Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories/Archive 36

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30 ← Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 → Archive 40

Advanced versus advance

I changed "advanced" to "advance" in the following sentence:

9/11 conspiracy theories dispute the widely accepted account that the September 11 attacks were perpetrated solely by al-Qaeda without any detailed advanced knowledge on the part of any government agency.

But my change was reverted.[1] My understanding is that "advanced" used in this context means "detailed" or "thorough" which is sort of correct, but it misses the point of LIHOP conspiracy theories, and that is the US government knew about the attacks ahead of time (or so conspiracy theorists claim). So I changed it to "advance" which is definitions 31 and 32 of this dictionary.[2] Sorry, I'm not the best at grammar, and I'm not even sure if I'm explaining this properly. So, I'm throwing this out to other editors on the talk page. Which is correct "advanced" or "advance"? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The correct word to use in this situation is advance...missing the ending "d". Example..."They had knowledge of the situation in advance".--MONGO 19:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Oops, my fault! Sorry, you guys are correct, it's supposed to be "advance." (I will be burning my English degree as soon as I get home... :( ).
Dang, I was hoping you would defend "advanced" so we could have a cracking good argument about something other that free-fall speed or what "pull it" really means. Tom Harrison Talk 22:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
We could say that the UFO's that were using the plasma torpedos had advanced weapons, just to even things out.--MONGO 02:51, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
...or that the NIST assembled a team of specialists with advanced knowledge that enabled them to advance the state-of-the-art. As opposed to those that have shown a lack of the advanced thinking skills required to do more than just advance speculation. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 03:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Not in source

In September 2001, NORAD generals said they learned of the hijackings in time to scramble fighter jets. Later, the U.S. government released tapes claiming to show the Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) did not tell the military about the hijackings until three of the four planes had crashed, a fact that would indicate that the FAA repeatedly lied to other U.S. government agencies.[77]

Absolutely nothing in this paragraph is supported by [77]. It's also a confused account. There's better information and sources in U.S._military_response_during_the_September_11_attacks#NORAD_timeline. 184.145.65.254 (talk) 19:38, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Last paragraph of 'hijackers' questionable

Five of the alleged hijackers may have received training at U.S. military facilities.[150] The Defense Department confirmed that three of the hijackers, Mohamed Atta, Abdulaziz al-Omari and Saeed al-Ghamdi, "have the same names as alumni of American military schools." A Mohamed Atta attended the International Officers School at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama; an Abdulaziz al-Omari went to the Aerospace Medical School at Brooks Air Force Base in Texas; and a Saeed al-Ghamdi was at the Defense Language Institute at the Presidio in Monterey, California.[151]

Amusingly, this is all sourced to hasty media reports in the days after 9/11, and comes immediately after an explanation that hasty media reports in the days after 9/11 frequently conflated different people with the actual hijackers because at that time there were only names to go on. I don't think this "information" belongs. 184.145.65.254 (talk) 19:48, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Good catch. I've removed the paragraph from the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:32, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I suggest we re-title this page "9/11 Conspiracies and Theories".

As the current name suggests that none of these claims are supported by any evidence or data. 72.211.250.78 (talk) 19:47, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

That's what the article is about, claims which are not supported by evidence or data. TippyGoomba (talk) 20:01, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
If that is the case then at most they are alleged conspiracies. Most of the "reliable sources" use the conspiracy theories moniker. Wikipedia guidelines say the articles should reflect what those sources say not our views or common sense if you like.Edkollin (talk) 18:54, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Quotationless

Cockpit voice recorder section paragraph two. Obviously a quote. No quotation or indentation. A coincidence? I THINK NOT! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.69.62.232 (talk) 16:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Link Update

The current link found in External links -> United States Government Sources -> NIST and the World Trade Center "Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation", which redirects to http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.html does not work correctly. It needs to be updated to http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm — Preceding unsigned comment added by CalmlyBallistic (talk • contribs) 18:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I've fixed the broken link, thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:44, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

"Widely accepted"

