Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories/Archive 31

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 25

←

Archive 29

→

Peter Knight is now behind a paywall

I just noticed that Peter Knight is now behind a paywall.[1] If anyone needs a copy, it's available at archive.org.[2] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Propose removing the Suggested historical precedents section

1. The article is on 911 conspiracy theories, not on every conspiracy theory regarding a purported false flag operation that has ever existed, and that's exactly what that section will grow into if not nipped in the bud.

2. The section adds nothing to the article--what the conspiracy theorists believe about the motivations for the conspiracy are already covered in the lead. Mystylplx (talk) 19:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree as currently worded does not add much. Section needs to be altered to show why 9/11 CT's keep on bringing it up. The International Herald Tribune Columnist we are using as a cite argues that because of these "precedents" you should not dismiss all 9/11 truther theories out of hand. I don't have reliable sources yet but there are many people who will say while the government lies everyday and is evil they would not go so far as to attack their own country. These truthers use these "precedents" to say see the US governments has done it before or in the case of Operation Northwoods it got very high up he food chain. Edkollin (talk) 22:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

This article isn't supposed to be a platform to showcase all the various arguments that CT's have made, especially those that are so tenuously related to the subject matter of the article. On top of that there's the fact that Operation Northwoods was never implemented and most historians agree that the Reichstag fire was not a Nazi conspiracy, false flag operation, or anything of the sort. There are all kinds of peripheral arguments that CT's make and those arguments can be included where appropriate within the body of the article if they are notable and if the context demands it. We don't need an entire section devoted to them, though. Mystylplx (talk) 00:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Some reworking of how the subject is covered makes sense, but not removing the material altogether.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand the concern in point one, but the comparisons have some strong relevance for conspiracy theorists. Many point to these cases to present the 9/11 conspiracy theories as having credibility. Several are significantly tied up with claims of conspiracy theorists. As I noted above, perhaps a separate article listing the various real or alleged false flag attacks could be linked to from the section to cover those not mentioned, while only mentioning those of note. Perhaps the section itself should be redone to put the comparisons in their broader context, the idea of conspiracies shaping history with 9/11 just the latest instance, but we definitely should include the most notable parallels mentioned by conspiracy theorists.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

"Many point to these cases to present the 9/11 conspiracy theories as having credibility." I understand that may be why you want them included, but that's not a reason to include them or (particularly) for them to have their own section. This article is on 911 conspiracy theories and these are not 911 conspiracy theories. I'm not opposed to them being mentioned at all if there's a place in the article where such mention would fit in a natural and logical way, but I don't think they deserve their very own section. Mystylplx (talk) 18:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd managed to overlook that section somehow. The whole section should go. The false flag is a common trope for CTs, but there's nothing notable about this in regards to Sept. 11. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

What exactly would you call a staged terrorist attack meant to be blamed on some other party to justify major policy initiatives? Obviously, the MIHOP theories are alleging a false attack so it is definitely notable.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic towards removing it from the article. There's certainly a stronger case for removing it than expanding it. But I'll reserve judgement until more people weigh in here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

How on earth is there a stronger case? Of all the conspiracist subjects out there this one is particularly notable for this emphasis on finding historical precedents. Essentially, the 9/11 conspiracy theorists use these other claims to give their theories a greater perception of legitimacy. It is a characteristic of these conspiracy theories, whether you like it or not, and should be mentioned. How it is mentioned is a matter for discussion.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The Reichstag Fire isn't a 9/11 conspiracy theory. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Good thing no one is suggesting we say that. The suggestion is that this is a widely-cited comparison made by conspiracy theorists, just like Northwoods, as a way to try and bolster their case and therefore merits inclusion.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Simply put, this isn't deserving of its own section. Damn near every conspiracy theory throws false flag out as if it explains everything. It's not unique or even notable to the Sept. 11 attacks as its own point, but wouldn't be out of place including a few lines elsewhere in the article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I am struggling to think of a situation where other conspiracy theories cite alleged false flag attacks so frequently. Reworking the section makes sense to me, not removing it.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

No-Planes theory

This has been included in the article for some time, but it completely fails WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. We have one or two articles cited that make very fleeting mentions of the no-planes theory and I can find few sources of any kind that explicitly mention this notion of "holograms" of planes concealing missiles. Those few reliable sources that do mention it ever so briefly often note that it is considered fringe even within the 9/11 conspiracist community. I suggest we remove all mention of it. Leave any talk of it to the pages of those few who actually propose the notion.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense. There are dozens of references to the no-plane theory, ranging from finge CT websites to reliable sources discussing the claims. Just because it's embarrassing to many within conspiracy theory circles doesn't mean you get to whitewash it from Wikipedia. Hmmm, almost sounds like a conspiracy by 9/11 truthers to hide the claim! ;) JoelWhy (talk) 19:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say it should be removed from Wikipedia altogether. However, I don't think it should be included in this article. These claims are not really "discussed" in any major sources that I can find. An article on someone notable who believes such a thing may be a legitimate place to include such information, but not here in the main article on the conspiracy theories. That gives the theory more attention than any reliable source has given it, and the few instances where the mainstream conspiracists bother to take the time to ridicule the theory do not really warrant a mention. At the absolute most there could be a trifling mention in like one sentence, not a whole subsection.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

While the "no planes hit the Twin Towers" theory is pretty fringe, "no plane hit the Pentagon" was a major CT proposal for a long time and got significant press. Primarily because the DoD won't release security footage of the impact; just one grainy film from a nearby gas station was released, and that only snapped photos every few seconds, and did not clearly show the plane. There were accusations that the first impact at the Towers was not a plane, because no film existed of the impact... except there is a film of that impact, just not as widely disseminated as video of the second plane impact. Once that was clearly shown, CT-ers moved on to other ideas, with a few fringe holdouts adhering to "holograms," "space lasers" and other nonsense. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Those were claims of a different nature. We actually have a section devoted to the Pentagon and claims about a plane not hitting it. However, what we are talking about are the claims about things like mini-nukes, directed energy weapons, and holographic planes.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Yep. There are claims like this all over conspiracy websites. No one is saying this is the most prominent position. But, it's certainly a claim that's been made time and time again (separate and apart from the 'no plane hitting the Pentagon' CT.)JoelWhy (talk) 21:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

