Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories/Archive 32

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Conspiracy theories involving Jews

The Devil's Advocate has removed the category, Conspiracy theories involving Jews explaining that "The conspiracy theories focus on Israel, not Jews in general."[1] But anti-Semitism against Jews seems to be a major component of these theories, particularly in the Arab world. I did a random search of reliable sources for "9/11 conspiracy theories Israel" (not "9/11 conspiracy theories Jew") and even with this search, the first three that I found seemed to confirm this.[2][3][4] What does everyone else think? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

It should be re-added. Anti-Semetism is a driving force among many Truthers, especially in the Middle East. Toa Nidhiki05 17:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Devil's Advocate removed the Conspiracy Theories Involving Jews when we used to also have a category for Conspiracy Theories Involving Israel/Jews. (i.e. it was redundant.) However, a couple of days ago, someone changed the Israel/Jews category to just say Conspiracy Theories Involving Israel (with a separate category for CTs Involving Jews). So yesterday, I re-added the latter (to go along with the CTs Involving Israel) category. Sorry if that's confusing...in short, problem resolved. :)JoelWhy (talk) 17:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, never mind, I see DA did, in fact, remove the CTs Involving Jews category. That removal was unwarranted (and someone correctly reverted it.)JoelWhy (talk) 17:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Look at what those sources say carefully. Every last one mentions Jews in exactly one context: that of Israeli involvement. Israel is said to have "warned" Jews about the attacks. The fact is that some of the conspiracy theories mention Israel, and only mention Jews in relation to their connection with Israel. Conspiracy theories involving Jews is itself included under conspiracy theories involving Jews so there is no need for that category on this article given that the focus is specifically on Israel.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The use of Israeli government in these conspiracies is to give a veneer of legitimacy to anti-Semitic accusations. The focus is not on Israel, except as a red herring. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I am sure the ADL agrees with you, but this is not its encyclopedia. The focus is clearly on Israel, with Jews only mentioned because Israel is a Jewish state.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

It's a conspiracy about Jews and Israel. End of story. Your argument against its inclusion is patently absurd.JoelWhy (talk) 18:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

There are some that try to refer only to the Israeli government. There are plenty of others that are straight-up anti-Semitic. Removing that category is flatly inaccurate. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Jack Ruby was Jewish. Does that mean the JFK conspiracy article needs to have this category too? Pretty much every conspiracy theory subject out there has some variant claiming it was the Jews or somehow involves people who are Jewish. What we have in this article are very brief mentions of theories focusing on Israel the country as being involved, not Jews in general. Categorizing this under the same umbrella as the Protocols and ZOG has a blatantly inflammatory effect.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

[5]

The very second example of a chain email prominently distributed online blames "all Jews," pinning Israel as a subset of Jews.

Your Jack Ruby comparison is the only inflammatory comment here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

What's inflammatory about it exactly? The truth is that every conspiracy theory at one point or another is going to have Jews mentioned. A category should only be used for an article if it can be supported by reliable sources and is not pushing a POV. Labeling 9/11 conspiracy theories as being about Jews because a few sources can be found saying it (not nearly enough to merit the category) thus putting them in the same category as the Protocols and ZOG is definitely pushing a POV. Surely you know that it is a common reaction that any time a conspiracy theory is suggested, regardless of what group is implicated by the conspiracy theorist, someone will ask in a snarky manner whether "the Joos" were also involved. It is a time-honored method of poisoning the wells in a debate. This is not an article for pissing all over conspiracy theorists and their beliefs, but for describing them in an objective manner.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Except that you defeat your own argument by playing the "Jack Ruby" card. Anti-semitic conspiracy theories weren't a notable part of the JFK assassination rhetoric. Blaming Jews (not just Israel) for having insider knowledge about the attacks is. The fact that you dragged out the anti-semitic "poisoning the wells" canard is just ironic. This is not "pissing all over conspiracy theorists," it's pointing out what has been claimed by conspiracy theorists. And they don't need you white-knighting for them. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 01:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure how mentioning Jack Ruby defeats my own argument. My point is that merely mentioning Jews or people who are Jewish does not mean the category should apply. Mention of Jews in these conspiracy theories focuses mostly on those claims about thousands of workers being warned to stay home. However, the sources point to it as being the alleged result of a warning from the Israeli government. Conspiracy theorists claiming Israeli involvement usually mention Jews as a group only to note that allegation of people working in the buildings being warned by Israel. Most conspiracy theorists refer to the "Dancing Israelis" not the "Dancing Jews" and it is claimed the purpose was to serve Israel's foreign policy interests, not some global Jewish plot to do naughty stuff. Sources broadly support that it is Israel that is the focus of most conspiracy theorists claiming Israeli involvement.