The Al-Qaeda theory is not "Widely accepted" - it's common knowledge that it was a controlled demolition and the US government. Either take it out, or change it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.86.226.87 (talk) 01:18, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, could you provide a source stating any of this? --McSly (talk) 01:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
It's "common knowledge that it was a controlled demolition"? Just like the person above said, can you provide a source for this? And reliable sources for this do not include conspiracy websites and conspiracy videos on YouTube.Zdawg1029 (talk) 05:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm not claiming common knowledge, but "widely accepted" looks a bit weird next to a sentence claiming 46% of those polled believe it. In case anyone sucks at math, 46% is less than half. Of course, all polls are bullshit and "widely" is a conveniently vague word. But it still looks weird. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:11, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
There's no reason to mince words, here. It's not the "widely accepted" theory of what happened. It's what actually happened. (And, obviously, we have mounds of sources to support such a statement.) The conspiracy theories are fantastical claims of what happened, in contradiction of the facts. We don't say that "it's widely believed man landed on the moon." Man landed on the moon, but some people refuse to believe it. As the Hulk correctly points out, if you have almost half of the population who do not believe al-Quaeda was responsible for the attacks, perhaps the official (i.e. correct) report is not so "widely accepted." Conversely, if you had 99% of the population believing it was space aliens that brought down the twin towers, such a theory would be "widely accepted". But, it wouldn't change the facts of what actually happened. JoelWhy?(talk) 19:19, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
As InedibleHulk correctly points out, if you have more than half not believing that al-Qaida was responsible, perhaps the official (i.e. correct) report is not "widely accepted." Kirothereaper (talk) 19:43, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
He said it best above, it's what happened, deal with it. If you want to believe 9/11 was an "inside job" then go for it, but do it on another webpage, a forum perhaps.Zdawg1029 (talk) 19:54, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Fine, it's what happened. Let's say that. But maybe we should just remove the word "widely". Kirothereaper (talk) 20:21, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
No.Zdawg1029 (talk) 20:26, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Why not? It will still say "accepted", but the "widely" part is not true. Just remove that one word. Kirothereaper (talk) 20:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Okay who? Who is saying that the "majority" believes it was a conspiracy? What sources, and I mean reliable sources, are claiming this? How many people did they poll? What proof can you provide that more people believe in the conspiracy then the official account? And pay attention to the question in the poll. Does it say "do you believe it was a conspiracy by the US government" or does it say "do you believe the official account? Big difference.Zdawg1029 (talk) 20:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
You don't get it. I'm not saying anything about a conspiracy. The majority believes in a source other than al-Qaida. The poll says 46% believes al-Qaida did it and 54% believes another source did it. Conspiracy has nothing to do with this. Kirothereaper (talk) 20:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