It has been claimed by a few random YouTube videos, some amateur blogs, and a few people of meager notability. Very rarely some non-notable conspiracist source will have an article attacking the claims. A few times it gets mentioned in more prominent conspiracist sources to note it as a joke or absurd notion. Then there are a few points where a mainstream news source will rattle off a bunch of different 9/11 conspiracy theories in a single sentence and throw "no-planes" in the bunch. Only when discussing those few actual proponents does any major source spend more time on it, hence why I think it should be limited to the articles of those proponents.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Right, so CT forums have had to ban people from posting about the 'no planes' theory because virtually no one was posting about the 'no planes' theory. Right...JoelWhy (talk) 22:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The Internet is a big place and there are hundreds of millions of people on it. You can find people advocating just about any weird-ass idea you want and they can disseminate it out to any unknown number of gullible people. Dozens of people buying into something can be enough to generate that kind of attention from an Internet forum.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Keep Well sourced and the section does not that other truthers are not enamored of these theories it. Edkollin (talk) 21:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Here is what one of the sources says:

“

She's convinced, based on her freelance research, that a bomb went off about six minutes before an airplane hit the Pentagon — or didn't hit it, as some believe the case may be.

”

Not only is that incredibly trivial, it is a reference to the specific claims regarding the Pentagon not claims that no planes were involved at all. Another source is the Phoenix New Times that, in an eight-page report, has one trivial mention at the bottom of page 4 much like the one above (though it at least mentions there are people who believe no planes were involved anywhere) and another small paragraph (two sentences long) on page 5 noting that conspiracy sites regularly try to drive away adherent of those kinds of views. The Times article appears to only reference it with regards to David Shayler, one of the few apparent adherents of the view.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree, the "no planes" WRT the Twin Towers is an idea even prominant CTs disavow. It's too fringe to include here. The only "no planes" concept that held on for long, and garnered real attention, was regarding the Pentagon. So I'd say Delete the section on the Towers, but Keep the section on the Pentagon. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment. The idea that "no planes" theories should not be discussed in this article because it would be undue weight (or fringe of fringe) is a similar conceptual error to the idea that "conspiracy theories" should not be mentioned in the main 9/11 article for similar reasons. "No planes" theories are for sure among the least credible CTs out there, and hence have relatively few adherents. That means we should not include them as prominent examples of what conspiracy theorists believe, nor should we discuss them extensively.

However, it does not mean they are not notable (in the English language sense) or worthy of inclusion: indeed some such theories are worth mentioning precisely because they represent extreme examples of CT beliefs, and reliable secondary sources refer to them (at least as much as they refer to Reichstag Fire comparisons, for instance). It is informative for the reader to see a wide range of 9/11 CTs (as reported in RSS) to give them a broad perspective on the CT landscape, and allow them to make up their own mind what they believe. Geometry guy 22:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Popular Mechanics tackled "16 of the most prevalent claims made by conspiracy theorists...," including the 'no planes' theory. [3]JoelWhy (talk) 22:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

That article is about claims that the object "didn't look like a commercial airliner," not that there were no planes. In fact, the only mention close to that is a passing mention that it was "...something else, perhaps refueling tankers or guided missiles." Not enough to be a source for the "no planes" theory, by any stretch. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

"The jets that struck New York and Washington, D.C., weren't commercial planes, they say, but something else, perhaps refueling tankers or guided missiles."JoelWhy (talk) 22:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Refueling tankers are planes.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Guided missiles are not planes.JoelWhy (talk) 22:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

And that's the only comment that even implies the object which struck the tower was not a plane. The very definition of "passing mention." — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. This is not a case of something being prominently and regularly mentioned with regards to the subject of the article. Conspiracy theories about 9/11 have been mentioned all over the place in the media and thus merited a mention in the 9/11 article. However, this is completely different. Mentions of the no-planes theories, the ones that talk about holograms and directed energy weapons, are obscure even within the conspiracist literature, never mind the mainstream literature. Within the conspiracist community you will find all sorts of claims with varying degrees of acceptance. Should we mention Project Blue Beam in the New World Order article? Of course not. The Internet means any random idea can gain some level of support, but the key is whether the support is significant enough and mentioned enough to merit inclusion. On this matter it only seems to be worthy of mentioning on the articles of adherents like David Shayler, not an article that is supposed to be about the most prominent conspiracy theories.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The fallacy is to look to the conspiracist literature rather than RSS commentary on CTs. RSS do refer to "no planes" theories, perhaps more often than they do to Reichstag fire comparisons, whose mention here you support. Sauce for the goose, TDA... Geometry guy 22:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

No need to antagonize, Guy. And if you'd care to link a few RSes that are specifically about the "no planes" with regards to the Towers, it would be appreciated. So far, we don't have anything in the article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I was not: if you or TDA believe I am antagonizing, my user talk page is this way... and we can discuss it. I'm not interested in a fight, quite the opposite: consistency and clear reasoning is my main interest. Editors from all viewpoints tend to make much stronger demands on reliable sourcing for issues whose inclusion they oppose, than they do when they support. That is what "sauce for the goose..." means. Geometry guy 23:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC) PS. My name is not "Guy" and "Back down, please" is an edit summary that does not do you credit.

I always try to apply an equal standard to any issue. Sometimes I miss a source or two, but I have not at any point insisted on a stronger cause for inclusion.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean reliable sources or RSS feed? I can tell you right now that the disparities in reliable sources are only slightly less severe between mentions of the no-planes theory and Reichstag comparisons. So far I have not seen a single major source that has spent more than one sentence on the subject, most of the time it gets one flippant mention within a sentence.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Ignoring your first sentence, I didn't understand the second one: please explain. For the third, who defines "major" or "flippant"? Linked below is an article in the New Statesman with extensive discussion. Why do you find such material less compelling that material on Reichstag fire comparisons? Just because it is about David Shayler? If so, why? If not, what? Geometry guy 23:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

One guy's opinion is not a good reason to include the claim here and give his personal belief greater notoriety than it deserves. As to my second sentence, I am saying that the mentions of the Reichstag comparison are more frequent and more significant than those few mentions I can find of the no-planes theory. "Major" and "flippant" are pretty straightforward. I am not even sure why those would need explaining.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining what you meant about your view of the relative mentions of Reichstag fire comparisons and "no planes" theories. Geometry guy 00:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Here's yet another reference to the 'no plane' theory: http://www.newstatesman.com/200609110028 — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoelWhy (talk • contribs) 23:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