On a side note, are you unaware that poisoning the well commonly refers to a logical fallacy?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you unaware that the term originates from accusations against the Jews during the Black Plague? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Devil's Advocate, it boils down to this: Wiki policies are contrary to the way you view the world. And, that's fine. You're entitled to believe anything you like, consider evidence any way you like, and think any way you like. But, these constant back-and-forths with you are getting us nowhere. In virtually every discussion on this board, you're not convincing anyone that your views should prevail over the ones we find in established media sources.JoelWhy (talk) 22:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

It is not about how I view the subject, but how this article gets readers to view the subject. That is what NPOV is all about. Also, the sources indicate that the theories focus on Israel as being the responsible party with Jews in general only mentioned in the context of Israel warning some Jews of the attacks. I am not arguing that my view should prevail over those of reliable sources. My argument is that we should not be using categories to push an inflammatory POV and that the sources back up what I am saying.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

That was my nice way of saying, most of us here are interested in evidence. You are interested in fringe conspiracy theories and in removing information that may be embarrassing to your fellow conspiracy theorists. One of the first CTs to rise up about the WTC attacks was that Jews were forewarned and didn't show up for work that day -- Jews, not just Israelis. So, this is a conspiracy theory involving Jews and Israel. There are a plethora of sources you can cite to which directly discuss Antisemitism (as opposed to strictly anti-Zionism.) The implication is that Israel has every Jew around the world on speed dial, or was able to tip them off at one of their secret meetings where they were plotting the other events around the world. If the claim was that only Israelis were tipped off, you would have a valid argument. But, once again, you're wasting everyone's time with another completely asinine argument.JoelWhy (talk) 15:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with removing "embarrassing" information. Honestly, I think claims that a cruise missile hit the Pentagon are pretty embarrassing to conspiracy theorists. The "pod" accusations that are strangely not included in this article despite being more prominently mentioned than the no-planes theory are also embarrassing and I would support including them. It is about what reliable sources support including and what gives the most objective perspective on the issue. A category that associates this article with the Protocols and ZOG is definitely not objective and given the vast majority of sources on the conspiracy theories do not mention Jews, most of those only mentioning them in relation to theories focusing on Israel, its inclusion is not supported for this article. Keep in mind, that the category for conspiracy theories involving Israel is included in the category for conspiracy theories involving Jews.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if this helps but most of the theories involving "Jews" were in the immediate post 9/11 period. Lately it is more the Mossad and "Zionist" global bankers/Illuminati etc (Which of course to many making these claims means Jews but that is a whole other debate) Article should emphasize the current situation. Edkollin (talk) 23:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The article October Revolution, which is about the Bolshevik revolution of 1917, does not include the category "Conspiracy theories involving Jews", although it has been widely portrayed that way by right-wing Russians. It seems odd that this article should have that category, when that is such a minor theme, especially when compared to the Bolshevik revolution. The "villain" of most 9/11 conspiracy theories is the U.S. government, not Jews. Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

That's an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument though. I'd be willing to let the category go if we also agree that the entire Israel section is too minor to be worth including. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theories involving Jews" versus "Anti-semitic conspiracy theories"

I don't really do much editing in regards to categories so this might be completely wrong, but I wonder if "Conspiracy theories involving Jews" is a bad name. Wouldn't "Anti-semitic conspiracy theories" better describe this category? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we should look more closely at the categories themselves. All conspiracy theories are anti-Semitic. TFD (talk) 04:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

That would make it even less suitable for inclusion in this article. I think the current name is fine so long as people respect WP:CAT, which says something must be considered by a preponderance of reliable sources as a "defining characteristic" of the subject.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

That's an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument though. I'd be willing to let the category go if we also agree that the entire Israel section is too minor to be worth including. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The article suffers a bit of a Western bias. In the Middle East, anti-semitic conspiracy theories are very previlent, maybe even the major component. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has frequently blamed Jews for 9/11, even giving speeches about it at the UN[6] forcing Al Qaeda to issue statements refuting Ahmadinejad.[7] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The article as it is understates the antisemitism involved in 9/11 conspiracy theories. There's long been a bias in our articles toward what US internet users think are the less-crazy theories, and away from what proponents find embarassing, and what they know won't play well to American middle-class readers. It's probably true that antisemitism has been somewhat less overtly a part of US conspriacist thinking about 9/11, but in Europe and the middle east, Jew-hate is pretty much built in to these theories. TFD is also correct above; all conspiracy theories expand until they include the Jews. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

There is a very good reason that there are efforts to move to "less-crazy theories" and away from what "proponents find embarassing". It's called WP:UNDUE which requires coverage based on proponents, not on what critics want to concentrate on to better discredit them. By your definition you can add the antisemitism category to any controversial topic you want as I'm sure some right wing nutjob group somewhere has blamed it on Jews at some time or other. It is rather dishonest to collectivise all conspiracy theorists as anti-semitic simply because a very minor percentage of theorists have an anti-semitic view. Wayne (talk) 01:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know where you are getting the idea that it is really that much more prevalent in Europe. France has an oddly high proportion of people who believe Israel was behind the attacks, but that is not the same as there being more antisemitic conspiracy theories about 9/11 there. According to polls, nearly all of the major European countries see claims of Israeli involvement hovering around 1%. Even major Muslim countries like Pakistan, Turkey, and Indonesia see hardly any support for the Israel-centered conspiracy theories. Outside Arab countries like Egypt and Jordan even the claims of Israeli involvement get little support, never mind something centered on Jews. Seems like it would be a severe violation of WP:UNDUE to let a small minority of the global conspiracist community dictate how we label the rest.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

With about 3 minutes of Google searching, sites which discuss both anti-Israel and antisemitism related to the WTC attacks:

