unclear. Do not guess. Do not draw your own conclusions. Read it, and explain what you don't understand, and I'll try to explain. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

If a reliable news source using some new method discovered there were two gunmen in Dealey Plaza my strong guess is they would connect the dots and say this is what JFK conspiracy theorists have been saying for years. Every news organization would pick up on it. And not only would it go it would go in the JFK Conspiracy article it would go in the JFK Assassination article it might go in his bio article. In the case of the FBI naming an Anthrax attacker the FBI claim was immediately challenged by some reliable sources, this was discussed in numerous mainstream articles and commentaries and put in the article. With 9/11 conspiracy theories the theories were at first not discussed at all by reliable sources, and since then there has been near universal dismissal and contempt for them, and a consensus has been built that people espousing them have a particular psychological issue. Wikipedia needs to reflect this. So your problem is not Wikipedia rules but how reliable sources have been treating this issue. Edkollin (talk) 19:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh really? Near universal contempt? Consensus that people espousing 9/11 conspiracy theories have psychological issues? Why do so many Americans believe there is more to the story then? (see polls) If these theories are so crazy and so easily dismissed, why is there so much resistance to letting them be clearly presenting in this article? How could more than 1000 architects and engineers be duped into believing that there is more to the story? Why was all the debris carted off before it could be examined? You'd think that they might want to, you know, investigate the crime of the century BEFORE destroying the evidence. And most importantly, why aren't the mainstream media asking these questions? Ghostofnemo (talk) 16:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Off Topic note speaking of the debris "On April 2, 2010 a team of anthropology and archaeological experts began searching for human remains, human artifacts and personal items at the Fresh Kills Landfill on Staten Island. By May 23 48 bone fragments had been identified as human remains, while one fragment was still under investigation. The fragments ranged in size from a speck to a couple of inches. The operation is scheduled to end in June, while DNA profiling is expected to last several months. New bone fragments from WTC site examined Newsday May 23, 2010"

Don't make the mistake that I agree with the reliable source consensus. As I wrote here just here other day "I have never understood the widely held mainstream view that belief in conspiracy theories is somehow comforting. If I found out for a fact that my own government did order an attack on there metropolitan area while I live and work I can't conceive finding that revelation comforting". If I were running a news service, lets just say that the 9/11 Architects and Engineers petitions would get more coverage then Lindsey Lohan. Despite my opinion reliable sources do hold 9/11 CT in contempt. I follow this nearly every day. If I added every columnist and article that repeated these assertions the article would be 50 times the size it is. The other way around same size article. The public opinion polls, they are notable they are in the article and have their own article because of that. Edkollin (talk) 06:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Because the questions are as nonsensical as the theories. Here is an example of mainstream media actually discussion the core of the issue: [2] --OpenFuture (talk) 22:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I found this interesting article from a link on that same website: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627606.400-living-in-denial-questioning-science-isnt-blasphemy.html

The questions are nonsensical only to the dismissive. You my friend, are unwilling to explore to notions of the theories and there for you are unable to judge their merit critically (whether they are TRUE OR FALSE). It is important to recognize the the validity of the position whereas one examines what might be possible, not because they would like it to be, but because it has not been proven impossible. Ghostofnemo please recognize OpenFuture's fallacious circular logic: your point that there is NOT universal contempt has been made.

In regards you, Edkollin, if you are to include information about the psychological aspects of conspiracism, it would be suited best for the article Conspiracy theory; however you should seek to distinguish between compulsory conspiracism and intentional conspiracism, as generalizations that foster a culture of prejudice and misunderstanding will not be tolerated. Rolyatleahcim (talk) 01:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The columns in the article are discussing conspiracism relating to belief in 9/11 conspiracy theories or conspiraism related to belief in 9/11 conspiracy theories and conspiracies in general. Edkollin (talk) 06:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

You should say exactly what you said in your first paragraph above, but you should direct it to yourself. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Saddam Hussein theories

(Moved all Saddam material from proposal to scrap mainstream section as it is, as pointed out a separate subject. Apologies in advance if I miscopied something) Edkollin (talk) 14:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

In fact the original "official version" was that Saddam Hussein was behind the attacks and that he had weapons of mass destruction with which he could attack the US with a 45 minute lead time. TFD (talk) 04:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Saddam was the "really strongly implied official version". Edkollin (talk) 05:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

That is simply not true. Saddam has never been claimed to be behind the attacks in the "official version". --OpenFuture (talk) 06:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Correct in regards to this article. The "strongly implied" I am discussing is the run up to the Iraq War period. Administration officials were not all that unhappy 71% of Americas believed Saddam had a role. Edkollin (talk) 06:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Not even then was it strongly implied or in any way claimed he was behind 9/11. It was claimed he funded terrorism. If you and others jump to conclusion that he therefore is behind 9/11 that is not the governments fault. They can not be held responsible for paranoid peoples irrationality. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Reality check - Bush administration on Iraq 9/11 link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3119676.stm Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Again: The mainstream account for 9/11 never included Saddam. The above article confirms that. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

There is a bunch of misconceptions here. I never called the Saddam did it an "official theory" or called for it to be included in the article. I wrote it wasn't an "official theory" but a strongly implied official version because in my view and others much that are much more reliable then myself have claimed Bush Administration statements were specifically designed with the intent of playing to "paranoid peoples irrationality" with the intent of having of people believed Saddam had a role. The Bush Administration only denied the Saddam theory when called out on it. I do not believe this belongs in this article, as I discussed above I believe only MIHOP, LIHOP and background and reaction material belong here. Edkollin (talk) 14:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It's clear from the BBC article above that the Bush administration was trying to link Iraq to 9/11 in the public's mind. It wasn't until long after the invasion of Iraq that Bush finally admitted there was no connection. Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

No, that's not clear from that article at all. None of the quotes in any way blame Iraq for 9/11. What they do is try to link Iraq to terrorism. 9/11 was an act of terrorism. If you think that therefore Iraq is being linked to 9/11, you are also claiming that Gavrilo Princip is linked to 9/11. ;)--OpenFuture (talk) 06:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The US government clearly linked Saddam Hussein to the 9/11 attacks: they claimed that Atta met Iraqis at the Iraqi embassy in Prague, that Saddam Hussein allowed Al Qaeda to operate in Iraq, that an Al Qaeda leader went to Bagdad for treatment and that documents linking Al Qaeda to Saddam Hussein were found in Bagdad when the city fell. They also claimed that Saddam Hussein led the Iraqi resistance, which they also blamed on Al Qaeda. Although all these claims were of course false, it shows that the US government promoted the connection. TFD (talk) 07:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

You are playing associations. Yes, they tried to link Iraq to Al Qaeda. That is *not* the same as somehow claiming that Iraq was behind 9/11. That conspiracy theorists doens't understand the difference is not something you can blame on Bush. Sorry, not *everything* that is wrong in this world is his fault. ;) --OpenFuture (talk) 11:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

So the news media are falsely accusing Bush of making a connection? Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

It's now gone from claiming Saddam was behind it to "make a connection". Everything is connected somehow. QED. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)