That entire article appears to be about David Shayler and his girlfriend. More reason to include it in his article, as opposed to this one.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Why "as opposed to this one" rather than "in more detail than a brief mention this one"? Geometry guy 23:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Because any random person of meager notability can get a few headlines by spouting off some random idea. We should not be elevating it to the level of more widespread beliefs.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree about widespread beliefs, and said as much above. That does not mean suppressing information from the article either. David Shayler is not some random person: he gets media attention as a former MI5 agent. There are many variants of "no planes" including "no commercial airliners". The article should address this issue, because it is commented upon in RSS (even if only "in passing"). It is not beyond the wit of editors here to do so without implying that such theories are widely believed in the CT community. Geometry guy 00:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The article should avoid mentioning something so insignificant that most mentions are little more than "and these really crazy people who think x" because it gives that notion undue weight. What we have is a classic case of a fringe theory being given undue weight in an article. I think this should be taken as a lesson in when this sort of guideline actually applies.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I will simply point out that different standards are being applied to No planes theory and Reichstag fire and well they should be. In the first case we are talking about a 911 conspiracy theory in an article on 911 conspiracy theories. In the second we are talking about an unrelated conspiracy theory, that 911 conspiracy theorists like to point to, in an article about 911 conspiracy theories. The standards for inclusion should be much higher in the second case as that's not what this article is about. Mystylplx (talk) 00:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I see your point and am sympathetic to it, but this all depends so much on the purpose of mentioning a theory, and the nature of the mention. Neither of these issues are being given as examples of a "typical" 9/11 CT. One may be worth mentioning as an extreme 9/11 CT, the other as a historical comparison. Even there, exactly how or why such mentions are made are important considerations. We aren't comparing like with like, and so we have to find reasonable compromises (based on RSS of course). Geometry guy 00:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

"I think it should be here" is not a legitimate argument. You do not get to dictate the standards for inclusion. We all abide by the same policies and same guidelines. The only significant mention we have focuses on one person, with the rest generally being shorter than a sentence. Just because you think it is more deserving of a mention here than something you do not want here, does not mean you can dictate new rules for inclusion to accommodate your position. At best we can justify a single sentence somewhere in the body of the article, not a paragraph with its own section.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Nor do you get to dictate what the standards for inclusion mean in this case. Geometry guy 00:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Keep You can't decide what theory gets space here. It is ridiculous. And everyone else thinks the other theories are just as absurd. RS gives it some space. We should continue to give it some space. It should not be the only talked about theory but it deserves some chunk of the article. Note that a portion of the space ridicules it. Nothing wrong with giving the opposition some space.Cptnono (talk) 05:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

If people are deciding based on a perception of them as equally absurd than that is a serious problem. Anyone who can't recognize that pseudoscientific claims of holographic airliners are of an entirely different character than claims of a technologically feasible controlled demolition shouldn't be commenting on this subject at all. However, how absurd you think a theory is has no bearing on this. What matters is whether it gets mentioned enough to merit inclusions and whether mentioning it here gives the theory undue weight. Hell, this is put under "main theories" so that is plainly undue weight right there as no one actually thinks this is a "main theory" in any way. We have several articles relating to the various conspiracy theories and this one is the flagship article if you will. Sources do not mention this as having any legitimacy amongst the vast majority of conspiracy theorists so putting it here smacks of undue weight and there really isn't a logical article it can be included in save those of the few notable adherents.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

But sources do discuss how it absurd. it is so out there that even proponents of a conspiracy think it is absurd. That in itself deserves mention. You can't draw the line on absurdity. That is the way it is when trying to be contrary. Someone being even more contrary is all of a sudden the idiot?

But me being cute and funny aside: This is the exact same thing as the fire. Some editors thought that we should mention the fire. But instead of mentioning it they wanted to write more than a paragraph. But when trying to tone down the mention of something clearly in sources they go for full-on removal. Editors need to stop being extreme in their preferred edits/removals. TLDR=don't be a hypocrite.Cptnono (talk) 05:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not being a hypocrite. The situations are different because the depth and nature of coverage is different. Also, the idea itself is different. My standards have not changed. The leading conspiracy theorists frequently use the Reichstag fire as a way to bolster their argument, while the no-planes theory is rarely ever mentioned and when it is mentioned it is only with dismissal and hostility. Reliable sources mention it in passing as the bizarre fringe among fringe. A brief mention in one sentence is the most I can see reason for (even that only tepidly), certainly not a subsection in the "main theories" area of the article. My thought is that this is a textbook case of where undue weight suggests not mentioning it in this article at all. On the article about David Shayler it makes sense as he is the only noteworthy advocate of the theory as far as I know.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I've seen various fringe theories espoused by one or two crazies on Youtube. I would not propose that those views are of such importance that they deserve mention here (or on Wiki at all, for that matter.) But, here we have a theory that has been widely reported, discussed debated, etc. The very fact that so many conspiracy theorists have had to publicly condemn this theory as being fringe (even going so far as to accuse the government, etc of perpetuating this theory in order to discredit the "legitimate" conspiracy theories) is indicative of just how prevalent the theory is. Again, the fact that it's an embarrassment to '9/11 truthers' doesn't mean you get to sanitize the Wiki page to remove mention of it. We've provided ample sources for the claim, and your arguments against it are entirely unpersuasive.JoelWhy (talk) 13:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

There are all sorts of ideas that the mainstream of conspiracism reject and regard the way you mention. Not every loony idea is notable just because most conspiracy theorists happen to agree that it is loony. No one has provided "ample sources" for this at all. As I noted, one of the sources is not even talking about this specific theory and another is a minor news outlet (about 90,000 subscribers in the Phoenix area) that buries very brief mentions on page 4 and 5 of an eight-page article. The only significant mentions that have been shown are entirely about one guy who adheres to the view. Even mentions in conspiracist sources are sparse. It has nothing to do with "sanitizing" the page at all. The theory just plain doesn't belong here.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I should note the burden is on those wanting to keep it to prove that it is worthy of remaining.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

No, where did you get that idea from? This has been in the article for quite some time. The burden in on those who seek to change consensus. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

How long something is in an article means nothing. The burden is on you to establish that the material meets the standard for inclusion.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

That's silly. If you want to remove long standing content the burden is on you to show there is consensus to do so. Obviously the consensus is the opposite. This debate is starting to become tendentious. Mystylplx (talk) 18:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