Snopes I: http://www.snopes.com/rumors/wingdings.asp Snopes II: http://www.snopes.com/rumors/israel.asp JTA: http://www.jta.org/news/article/2011/09/05/3089201/ten-years-later-anti-semitic-conspiracy-theories-continue-to-spread Slate: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/trutherism/2011/09/where_did_911_conspiracies_come_from.html ADL: http://www.adl.org/anti_semitism/9-11conspiracytheories.pdf U.S. Dept. of State: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/102301.pdf NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/04/magazine/the-uncomfortable-question-of-anti-semitism.html?pagewanted=all Southern Poverty Law Center: http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2008/fall/anti-semitism-goes-to-school LA Times: http://articles.latimes.com/2001/sep/29/news/mn-51260

"But....but....but....where are the transitional fossils?! Why does the flag planted on the moon wave even though there's no atmosphere?! How do you explain the traces of thermite?! How about the photos at Roswell, you can't explain that, can you?! I'm not saying I believe in these conspiracy theories, I'm just a guy asking questions..." -- Every Conspiracy Theorist ever

Feel free to continue to argue. It's always amusing to see how many different ways conspiracy theorists can ignore evidence to stay married to their fringe theory-of-choice.JoelWhy (talk) 14:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The first Snopes reference has absolutely nothing to do with claims of antisemitism in 9/11 conspiracy theories. What we find in the second is mostly Snopes making the association, with the only thing attributed to a conspiracy theorist being a message without any source. A quote is presented from al-Manar, but it specifically says Israelis and not Jews. The JTA source is referencing the ADL source, a Jewish advocacy organization. What really matters here, however, is that WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, and WP:CAT should be enough reason to remove the category of "conspiracy theories involving Jews" as it implies this as a defining characteristic of the theories in a way that is inherently prejudicial. Only a tiny minority in the world even subscribe to the idea of Israeli involvement, with even fewer making it about Jews as a whole. It gets notable coverage so information about it should be included in the article as it is presently, but we should not base how we categorize this article about 9/11 conspiracy theories in general based on those mentions.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I posted this in the previous section. The second email explicitly calls out "all Jews," accusing Israel as a government in a secondary capacity. The anti-Semetism is the reason for the accusations against Israel. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Israel comes into the conspiracy theories only because it's full of Jews. The article should not gloss over the faux-respectable middle-class antisemitism that drives this nonsense. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you to both of you for plainly laying out your very much POV-pushing OR reasons for wanting this category. Your personal feelings that conspiracy theories blaming Israel are inherently about disguising Jew-hating are no justification for circumventing WP:CAT. One unattributed chain e-mail is no basis for labeling 9/11 conspiracy theories as being about da Joos. Feel free to include sourced material in the article on the subject, but unless you can demonstrate this is "commonly and consistently" mentioned in reliable sources as a "defining characteristic" of the conspiracy theories then we should not be adding a category that suggests this to be the case.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

DA, lay off the insinuations. This is not POV-pushing OR, but I'm not willing to go browsing for anti-Semitic references at work. This is material that was in the news in the years shortly after the attacks, so I'll have to go digging, but not on a monitored network. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing uncivil about saying you are pushing a POV or trying to insert original research. Bias usually means you do not recognize that your views lack objectivity. I am sure you can find some non-reliable source to say the conspiracy theories about Israel are all antisemitic, but I highly doubt you will find a reliable one that actually says that. Any attempt to jury-rig sources together or cherry-pick them to support that contention so you can have the category included will still be POV-pushing original research.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

10 years on, anti-Semitic conspiracy theories about 9/11 persist. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The ADL is, by its own admission, a group that advocates for Israel and the JTA is simply reporting on the ADL's allegations. It is not a reliable source as it pertains to this issue and therefore should not be considered when categorizing the subject.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the article isn't written by ADL. It's written by Jewish Telegraphic Agency, an international news organization. You said that you highly doubt that we could find a reliable source which describes these conspiracy theories as anti-Semitic. I have done exactly that. You also said that we would have to "jury-rig sources together or cherry-pick them to support that contention so you can have the category included will still be POV-pushing original research." Your claims have now been proven false. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Re-read my comment please. I said plainly that it was just reporting what the ADL said. Their source is the ADL and so their report is no more reliable than the ADL. Also, I really do not think any Jewish news source can be inherently taken as an independent source on the question of antisemitism and Israel. Certainly there are plenty of Jewish people who would be offended by any suggestion of nefarious activity by Israel. The same would be true of American news sources on anti-Americanism.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not the way things work around here. You don't get to dismiss third-party reliable sources because you personally don't like what they said, the sources that they used, or because of their ethnicity. You said that we couldn't find any reliable sources that said that these were anti-Semitic and we have done exactly that. Here's another one, this time by the BBC.[8] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I was not dismissing the source because I don't like what was said, but because they were just reporting on what the ADL said. Also, I do not believe you can call a source that is explicitly marketed towards the Jewish community a reliable third-party source on the issue of antisemitism. Furthermore, what I specifically said is that a reliable source could not be found saying that the conspiracy theories involving Israel are all antisemitic. The BBC source you provided just says that specific claim of 4,000 Israelis being warned away was antisemitic and that comment is made in a very trivial manner. Several people are saying here that conspiracy theories involving Israel are just a shield for antisemitism.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

You don't know that, and even if they are, they're still a legitimate news organization and if they published it, that means that it met their editorial policy. It's not our job as editors to say that reliable sources are wrong. Please stop. Your claims have been proven wrong several times over. There's no point in continuing to point this out, but you can have the last word if you like. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Never said the source was "wrong" as that isn't the dispute. The issue is whether the source can be considered a reliable and independent source that can be used to back up having a category on the article despite the obvious prejudicial nature to it. A Jewish news source, just like an Israeli news source, can't be taken as independent and reliable on whether something is antisemitic. Certainly it can be taken as reliable on what it thinks is antisemitic, but the category doesn't make such a distinction. The category is an unattributed label so we should only include it if we have independent and reliable sources to back up the label. Jewish news sources citing the ADL would be no more reliable on that than African=American news sources citing the NAACP would be on questions of racism.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Southern Poverty Law Center isn't a Jewish organization. Neither is Snopes. Neither is the State Department. Neither is LA Times or NY Times. In any case, it's clear we're wasting our time here. I'd have to go dig up the studies, but the research has shown conspiracy theorists tend to be immune to evidence which contradicts their existing beliefs. I think we've got a case-study right here they could use for follow-up studies...JoelWhy (talk) 17:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Look up at the comments by Hand and Tom. Those claims are what I was addressing with regards to using Jewish organizations as reliable sources, apparently because they want 9/11 conspiracy theories in general to be labeled antisemitic despite most not even mentioning Israel or Jews. I am not sure why you are talking about conspiracy theories being "immune to evidence" as that is not even the matter being discussed. The question is about using a category for these theories that lumps them together with notions like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and the Zionist Occupied Government and, apparently, some wanting to make the language of the category even stronger.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I fully understand what was being debated. I was pointing out that you've been presented with ample evidence showing that antisemitism is a notable attribute within 9/11 CT circles, yet the evidence hasn't swayed your opinion one iota. Ergo, this presents a researcher with an opportunity to study the leaps in logic at least one conspiracy theorist is willing to take in public to ignore evidence which contradicts their engrained opinion. (For the record, I'm being a bit tongue-in-cheek here; I tend to get a bit cheeky at this point in such discussions because they never fail to amuse me. Carry on, fight the power, and all that...)JoelWhy (talk) 18:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

What you have demonstrated is that it is a notable claim about certain claims made by some 9/11 conspiracy theories. Those claims are more often noted by reliable sources as being about Israel and not Jews as a group. Most of the conspiracy theories do not mention Israel as being involved and only a small minority of the global conspiracist community believe the ones that do implicate Israel. Just because the ADL claims something is antisemitic and gets some news coverage for that claim does not mean it has passed the test for inclusion. I have no issue with keeping the conspiracy theories involving Israel category since that is less prejudicial and backed up by more sources, but conspiracy theories involving Jews makes a lot of prejudicial implications and has far fewer sources supporting it as a defining characteristic of the 9/11 conspiracy theories.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest that it may be best at this point just to ignore DA. It is quite clear he is not going to change his position and will continue to push his views indefinitely. The pseudo-trolling he is conducting can only be stopped by ignoring it - stop feeding him and he'll go away. Toa Nidhiki05 19:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

DA, this is precisely why I asked you to dial it back. You're already assuming I'm going to "jury-rig sources together or cherry-pick them," which is the height of bad-faith. Knock it off. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite

I am not assuming you would do it in bad faith, only that you would do it out of confirmation bias. Plenty of people honestly see what they want in an article, even when it isn't actually there.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

You really don't get it, do you? It's bad faith to assume I will make shit up, when I have never done that in the article. The bias here is your determination that everyone who disagrees with you has a personal axe to grind. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

When I get a chance I'll pick up Among the Truthers and some other recent works on conspiracism and see what weight the authors give to antisemitism. That should give us lots to talk about on this page, and at 9/11 Truth movement. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Conspiracy theories involving Israel should suffice. It is already in so just remove the other. Looks like the mentions of Jews is tied to the nation. Easy fix.Cptnono (talk) 05:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

From Jonathan Kay's Among the Truthers, Jonathan Kay:

"Even when the Third Reich lay in ruins, and anti-Semitism became widely detested in its bald-faced Nazi-style form, the Protocols[of the Elders of Zion] would remain ensconced as a sort of universal blueprint for all the successor conspiracist ideologies that would come to infect Western societies over the next nine decades - right up to the modern-day Truther and Birther fantasies of the twenty-first century. In these conspiracy theories, the imagined evildoing cabal would come by many names - communist, globalist, neocon. But in most cases, it would exhibit the same five recurring traits that the Protocols fastened upon Jewish elders in the shadow of World War I: singularity, evil, incumbency, greed, and hypercompetence." Among the Truthers, pg 71

"Not all conspiracy theorists are anti-Semitic. But all conspiracy movements - all of them - attract anti-Semities. Even UFO conspiracists manage, somehow, to project Jewish stereotypes on imagined visitors from other galaxies..." Among the Truthers, pg 289

Like AQFK, I don't mess with categories much, but clearly some changes to the article are in order. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

What changes? This source is just regurgitating the oft-repeated meme that anyone who thinks ill of the establishment must have something wrong with them. If they aren't crazy then it must be that they hate Jews or something. At no time could there be any rational basis for their lack of trust in government. Such memes are common amongst hit pieces like the one you quote above, but they should not be used here as a basis for how we treat the subject. Just like we shouldn't be categorizing the subject of this article under "psychosis" we shouldn't be categorizing it as "about the Jews" since it is too prejudicial to the subject and too poorly sourced to be included.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