It is not tendentious to say those wanting to keep the material should back up that it does not give the claims undue weight. When all the major conspiracist sources reject it, reliable sources rarely mention it for more than half a sentence with even those mentions few and far between, and the only notable mentions pertain to one specific proponent the argument for including it in the main article for the conspiracy theories falls flat on its face.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Keep This article is about 9/11 conspiracy theories, and articles are supposed to be comprehensive. It would be strange to omit this conspiracy theory in an article about such theories. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Here's an summary of a set of videos produced by Michael Shermer discussing the no planes theory. http://www.michaelshermer.com/2007/09/911-conspiracies-fact-or-fiction/

And, here's an article from The Daily Mail which talks about the theory. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2056088/Footage-kills-conspiracy-theories-Rare-footage-shows-WTC-7-consumed-fire.html

And, don't get me started on the scores of major conspiracy websites discussing this. Your argument has no merit, it's time to move on.JoelWhy (talk) 17:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Congrats, you have found a single article from a major news source that is not about David Shayler giving it more than half a sentence of coverage on the first page. That it took you this long to find something like that says more than anything. As for the video, I am not going to dig through all the video coverage. Where is the mention of no-planes?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The link is not to the video, but to the summary which includes the no plane theory. And, Wiki is not bound to your arbitrary rules of what does or does not constitute an appropriate source. You have been provided with numerous links discussing the theory, and there are plenty more. But, to be clear, I'm not trying to convince you or change your mind -- the fact that you believe in any of the conspiracy theories discussed on this page tells me that you and I do not share the same understanding of altering views and opinions based upon the available evidence.JoelWhy (talk) 18:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

You should check the summary again. It is talking about the claims specifically regarding the Pentagon, not the general no-planes theory. We already mention the cruise missile stuff in the Pentagon section. Nowhere did I challenge the sources you used, only the significance of the mentions in the sources. Also, I never said anywhere that I believe any of the conspiracy theories. Rather, I just recognize that certain theories have more legitimacy than others and that someone putting out the technologically plausible notion of a controlled demolition is not the equivalent of someone making the pseudoscientific claim that the planes were holograms. I also recognize that any conspiracy theory, no matter how fringe, is liable to get lots of coverage in conspiracist sources relative to what it gets in mainstream sources and that mainstream sources may very well make fleeting mentions of it. That you can find a source saying something does not automatically mean it merits inclusion.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Ahh, you are correct. I have not seen the videos, so I do not know whether the theory is discussed there. But, if you want other articles discussing the theory, I can certainly provide them. (e.g. From ScienceBlogs, http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/01/your_friday_dose_of_woo_no_planes_no_bra.php) As I've stated before, no one is saying that all 9/11 CTs should be included, or that all such CTs are equivalent. Is the 'moon landing hoax' CT more plausible than a David Icke CT about shape-shifting aliens? Sure, but that's not to say either one isn't a fringe theory or that one deserves discussion but the other doesn't because it is even 'less' plausible. But, the 'no plane' theory has been discussed by the media, on CT websites, etc, etc. It would be a glaring omission to remove it from this article.JoelWhy (talk) 19:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Some blogger who goes scouring the Internet for things to debunk every week saying he hadn't heard of it years after it was first noted doesn't make for a compelling case. Again this is the main article on the conspiracy theories. People are taken here from the article on the 9/11 attacks. It should inform them properly about the most common claims of conspiracy theorists. Including this here gives people the impression that it has more currency in the conspiracist community than it actually does.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

Rather than having the mention of the no-planes stuff here, how about we move mentions of it to the 9/11 Truth movement article under the "internal critiques" section? There it can be rewritten to more closely focus on the criticism from the majority of the conspiracist community.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. The above debate is ongoing. Toa Nidhiki05 00:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Please give an actual position on the proposal.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose is an actual position.

Not when you are only saying it because of an ongoing debate.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

*Oppose we don't want to get all into what some conspiracy theorists said about the conspiracy theories of other conspiracy theorists. This is not a platform for conspiracy theorists to air their arguments amongst themselves, nor are such arguments relevant to the article. Mystylplx (talk) 02:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I am proposing the article on the Truth movement mention their behavior towards these sorts of theories, not this one. Looking above many people were arguing that the theories were notable for the mere fact that conspiracy theorists were so hostile to them, so I figured it makes sense to put talk about no-planes in the section of the 9/11 Truth Movement article where internal criticism of competing conspiracy theories is mentioned.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

They are not notable for the mere fact that Truthers are hostile to the theory. They are notable because some Truthers proposed this theory and it was covered in various news outlets, discussed on virtually every conspiracy theory website, etc. As the article here points out, many Truthers are hostile to this theory, which is notable, but's not the primary reason the no planes theory is notable. So, again, I agree it should be included in the Truthers article, but it certainly shouldn't be removed from this one.JoelWhy (talk) 16:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The coverage in news outlets has been obscenely sparse, with those few reports that do mention the theories usually doing so in passing with complete dismissal and, at times, mockery. One of the few mentions that goes beyond half a sentence only does so to note the general conspiracist community's hostility towards the adherents. Coverage in conspiracist sources has mostly been to attack the theories as plainly absurd and even accusing the adherents of spreading disinformation to slander 9/11 conspiracy theories. Clearly their main claim to notability is the general rejection and mockery of their ideas even within the conspiracist community.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose 9/11 conspiracy theories should be covered in the article about 9/11 conspiracy theories, not some ancillary article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Oppose Mention it in both places if you want but don't cover up the truth... oh wait. Many people think all of the theories are ridiculous. This is what it feels like to be astonished by something that you feel is preposterous. Weird, huh? But more inline with our standards: It deserves the weight that sources give it. The fact that it gets credit for being ridiculous shows that it deserves some space. Let the prose do the talking since this article is not here for you or me to make a point but instead here to reflect the knowledge of the subject as seen in the sources. Cptnono (talk) 06:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Oppose No problem with also including it in the Truther article, but that does nothing to detract from that fact that it needs to remain included in this page.JoelWhy (talk) 13:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Morgan Reynolds, and a bug hitting your windshield

Let's get Morgan Reynolds's assertion right. Morgan Reynolds is saying that, because steel is stronger than aluminium, it can be scientifically predicted that an aluminium aeroplane would crumple up like a beer can upon impact, but that it would not smash the steel to smithereens, any more than a bug hitting your windshield will smash the windshield, regardless of how fast either body is traveling at impact. 75.150.50.9 (talk) 00:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that Reynolds doesn't understand basic physics (it has nothing to do with the "strength" of the materials; it has to do with mass, velocity, and impact force. He's also quite mistaken about that bug--even water will cut steel if you put enough force behind it.) it seems to me the article explains his position pretty well, even without the mistaken bug analogy. Mystylplx (talk) 00:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Physics, more than just a good idea, it's the Law. See Newton 1687. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 03:37, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

"Reichstag fire" motive deleted as POV?