When 9/11 conspiracy theorists claim 4,000 Jews stayed away from the WTC the day of the attack, they're talking "about the Jews". Jayjg ^(talk) 22:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Some 9/11 conspiracy theorists make that claim and most claim they stayed away because of a warning from Israel, not because of any shady action on the part of Jews as a whole. Not all of those making that claim even claim it was Jews that stayed away from work, but Israelis. What matters is that the claim itself is not common and neither are claims of Israeli involvement with claims about Jews in general being even less common than that. The article should not give undue weight to the antisemitic fringe that claims "the Jews" set it up by suggesting it is a defining characteristic of the theories in general.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Antisemitism is a defining characteristic of 9/11 conspiracy theories in general.[9] Among the Truthers devotes a chapter to it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Looking over the passage, it appears to only say very plainly that all conspiracy theories attract antisemites while playing a deceptive association game by saying the claims of conspiracy theorists in general are similar to those of antisemites.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

My revert of changes to lede

I reverted the removal of "U.S. government agencies" and "mainstream" that were previously accepted. There is an idea that somehow we don't need to mention these things, but I don't think it is correct. "National" does not inherently imply government as organizations like National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences and National Art Education Association demonstrate it can be used for private organizations. Suggesting people should just check the linked article is inappropriate as no one should be expected to go to another page to get some basic context like this. I don't see any reason why referring to "mainstream" media is a problem since it accurately suggests that media outside the mainstream do not necessarily adopt the same attitude. As to "generally accepts" there are people who are members of the civil engineering community that do not accept the official version of events. We cannot imply those individuals do accept it when they do not. Perhaps changing "generally" to something else is in order, but there needs to be some qualifier since there are some civil engineers who openly advocate the conspiracy theories.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any need to say that the enginnering community "generally accepts" the mainstream explanation. There are always going to be kooks who believe nonsense. Do we say that geologists "generally accept" the world is round or that historians "generally accept" the Holocaust? Sorry, but "generally accepts" implies doubt where there is none. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Correct. You would be hard pressed to find any viewpoint or belief that isn't expressed by someone, somewhere. Other than a few fringe engineers, the engineering community recognizes that government and independent investigations use sound science to provide the only plausible explanation. Similarly, we don't say mainstream media accept the established theory, because this implies there are plenty of other reputable media outlets which reject it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by JoelWhy (talk • contribs) 13:22, February 8, 2012‎

This wording has been in the article for years without any objections. "Mainstream" is perfectly acceptable and it does not imply that other reputable media reject the official theory, because if it is a fringe media outlet it will likely not be regarded as reputable. If you have any alternative terms for "generally" than feel free to mention them.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Pointing out that NIST is a government agency is unimportant to the information being presented--it neither adds to nor detracts from its credibility as a source so is irrelevant. Using the qualifier "generally" implies a greater amount of disagreement than exists. WP:UNDUE. If a qualifier is absolutely necessary it should be something stronger, like "near universally." Mystylplx (talk) 21:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I put in predominantly. Would that be a better word? As far as mentioning that NIST is a government agency, I think it is important to note this lest people think it is an independent organization.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

No, we don't say historians "predominently" accept the Holocaust or geologists "predominently" accept the Earth is round. This wording implies doubt where there is none. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)"Predominantly" is a weasel word to be avoided. And whether NIST is an "independent organization" or not is irrelevant. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Look, here is what the cited source actually says as you can see from the References section:

“ As generally accepted by the community of specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering (though not by a few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives), the failure scenario was as follows.... ”

This is not a weasel word in any way. Qualifiers have meanings that are significant to any written work.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

"Generally" isn't a useful qualifier. It's a vague hand-wavy statement, not precise at all. Leaving out "generally" is better structurally, and the user still knows the offical story is accepted. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Accuracy matters. We should avoid making inaccurate statements in the article period, and even more so in the lede.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing inaccurate in leaving "generally" out of the lede. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so this has quickly devolved into yet another pointless "debate". DA, your opinion has been heard and we disagree with your assessment. If someone else has a reasonable argument to be made for the change, we can address that. But, DA, it's time for you to drop the matter. If you don't drop the matter, I propose the rest of us should ignore further postings on this topic by DA. I'm not ready to ignore everything DA has to say (yet), but if he insists on perpetuating a pointless argument, I think it's best if we don't take the bait. NEXT TOPIC!JoelWhy (talk) 22:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with JoelWhy - we should ignore further postings on this. Toa Nidhiki05 23:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Ignoring DA isn't a realistic option because they continue to edit the article. This article is under ArbCom santions. I'm wondering if we should file a RfE about DA?[10] Or maybe its better to address these issues in the one DA has already filed one against Tom?[11] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd support that - there is ample evidence of it. Toa Nidhiki05 23:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

His persistent reverting is a problem. I'm surprised he's being allowed to get away with 3rr on this page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

You yourself have supported retaining some of the information that has been removed so I am not the only one objecting to the removal. Also, this was not a "new change" by any measure. "Generally" and "mainstream" have been included in this article for a very long time. "Generally" is the exact word used in the citation for the material so to suggest to other editors that my position should be ignored is just uncivil.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The words "generally" and "mainstream" are used because they were agreed to in a very protracted RFC a few years ago. What has changed that they can be arbitrarily changed now without a new RFC? Repeatedly throwing up straw man arguements such as the Holocaust and flat earthers is not helpful. Wayne (talk) 02:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC) Wayne (talk) 02:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Dead and alive