How is this POV? "Parallels have also been drawn between the 9/11 attacks and the Reichstag fire, raising the possibility that the 9/11 attacks were used as an excuse to undermine civil liberties and democracy." Refs: http://www.alternet.org/rights/78182/?page=1 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/07/18/politics/main3069391.shtml http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/2011/12/28/a-tale-of-two-cities-weimar-and-washington/ Here is the diff of the deletion: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories&diff=468806942&oldid=468805399 Ghostofnemo (talk) 19:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

First line of WP:NPOV: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." The Reichstag fire comparison is a common theme in 9/11 conspiracy theories. Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't we need a source connecting this to 9/11 conspiracy theories? Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

NOTE: This is A Quest For Knowledge on a public computer. I'm not logging into a computer that might not be secure.

The content you added has several problems:

The Reichstag fire is rarely (if ever) mentioned in secondary reliable sources in connection to this topic. When we give prominence to minor aspects of a topic, it's against undue weight. This might belong in the body, but not the lede. (More about this below.)
The lede should summarize the article. If you want to add new content to the article, start at the body and work your way up to the lede.

But even still, we already have a representative example of historical precedents (Operation Northwoods). Do you want to replace Operation Northwoods with the Reichstag fire? I'd rather stick with Operation Northwoods. It seems to be cited more frequently in the literature than the Reichstag fire.

But let's discuss the elephant in the room. You only add material to the article which bolsters the CT's POV. I never see you add material that goes against CTs. This is called tenditious editing and if it continues, I'll look into having you topic-banned. 67.107.55.130 (talk) 20:38, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Since the title of this article is "9/11 conspiracy theories" I think factually representing those theories is appropriate, and that deleting those explanations, and the supporting reliable sources, borders on censorship and vandalism. Ghostofnemo (talk) 10:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

We rarely see this topic discussed AT ALL in the mainstream press, but I did in fact include a CBS News story involving a U.S. Congressman who discussed this exact topic http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/07/18/politics/main3069391.shtml however it was still completely deleted (instead of being moved)! Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

"Since the title of this article is "9/11 conspiracy theories" I think factually representing those theories is appropriate..." Okay; what's the reliable source that the stuff about the Reichstag fire is an element of 9/11 conspiracy theories? Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

All three of the cited references compare the two. Ghostofnemo (talk) 17:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

If you do a web search on "9/11 Reichstag fire" you'll see all kinds of primary source material. Ghostofnemo (talk) 17:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

None of the references cited appear to mention conspiracy theories. No doubt there are primary sources - Peter Dale Scott, and others - that say 9/11 was just like the Reichstag fire. This article is (is supposed to be) about 9/11 conspiracy theories, not about "what really happened" on September 11th. What we need are good reliable secondary sources that say comparisons to the Reichstag fire are an element of 9/11 conspiracy theories. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

German Protestors Marked 9/11 by Denouncing "Inside Job," "Reichstag Fire" "The '9/11 = the Reichstag fire' equation has long been a preferred trope of Germany’s homegrown brand of 'trutherism'". There are more than 100,000 sources claiming the link is significant. This WP article is about the conspiracy theories and care should be taken not to limit it to what the mainstream media choose to publish. Wayne (talk) 21:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

"We rarely see this topic discussed AT ALL in the mainstream press" Exactly! You're giving more weight to something that is rarely mentioned in secondary reliable sources. This is the very definition of WP:UNDUE. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

This article is not 911 conspiracy theories in the mainstream media. Do we delete the incontinence article because the mainstream media rarely discusses the topic? You are cherry picking WP:UNDUE. Quote: "In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space." UNDUE is a guideline intended to avoid giving undue weight to a belief, not to avoid acknowledging the existence of that belief. Wayne (talk) 02:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Nobody is saying that this article should be deleted. Nobody is saying these conspiracy theories don't exist. 9/11 conspiracy theories are already covered in-depth in this article. Here's the thing: WP:NPOV applies to all articles, even articles on fringe theories. Yes, we should explain the fringe viewpoint, but we also need to explain the majority viewpoint. One of the problems with Ghostofnemo's edits is that they only present the fringe viewpoint. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The title of this article is "9/11 conspiracy theories". A fringe argument would be that shape-shifting aliens were responsible. Comparing the 9/11 attacks to the Reichstag fire is not a fringe theory for the topic of this article. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

This topic is already a fringe topic. We stick to the notable conspiracy theories, not to every theory postulated. The 9/11=Reichstag Fire angle is the fringe of the fringe. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with including the comparison if there's a good source for it. And frankly, I think that Zeitgeist is a notable source for such a claim (assuming the comparison was made in the film.) We're dealing with a conspiracy theory, and a movie which is about the most prominent conspiracy theory "documentary" in history. If it makes such a claim, it's notable for purposes of the 9/11 CT.

Please don't mistake my defense of the inclusion with my support of the theory. I give as much credence to the 9/11 CTs as I do to the moon landing hoax claims, or the belief that Jewish space aliens are controlling the global economy through RFID chips implanted in bicycle accessories. But, the fact is, Zeitgeist is a NOTEABLE source (as opposed to reliable...of course it's not "reliable," in the sense that it's 2 hours of nonsense, but that's besides the point). If there was a scholarly, objective article written by Michael Shermer noting that Zeitgeist made this claim, we would all agree it's a reliable source, right? Well, do we really need a third party pointing out that the film made this claim to make it notable? (To be clear, I don't specifically recall whether Zeitgeist made this claim; but, if it did, I would say it may deserve mention in this article.)JoelWhy (talk) 14:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Zeitgeist's notability is questionable, and it's certainly not a reliable source for this. Especially if it's just a passing mention. What we need are third-party reliable sources that discuss this Reichstag Fire comparison, before including it. And frankly, I'm just not seeing them. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

As a side-note, calling Zeitgeist "the most prominent conspiracy theory 'documentary' in history" is pretty silly. Any number of Kennedy assassination & moon hoax documentaries would like a word with you. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, perhaps that was a bit hyperbolic. However, it's unquestionably notable. You've got discussions about the movie in The New York Times, Skeptic magazine, Scientific America, Skeptoid, Slate, and The American Spectator. In any case, if the Reichstag comparison is only mentioned in passing, I agree it's insufficient to use it as the sole source for including it in the article.JoelWhy (talk) 15:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I remember watching the movie years ago and the Reichstag being mentioned as a comparison. From my recollection, the source I provided lays out basically what was said in the movie. The reference to "homeland security" is something that particularly sticks out in my mind as having been in the movie.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Quest, Devil's Advocate has found a reliable source sourcing this claim. I just don't see any legitimate reason to remove it. It doesn't really matter how preposterous the claim is (seriously, if we refused to deal with preposterous claims, this page simply wouldn't exist;) he's got a reliable source making the claim, in addition to a notable "documentary" mentioning the same. I think it deserves mention in the article.JoelWhy (talk) 13:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Just because something can be verified doesn't necessarily mean it belongs in an article. All policies have to be considered, especially WP:NPOV. The problem with this edit is undue weight. The fact is that this is rarely mentioned in secondary reliable sources. Even Ghostofnemo concedes this: "We rarely see this topic discussed AT ALL in the mainstream press"[4] A Google News Archive search gives me 6,000 hits on 9/11 conspiracy theories.[5] When I add Reichstag fire to the search terms, I only get back 7 hits (not all of which are reliable sources).[6] When literally 99.9% of sources don't think this is significant enough to report on, it probably isn't. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0707/Reps_Cantor_Wamp_want_reprimand_for_Rep_Ellison.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1557447/Bush-like-Hitler-says-first-Muslim-in-Congress.html

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/german-protestors-marked-911-denouncing-inside-job-reichstag-fire JoelWhy (talk) 14:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The first two of those don't mention 9/11 conspiracy theories, and the third (Weekly Standard) is the single source already mentioned. 9/11 conspiracy theories are exactly and only what the reliable sources say they are. We are not supposed to sift through conspiracist literature to synthesize our own in-house list of the elements of the theories, and then find news reports that mention those elements. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Alright, fair enough.JoelWhy (talk) 21:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I put up an article from the Nation, a prominent news magazine, that spends two paragraphs laying out this comparison and uses it as a segue into broader discussion on the 9-11 conspiracy theories. This is much more attention than that given to the Maine, Tonkin, and Mukden comparisons among others. It is not mentioned as much as Northwoods or Pearl Harbor, but it is certainly mentioned significantly. On AQFK's talk page I provided a list of cases where it is mentioned (one was from AQFK's search for articles). While most of the mentions were trivial by themselves, the fact that it is so regularly repeated in the sources even as others are not suggests it is recognized by reliable sources as a more significant comparison.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

AQFK, stop distorting what Nemo said like you did at DRN. He was clearly saying the 9/11 conspiracy theories themselves are rarely discussed. You continue to misrepresent his comment as referring to this specific material, which is simply untrue.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

DA: So, in a discussion about WP:WEIGHT, you're claiming that GoN was actually talking about notability - something absolutely nobody else was talking about? Yeah, that makes sense. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Nemo can tell you himself that you are wrong if he likes, but I think it is obvious from the context that he was saying the 9-11 conspiracy theories are rarely discussed at all and so mentioning WP:UNDUE to leave out a specific claim about those theories that does get a significant mention in reliable sources is misusing the policy.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

How much more is there to the "Reichstag theory than just the name and the sentence "as a way to justify the US getting into conflict(s) with Middle Eastern countries? Thanks to U.S. high-school history (ca 1995), I've heard of the Reichstag Fire - I don't think I ever heard about Operation Northwoods.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.232.121 (talk) 16:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Sentence in third paragraph of lede

I have changed the first sentence in the third paragraph of the lede that says "Published reports and articles by the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Popular Mechanics and mainstream media have rejected the 9/11 conspiracy theories" to say "U.S. government agencies like the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and mainstream media outlets like Popular Mechanics have investigated most of these claims and found no evidence to support them." The previous version described the theories as being "rejected" by these reports, but in fact NIST's study never uses the word "reject" or any synonym from what I can see. It does say they "found no evidence" to back up these claims. Furthermore, while they did investigate most of the prominent claims made by conspiracy theorists, not all were investigated. Ties between government agencies and al-Qaeda are not mentioned in either report, claims about exercises are not mentioned either from what I can tell, and there are probably others I cannot think of at the moment. We should avoid implying something that appears to be false.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Poor grammar aside, the point of these two sentences is explain that these are fringe viewpoints which are rejected by the mainstream. It's not simply that they found no evidence to support conspiracy theories; the mainstream actually rejects them. Further, your new verbiage says that, "most of these claims [have] no evidence to support them". Which conspiracy theories was evidence found? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

What are you calling poor grammar, exactly? As to the "point" of those sentences, I think the point should be exactly the same as that of all material. It should tell people what the sources support. Only some of the claims have been refuted by these investigations and that is why we should not describe the conspiracy theories as "rejected" either. Not even the theory about thermite got "rejected" by NIST's study and this is not considering the fact there were other theories that were not within the scope of their investigation. The same goes for Popular Mechanics. We already state right off the bat that these theories question the widely-accepted account so that alone establishes them as fringe. Also, don't make up wording that I didn't include to suggest I was saying something I wasn't. It says most of the claims were investigated with no evidence found to support them. The only thing being said is that not all claims were investigated, which is supported by reliable sources.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Instead of "like", it should be "such as". The sentence is accurate as it is. If you want to find better sources, that's fine. But the substance of the sentence should remain the same. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, that grammatical issue would seem to be an easy fix. As for the accuracy of the current sentence, the sources plainly do not support the wording "rejected" and the NIST study, in particular, is meant to be the authoritative report on the question. How can we "find better sources" than that? The report does not even reject the claims NIST investigated, let alone the claims NIST did not investigate.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Wait a second. You've already conceded that these are fringe beliefs. By definition, they have been rejected by the mainstream. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I would say that's not necessarily true. Most people haven't "rejected" the theory that reptilian shape-shifters used their heat vision to destroy the WTC, but it would still be a fringe theory. (Sorry, not trying to be pedantic, just saying that the theories weren't necessarily even considered because they are so fringe.) Still, I'm fairly certain the thermite claim has been investigated and widely "rejected" by the science, in addition to being a fringe idea.JoelWhy (talk) 14:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I read NIST's report on the subject. Seems to me they didn't even really investigate it, and their comments on the subject were not in any way rejecting the claim.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Being a fringe idea does not mean automatically that the idea has been "rejected" by the mainstream, only that it has not been accepted by the mainstream. Lack of acceptance is not the same as rejection.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