This isn't what the source says.[12]. It's not that some believe one theory about bin Laden and some believe another. The source says "the more participants believed that Osama Bin Laden was already dead when U.S. special forces raided his compound in Pakistan, the more they believed he is still alive. Hierarchical regression models showed that mutually incompatible conspiracy theories are positively associated because both are associated with the view that the authorities are engaged in a cover-up." Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I checked the actual study. It does note that Truthers are more likely to believe Bin Laden was killed in 2000. And, the study did find that people who believe Bin Laden was killed in 2000 also tend to believe he was taken alive in 2011. But, the study did not look at whether Truthers believe both. Therefore, we cannot include this claim in the article because it would violate Synthesis rule.JoelWhy (talk) 23:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'll have to look at this when I have more free time, but I think the source might talking about conspiracy theorists in general, and not just 9/11 conspiracy theorists.

“ The conspiracy theories surrounding the death of Osama bin Laden can be divided into two major categories: those that propose he was already dead at the time of the raid, and those that propose he is still alive (Kingsley & Jones, 2011). The former seems to have currency among the 9/11 conspiracist Truth Movement; many “Truthers” allege that bin Laden died in 2000 or even earlier, and his video appearances since then were in fact staged productions made with a body double. The latter theory varies; some people believe that he is still at large, while others think that he was captured alive and is being secretly held for interrogation by the CIA. Naturally, these two theories are irreconcilable; bin Laden cannot be both alive and dead at the same time. However, as in Study 1, we predicted that belief in the two conspiracy theories would be positively correlated. ”

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Can it be assumed there's a consensus for restoring the Princess Diana mention with the following modification?

“ People who believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories are also more likely to believe other conspiracy theories such as about the deaths of Osama bin Laden and Princess Diana. ”

--MichaelNetzer (talk) 02:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

According to the studies, that is only one predictor of belief and is not even the most common predictor of those considered important. You cant mention one category to the exclusion of the others that are equally or even more relevant. NPOV requires all or none. Peer reviewed studies (ie: Byford, Chamorro-Premuzic, Carson, Furnham, Swami etc) have found that the major predictors are A: (this is the most common reason by far) people that rejected the current political system (political cynicism) are more likely to believe conspiracy theories. B: people who believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories are more likely to believe other conspiracy theories and C: "Intellectually curious, open-minded, and creative" people are more likely to believe conspiracy theories. They also found that in terms of cognitive functioning, conspiracy theorists can be as rational as sceptics. Psychologists such as Tajfel, Bilig, Gergen and Moscovici believe that belief is not psychological ("faulty reasoning") but is based on the "thematic configuration, narrative structure and explanatory logic" of the conspiracy theory, ie: if it sounds logical it may be true even if there is insufficient evidence. Wayne (talk) 13:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

9/11 CTs in conspiracism

The discussion about the Reichstag fire comparison and precedents section, as well as the insertion of material about correlations between belief in 9/11 conspiracy theories and belief in Princess Di theories, leads me to think we can resolve some of this dispute by creating a new section in the article focusing on the 9/11 conspiracy theories in relation to conspiracism in general. We have some scattered mentions in various sections that could be incorporated into it and it would be place for additions like the Reichstag and Princess Di. Basically my thinking is it would mentions 9/11 CTs as part of a broader conspiracist narrative espoused by many proponents. I think there would be plenty of sources to back up such a section and it would be a lot more useful than the mentions we currently have strewn about.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. Mystylplx (talk) 18:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone else have any input to provide?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe it has been established in prior discussion that Reichstag Fire comparisons are not notable. Toa Nidhiki05 20:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

It could be appropriate in a section on conspiracism. Mystylplx (talk) 20:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

By no measure was this established as the vote was a pretty even split that favored inclusion. Policies like WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTABILITY do not mean you need dozens of sources to justify inclusion of material in an article if it does not emphasize a fringe aspect of the subject, which this is not. However, redoing the section to incorporate these comparisons in a more encyclopedic fashion is certainly preferable to the way it would be currently included.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Pseudoscience category

While there had been strong support in the RfC for keeping the denialism category, it was much softer on the pseudoscience category. As another editor has stepped in to try and remove the category I think we should focus on that specific category. Not only do we have very little sourcing at all to back up this category, the application here seems off. Many aspects of certain 9/11 conspiracy theories include bad science, but I don't think bad science is the same as pseudoscience. Only a few very fringe views could actually be described as pseudoscientific, in my opinion. The vast majority of the conspiracy theories are just conspiracy theories and the whole group of them should not be described as pseudoscience based on the attitudes of editors, as that was the only basis provided by editors supporting the category.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

After some thought I have to agree with this. Pseudoscience may be a part of many 911 conspiracy theories but 911 conspiracy theories are not in and of themselves pseudoscience. Mystylplx (talk) 21:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

You're argument is demonstratively false; 14-6 (70%) is not 'weak' by any stretch of the imagination and is almost the same as denialism got (15-5, 75%) and quite frankly there is no need to redo this less than a month after the previous overwhelming consensus (Denialism and pseudoscience, too early for psuedohistory) was created. There is no valid reason to revisit this early. Toa Nidhiki05 22:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The previous RfC mentioned three separate categories and so it was less focused on any particular one. Also, when I say the support was softer it is because two people voted "weak support" and that matters. Now we have another editor who objected to the category and Myst changing his stance.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