That's quite a semantic stretch. There may be instances where an idea is neither accepted nor rejected by the mainstream, cases where the jury is still out, but this is not one of those cases. 911 conspiracy theories have been rejected by the mainstream. It isn't necessary that they use the specific word "rejected" and NIST is far from the only source to look to on this. Mystylplx (talk) 18:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The theories have been rejected as having no basis in evidence. Fringe does mean it has no support in mainstream science, just like cold fusion and creationism are fringe. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I've no real problem with the word "rejected". I do however have a problem with including Popular Mechanics as an example of mainstream media. It is a self described home handyman magazine that didn't even rate it's own article until a few years ago and it's still a stub. I'm sure there are more notable publications that could be used instead. Including it gives the POV impression that someone is trying to imply that "Mechanics" in the name gives it some authority as a source. Wayne (talk) 18:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

How is Popular Mechanics not an example of mainstream media? Not only is it an extremely well-known magazine, but its examination of the 9/11 claims has been widely and repeatedly discussed in other mainstream media sources.JoelWhy (talk) 19:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

... seriously? PM is a well-known hobby and science magazine. Their in-depth look at September 11 myths has garnered a lot of attention from other media. That someone never got around to making an article "until a few years ago" isn't relevant. And trying to say the "Mechanics" in the title is an appeal to authority is bewildering. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The magazine may be well-known in America but is not in other countries. PM does not call itself a science magazine, it's own website says "Popular Mechanics is a service magazine covering a variety of information". PM reported long before any real scientific investigations were done and much of what was written by PM was debunked or modified by the later NIST report. As a source it is outdated. I do agree that it is repeatedly discussed in other mainstream media sources, in fact I find it disturbing that sources cite it in preference to citing NIST... although I do give PM kudos for preferentially calling conspiracy theorists "skeptics" instead of conspiracy theorists. Wayne (talk) 03:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

You also need to keep in mind that PM is not peer reviewed and is considered by academics as an entertainment magazine for the purpose of citation by students. Wayne (talk) 04:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

What matters is not what you think is right, but what the sources say. The investigations mentioned do not investigate all the claims, I mentioned several, and the NIST investigation did not even reject all the claims it did investigate. Why do you think we need to say it was "rejected" as opposed to saying they did not find evidence to support the claims?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

That's what rejected means. Scientists don't investigate the possibility the moon is made of cheese because they reject the hypothesis entirely. At one time it was a popular concept, but there's no evidence to even support an investigation. Likewise, there's no investigation of some of these claims because they're farcical from a scientific standpoint.

If your sole contention is the word "rejected," consider "dismiss", "ignore", "discount" or any other number of synonyms. Saying "found no evidence to support the claims" is just a more wordy way of phrasing it, and not necessarily as accurate for claims that weren't even investigated (ie. "space lasers" claims). — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

No, it doesn't mean the same thing. The difference is the same as the difference between not proving and disproving. A theory that has not been accepted for lack of supporting evidence is not the equivalent of a theory that has been rejected. On another note, some of those theories that were not investigated were specifically mentioned in one of my previous comments and they had nothing to with "space lasers" thank you very much.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, you and I are at an impasse, then. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The impasse is mainly based on meaning, but you do not appear to understand that the terms you are using have significant differences in meaning. If "discount" or "ignore" were substituted for "reject" in the current sentence it would leave the article saying that the investigations have not included the conspiracy theories. Just because words are similar does not mean they are interchangeable in a sentence. Saying an investigation "found no evidence" for a theory is not the same as saying an investigation "rejected" a theory.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

(As an aside, understanding what is precisely the point of disagreement is the first step in resolving it.) Geometry guy 00:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

From Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation (emphasis mine)...

NIST has looked at the application and use of thermite and has determined that it was highly unlikely that it could have been used to sever columns in WTC 7 on Sept. 11, 2001.

Sounds like they investigated and subsequently rejected the claim. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 02:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

According to Shyam Sunder, the lead investigator for NIST, controlled demolition was not investigated. Sunder stated that CD would have caused explosions to be heard up to 300mtr from the buildings and as none were reported there was no need to investigate. Wayne (talk) 04:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually...

13. Did investigators consider the possibility that an explosion caused or contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?
Yes, this possibility was investigated carefully. NIST concluded that blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event.

Ibid. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 05:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

DA, a theory is in one of three states: accepted, being researched, or rejected (ie. no one deems it worthy of further investigation). That you disagree with this is our impasse. And, as others have pointed out, the NIST has investigated claims and then concluded they were without merit. "Found no evidence" means the theory is dead. If you'd prefer, there's the NIST quote ArtifexMayhem presents above, where we could say the proposed event "did not occur." Regardless, it's a more wordy way of saying that the scientific consensus is these theories are bunk. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

That is not what it means by any measure. "Found no evidence" only means what it means. It is not code for "bunk" or in any way interchangeable with such a term. Not to mention that, of all the proposed wordings, saying they "found no evidence" is the one that is the least pushy about a POV.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Investigated but found no evidence = rejected. Mystylplx (talk) 18:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The "highly" was inserted several years later without any apparent basis other than, "Oh shit, people are taking our comments as reason to actually consider it." Saying it was "unlikely" is much less definite than what it said about the use of regular explosives. It also does not appear they seriously investigated the thermite aspect of the controlled demolition theory, if they investigated it at all. Given that, we should not be suggesting that NIST refuted all the theories as the current wording suggests.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, now we've hit the crux of the problem: the NPOV is that the scientific mainstream has found these claims to be without any merit. Saying "no evidence has been found" lends the impression that there is still an ongoing investigation to find evidence, which isn't the case. No, they didn't seriously investigate the thermite proposals, because they were absurd from the start. Others pointed out the basic flaws in the thermite claims, which killed the whole thing from a scientific perspective... but some conspiracists still hang onto it.

NPOV, in fringe topics like this, mean giving weight to the scientific consensus. And that consensus is pretty clear when it comes to September 11 conspiracies: they've been debunked and found false. Equivocating would be the POV stance. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Citation for this claim, please.JoelWhy (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

What claim are you asking me to cite? If it's about whether they investigated the thermite issue, the NIST reports on the collapse make no mention of thermite anywhere and nothing said in the question and answer page indicates that they carried out any actual investigation of the claim.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm guessing it's the claim that the word "highly" was inserted several years later, though it's really irrelevant when it was inserted. Mystylplx (talk) 18:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

There are actually two versions of that page on the web at the moment. One was created soon after the NIST report, with the one Artifex is citing being from many years later.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how "many years later" is accurate. The NIST did update the information in 2011, here is the original: Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation (09/17/2010, ARCHIVE, incorporated into 9/19/2011 update). Also, "highly unlikely" is the polite way of saying "bunk". —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 19:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

In fact, may sources specifically say that 9/11 CTs have been debunked. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Certainly you could find a source saying that. You could find a source saying that truthers are schizophrenic potheads too, but that doesn't mean you should include it. We have to look at what all the reliable sources say, not just cherry-pick the ones that support the "approved" POV.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no universe where "unlikely" is another way of saying "bunk" and adding "highly" after several years with no new evidence doesn't do that either. If it was, NIST would not have been more definite about other aspects of the question. Explosive demolition was strongly dismissed by NIST, but not thermite. Like it or not, that means we cannot describe it as being rejected.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

NIST didn't examine the claims that alien lasers demolished the towers, either. That doesn't mean we include it here, even to point out it was rejected as a viable hypothesis for investigation. Thermite was never investigated because it wasn't even a rational claim.

Do you have anything else to support this position, DA? Because right now, there's consensus for "rejected," and no one else is arguing against the term. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

While not every 9/11 CT have been "rejected" the ones specifically prior to the sentence in dispute have been. Edkollin (talk) 23:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Stop repeating that garbage about space lasers please. Not a single person has raised that as something worthy of mentioning in any way. We are talking about things that have been considered worthy of detailed mention in official reports and major news outlets. Your opinion that thermite was never a rational claim is just that and not a basis for how we edit this article. NIST considered that issue worthy of mentioning and the fact they have not rejected this widespread claim outright, but merely consider it "unlikely" means we cannot prejudice the article to suggest otherwise. Ditto for claims of advanced knowledge or facilitation. In fact, my concern is more focused on the non-scientific issues of advanced knowledge and facilitation that are being lumped in with the rest of the conspiracy theories in this statement. Not only were these not the subject of the investigations, many of the questions in that area have gone unanswered.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Unanswered? No. The answer was they are not worthy of investigation. The fact that this rankles you is irrelevant to the article. At this point, you're simply repeating the same refrain without listening to the rest of us. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 01:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Where do you get that it was determined those issues were not worthy of investigation? As far as your claims that I am not listening, there is a difference between not agreeing with you and not understanding you.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The fact that they didn't bother investigating them and there is no serious call to do so. Only a small fringe wants these things investigated.

It's not that you're just disagreeing with me, it's that you're the only one supporting this change. At this point, it seems pretty clear consensus is against you, yet we're still going round and round. I think I'm done arguing this point. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

So just so we are clear, are you saying you do not have any sources to back up the claim that any theory not investigated was considered unworthy of investigating?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Argumentative and irrelevant. The topic is the unanimous, for all practical and statistical purposes, rejection of the controlled demolition "theories"...

Universally though has the foregoing explanation of collapse been accepted by the communities of structural engineers and structural mechanics researchers, some outside critics have nevertheless exploited various unexplained observations to disseminate allegations of controlled demolition.
...snip...
These conclusions show the allegations of controlled demolition to be absurd and leave no doubt that the towers failed due to gravity-driven progressive collapse triggered by the effects of fire.
—What Did and Did Not Cause Collapse of World Trade Center Twin Towers in New York? doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2008)134:10(892)

You've been pushing the idea that there is some actual doubt about this for months and have yet to provide any credible sources (i.e. It looks like WP:OR). Your argument is becoming very tedious. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 09:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

"Have yet to provide any credible sources"? I am going by what NIST actually said about thermite. Your source makes exactly two mentions of thermite in the entire paper when talking about claims of molten steel and thermite residue, not on the general question of thermite being used. What matters is that the government study tasked with investigating these matters did not have a definite answer on the question. That does not mean they have doubts about their own beliefs, but it does mean they were not able to reject the claims. Again, however, it is not just thermite that I am thinking about, but the claims of government foreknowledge and government assistance. Those claims has not been investigated and rejected.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Claims do not have to be investigated to be rejected. And, for the point, others have investigated the "molten steel" and "thermite residue" claims, and found them lacking. You're still beating a dead horse here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say they have to be investigated to be rejected. Some claims are so fringe no one bothers to seriously investigate them. However, when commonly-made claims have not been investigated and rejected it matters a great deal how we cover that in the article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Now you're just equivocating. The claims have been rejected by NIST as not warranting investigation, and by others as factually inaccurate. This is becoming quite tiresome. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

No one has made any investigations into allegations that whales altered the tectonics of the region through sonar manipulation, but that doesn't mean it should be investigated; it should be dismissed as a crackpot theory out of hand. Buffs (talk) 03:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

"I don't like these theories" is not a legitimate argument. You have to provide reliable sources asserting that all the claims mentioned in the lede were investigated and rejected, not just some. Honestly, this is why my original wording is better. Saying they "found no evidence" creates far fewer issues. It tells people these theories are not accepted by the mainstream and that several investigations into most of the claims have not found evidence to support them. Readers should only be led to believe what is factually accurate. A claim that has not been investigated and rejected should not be described as having been investigated and rejected. Should it have been rejected because it was seen as unworthy of investigation that too should be sourced. You can't just say, "well, obviously, they didn't investigate it because they rejected it so we don't need a source to say it was rejected" and still be abiding by the principle of WP:NOR.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

You are putting words in Buffs mouth. S/he didn't say s/he just doesn't like it or anything resembling that. Mystylplx (talk) 07:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Saying "it should be dismissed as a crackpot theory out of hand" in response to whether commonly-made claims should be described as rejected even if there is no source to back that up certainly does seem like an "I don't like it" argument.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)