9-11 conspiracies are a mixture of pseudo-science and pseudo-history. The distinction between the two is not meaningful. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:51, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Several major theories don't even attempt scientific arguments so it is kind of disingenuous to suggest they are all pseudoscience. Also, like I said, bad science is not the same as pseudoscience. Nothing postulated by the main 9/11 conspiracy theories is outside the realm of possibility. They do not try to challenge some commonly-held scientific theory or law. Only the fringe of the fringe do anything like that and that is not sufficient reason for labeling all of the theories as pseudoscience.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Change to no-planes section

I inserted the following wording to the no-planes section:

“ Most 9/11 conspiracy theorists have strongly rejected the "no-plane" claims with advocates of the theory occasionally being banned from conspiracy theory websites and sometimes threatened by posters ”

This was reverted and I restored it. While the editor reverting claims the original version reflects what the source actually says, this is inaccurate. At no point does the Phoenix article say "discussion" of the no-planes theory is banned from certain websites. It specifically references people who advocate the theory as sometimes being banned and sometimes being threatened. The source also clearly supports the "strongly rejected" wording.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 14:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

DA, here's what the sources you cite state, as far as I can tell:

From Yoda of 9/11:

"To us, they're all insane," offers Bennett. "But, to them, there are different levels of bizarreness."

Indeed, there are LIHOPers, those who believe the government "let it [9/11] happen on purpose"; MIHOPers, who insist that the government "made it happen on purpose"; "no-planers," who assert that no planes were involved in any part of the attack; people who believe there was no plane at the Pentagon attack but, otherwise, there were planes. There are even "pod people," who cling to a notion, widely rejected in the movement, that one of the photos of United Airlines Flight 175 just before it flew into the South Tower of the WTC shows a pod or bulge on the underside of the plane near the fuselage.

Posters on 911blogger.com and other conspiracy theory sites angrily reject certain ideas, like those of the outcast no-planers. They sometimes even threaten violence against the likes of the no-planers and ban them from forums for fear of being tainted by their lunacy.

From Truth is Out There:

As if this plot wasn't sufficiently challenging, there were Truth activists who became persuaded of even more technologically complex possibilities. On the fifth anniversary of the attacks, the New Statesman carried an interview with David Shayler and his partner Annie Machon, the former employees of MI5. The interviewer describes Machon as looking uncomfortable when Shayler decides to reveal his true opinion. “‘Oh f*** it, I'm just going to say this', (Shayler) tells her. ‘Yes, I believe no planes were involved in 9/ll.' But we all saw with our own eyes the two planes crash into the WTC. ‘The only explanation is that they were missiles surrounded by holograms made to look like planes,' he says. ‘Watch footage frame by frame and you will see a cigar-shaped missile hitting the World Trade Center.' He must notice that my jaw has dropped. ‘I know it sounds weird, but this is what I believe.'”

I didn't bother reading through the 3rd source, which is hardly notable. However, if you can please point me to language in either of the articles you cited which support your claim, I would appreciate it.JoelWhy (talk) 16:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The "yoda" article describes them as being "outcasts" amongst the conspiracy theorists. The 3rd source is from a conspiracist source so what it says about these claims is pretty important:

“ Regardless, claims which have been widely and publicly rejected by the vast majority of the 9/11 truth community ”

It is pretty clear from the sources we have that this is rejected by most 9/11 conspiracy theorists.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The first article clearly mentions 'outcast no-planers' in the context of 'posters on...conspiracy theory sites." Nowhere does it state that most 9/11 conspiracy theorists strongly reject the theory. The second article makes no assertions whatsoever regarding how widespread the belief is. The 3rd article is most certainly not a reliable source for making any type of factual claim; rather, if it is to be used to all, it can strictly be used to show what certain Truthers believe. (Or, are you really going to argue some random person's blog meets to notability requirements under Wiki policy.)

DA, once again, either provide evidence to support your edits to the article, or your edits will be reverted. As I had edited the section, it does not imply that all or most Truthers believe this. It states most posters on 9/11 forums reject the idea. We have a reliable source supporting this. This is Wiki Editing 101. Surely by now you must understand this.JoelWhy (talk) 17:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The third source is not reliable concerning the theories themselves, but it is reliable concerning what theorists believe and that would include what most believe about the no-planes theories.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding me. You really think that some random Truther's blog can be cited to make a factual claim regarding the prevalence of a particular theory? DA, stop wasting people's time with asinine arguments. Either find a reliable source for your claim or it'll be removed. I'm done debating this with you.JoelWhy (talk) 17:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

It is not "some random Truther's blog" but one of the main 9/11 conspiracy theory websites.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Journal of 9/11 Studies A Critical Review of WTC 'No Plane' Theories Quote:
"These theories never were and never will be broadly accepted among the 9/11 skeptic community"
"never supported by any more than a small minority of 9/11 researchers"
"it is clear that there is no supporting physical evidence whatsoever for the no-plane hypothesis"
"It is standard operating procedure for false and misleading evidence to be planted to discredit conspiracy researchers. We can be nearly certain that this has been done with 9/11 evidence" Wayne (talk) 17:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Anyone else care to examine the 'reliable sources' presented?JoelWhy (talk) 14:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The sources are reliable as it concerns what 9/11 conspiracy theorists believe. Sources demonstrating that the vast majority reject the no-planes theories is pretty compelling for including material to that effect in the article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Incredible Lie

The article says " One allegation that was widely circulated by e-mail and on the Web is that not a single Jew had been killed in the attack " This is a completely lie, and pretty stupid. The real allegation said that not a single Israeli died, which was probably true (I dont know). NY have 1000s of jews. That zone, also. Who knows that not a singe jew had died ? Add the Pentagon, the other plane, and for sure jews had died. The real allegation was that not a single Israeli died. Keep that not a single jew died, in this article, is a conspiracy theorie, itself - and propaganda. Replace it , and make it clear the response. Thanks and dont delete this - Paulsefa — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.154.57.149 (talk) 02:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Read the Snopes.com article addressing this. Notice how one of the chain e-mails from 2001 states "It has been confirmed by the US government and the FBI that at the time of the accident, there were 4000 Jews who MIRACULOUSLY never came to their work at the World Trade Center building at the time of the accident. This means Jews knew and were prewarned..." http://www.snopes.com/rumors/israel.aspJoelWhy (talk) 17:32, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I just read the article. Snopes confirms its False...so, whats your point exactly? 131.137.245.208 (talk) 18:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind, missunderstood your meaning. yes there were two letters used as an example, the second specificaly states Jews 131.137.245.207 (talk) 18:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

When discussing 9/11 conspiracy how can any official document, 911 Commission, NIST, etc be regarded as reliable? If the government is covering things up then its publications must be regarded with suspicion in the same way as any document coming out of Nazi Germany could be regarded as possible propaganda. In determining what is reliable we must look at the quality of the evidence directly, and not through some sort of official filter.

In this regard, the high school teacher who first showed that by video analysis, that building 7 was falling at free fall acceleration for about 2.4 seconds, must be regarded as reliable. Especially when his evidence has been supported to Steven Jones and NIST in its final report. Similarly they red/grey chips are either in the dust or they are not. Anyone with access to both the dust and a microscope can verify their existence. If these red/grey chips are nano-thermite, what are they doing in the dust?

In summary we should be looking at science, not propaganda when determining reliable sources. Tony.wallace.nz (talk) 11:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The guidelines on reliable sources, fringe theories, no point of view were all put into place for a reason. If we were to abandon them, it would open the floodgates to all sorts of problems. Remember that every group that advocates a pseudo-scientific position has some excuse for why the relevant experts can be ignore (or in wikipedia termas considered "not reliable"). I will also remind you that talk pages are not a forum for discussion of the topic at hand, but for discussion of the article itself.

Secondly, your analogy doesn't hold. NIST is a federal organization, but is largely independent. It is not a wing of the Republican party or under the direct control of President of the United States or any other group who is alleged to have conspired to carry out the attacks. Do you have any evidence that there was any attempt to censor or coerce NIST or their report in any way? --Harizotoh9 (talk) 12:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Tony.wallace.nz - your post effectively says "The official report is not a reliable source because I say it's not" Sorry. That logic doesn't work. HiLo48 (talk) 13:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

If then a large body of scientists and engineers were to say that the NIST report was unreliable, would it then get marked as an unreliable source? This is the nub of the question, who decides? How is that decision made? Any discussion of truth needs a falsifiable test. Accordingly what test would show the NIST reports to be unreliable? If it cannot be tested as to accuracy how can it be relied upon? Tony.wallace.nz (talk) 02:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

If there was a disagreement between reliable sources, then yes, we would note that there is a disagreement. That is not the situation currently however. See the above discussion about Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth.

Before continuing make sure that you are fully aware of WP's relevant policies on this:

• WP:NPOV - No point of view
• WP:NOR - No original research
• WP:FRINGE - Fringe theories
• WP:RELIABLE - Reliable sources

--Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

phone calls

The subsection on phone calls says nothing about 9/11 conspiracy theories, but discusses and summarizes calls the victims made. I've moved the subsection to Communication during the September 11 attacks. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:57, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

How about you add in the sources I am sure you know about that actually discusses the conspiracist claims about the phone calls?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Being a contributor to this article for so long I am sure you understand there are widespread conspiracist claims about the phone calls. Here are just a few sources about those claims: [13] [14] [15] [16].--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Here's a source you may recognize (take note of an instance like this being one where it is used correctly and accurately): [17]. Here is another source: [18]. Maybe we can agree that before editors simply remove a section on the basis of it saying nothing about conspiracy theories that editors take at least a little time to look for sources that may establish the relevance to the conspiracy theories.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The subsection that was there was completely unrelated to 9/11 conspiracy theories, except it mentioned phone calls, and some conspiracy theories also mention phone calls. By that reasoning, we should have a subsection on the physics of holograms. I've added a sentence describing what the CTs say about faking the phone calls with voice-morphing. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Some 9/11 conspiracy theories (CTs) claim that the cell phone calls made from the hijacked planes should either be impossible or rarely possible, and therefore the hijackings were staged and the phone calls were faked. At one time, our article included this.[19] I'm not sure how it got removed. I guess the question to ask is how prominent are these CTs? I want to say that this is one of the claims of Loose Change, but it's been a long time since I watched it, so I really don't know. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Among the Truthers and Debunking 9/11 Myths associates it with A.K. Dewdney, The Guardian and Slate with David Griffin, though none of these explicitly say it's their exclusive claim. The line we had about Dewdney may have been pulled because it was cited to a primary source. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)