:How about "9/11 conspiracy theories deny that the September 11 attacks were perpetrated solely by al-Qaeda without any detailed advance knowledge on the part of any government agency." Tom Harrison Talk 20:43, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Must provide links to reliable sources stating this.Zdawg1029 (talk) 20:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Farhad Manjoo, "The 9/11 deniers". Retrieved 2013-08-14. Tom Harrison Talk 21:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Ok where exactly does it say in this article that the majority of people believe 9/11 was an inside job. It's kind of a long article and the first few things I seemed to have seen were basically pointing out how ridiculous this movement is. So where exactly does it say this in the article? What paragraph? And the article quoting someone else saying it is not good enough.Zdawg1029 (talk) 21:27, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Did you even read what I said? Kirothereaper (talk) 21:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, and you still did not provide a source to back this up.Zdawg1029 (talk) 21:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
No, I'm not talking about what Tom Harrison said. I'm talking about what I said. Kirothereaper (talk) 21:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
"You don't get it. I'm not saying anything about a conspiracy. The majority believes in a source other than al-Qaida. The poll says 46% believes al-Qaida did it and 54% believes another source did it. Conspiracy has nothing to do with this" Yes. Please provide a source for this.Zdawg1029 (talk) 22:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
OK, the poll can be found right here. Only 46% believes it. Kirothereaper (talk) 22:16, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Source is in the article: http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/09/10/us-sept11-qaeda-poll-idUSN1035876620080910 Kirothereaper (talk) 22:26, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The purpose of Manjoo's article is to support the statement ""9/11 conspiracy theories deny that the September 11 attacks were perpetrated solely by al-Qaeda..." That denial is what the conspiracy theories have in common. Whatever the conspiracy theory - that the Mossad was behind it, or the CIA did it, or rogue elements in the US government did it, or it was the Military Industrial Complex under a false flag did it, or lizard men with backpacks of nano-thermite did it - Al Qaeda certainly did not do it, according to the Truthers. Tom Harrison Talk 22:07, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Wow you're just not getting this. Wikipedia deals in facts, facts that come from accepted sources with credibility. You two have yet to provide a "source" that backs up your claim that "the official report is not the widely accepted account. Your whole goal is getting rid of the word "widely", okay then fine, prove it, don't tell us, show us, who says this?Zdawg1029 (talk) 22:11, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
"You two?" Really? Well Zdawg1029, somebody's not getting it, but it isn't me. I'll leave you to it. Tom Harrison Talk 22:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
As for the link to the opinion poll on Wikipedia, 1. Wikipedia policy states that you cannot use other Wikipedia pages as your source. And 2. What theory on that page has the largest number? Is it that Al Qaeda? Yes. Thus that makes it the most widely believed theory. There are 4 other scenarios people believe, making five total. Who has the most? Hence "widely", beating the other smaller percentages.Zdawg1029 (talk) 22:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
And as for (http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/09/10/us-sept11-qaeda-poll-idUSN1035876620080910), again, there are a number of different scenarios people believe, the scenario that most people believe is the official story, hence they have 46% while the others have 15%, 7% and 7%. Which number is larger? 47. So that is how we come to include the word "widely", because the most people believe that.Zdawg1029 (talk) 22:39, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Add up those smaller percentages and you get 54% that believes in a different source. 46% is less than half. Kirothereaper (talk) 22:38, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Answer this one question, which scenario do the most people believe?Zdawg1029 (talk) 22:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
The most people believes al-Qaida did it obviously. But overall, 54% believes differently. You wanted the source and you got it. The source says "no consensus". Kirothereaper (talk) 22:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
You're reading it to make it say what you want it to say, but which it doesn't say. What is the most believed account among the 5 different scenarios? You do not add up all that oppose the 47% and say "well its not the "widely" held account". You look at them individually. Which of the five has the most? Whichever of the five has the most is hence "the most widely accept account with the other 4 not being the widely held account. If the number of people that believed the US did it or any other scenario was 48%, then that would be the widely held account. This is enough of this, I am starting a "request for comment" thread for others input on Wikipedia to see how everyone else interprets this. Until then, no changes are to be made. Zdawg1029 (talk) 23:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
We are both technically right. "Accepted" is correct, but "widely" is wrong. Remove that one word. Kirothereaper (talk) 23:16, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I am willing to change "widely" to "commonly" but that is about it. What of the five scenarios is most "common".Zdawg1029 (talk) 23:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Fine, change it to "commonly". Kirothereaper (talk) 23:24, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
It's the factual account....the 9/11 conspiracy theories are some of the most idiotically ignorant ever conjured up.--MONGO 18:32, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
This is becoming ridiculous and turning into a forum rather then a section debating how to make the article better. This conversation has gone on way to long for a couple of words. I agree with MONGO, I can live with it how it was before this conversation or the way it is now. The source in question is a opinion poll that has five scenarios, all of which have a different percentage of the population that believe in each one. It comes down to the simple question of "what do the majority of people believe happen?" and according to the opinion poll, the majority of people, 46%, believe the official story, thus making it the most believed theory.Zdawg1029 (talk) 19:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't entirely agree. What the majority of the people believe is not such a critical factor -- certainly not something that needs to be in the first sentence of the lead. The lead needs to emphasize two points: (1) The "official story" is what actually happened; and (2) the 9/11 truthers reject this and believe a whole bunch of things, none of which are supported by the evidence. Including what percentage of people believe or don't believe in a known fact is certainly relevant, but is far less important than these two key points I mentioned. JoelWhy?(talk) 20:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
The CTs have zero support amongst reputable engineers and scientists and that's what matters. The polls for laypeople are meaningless as they aren't experts overall.--MONGO 20:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Agree, it makes no difference what fraction of the population believes what. There is al Qaeda did it, cited to any number of reliable sources, and there's some people believe goofy stuff, also supported by reliable sources. This article is not about history; it's about the goofy stuff some people believe. 9/11 conspiracy theories are the subject of sociologists, psychologists, and political scientistss. And as far as wording goes, the concise and accurate way to express "dispute the factual account" is to write "deny." Tom Harrison Talk 21:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree with what JoelWhy? said with the points that need to be emphasized. As for zero experts siding with the CT, they do have a very tiny group of professionals that say the official story couldn't have happened, but that doesn't take away from the 99 some odd percent that support the official theory. 99% > 1% Zdawg1029 (talk) 22:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Then I think "official" is a better word. Kirothereaper (talk) 01:27, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Speaking of polls, have professionals ever been survayed about this? Edkollin (talk) 06:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
What happened isn't an account. It's simply what happened. Tom Harrison Talk 01:34, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. I can go on for hours about how wrong they are, but they don't listen. They suffer from "confirmation bias" where they only see and accept evidence that fits their beliefs and deny evidence that contradicts it. Actually I think that is written in the article. They also suffer from "false consensus effect" where they think everyone believes what they do. Zdawg1029 (talk) 03:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
And they all get to vote... HiLo48 (talk) 03:54, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


"Widely accepted" despite coming from a reliable should be dropped because it is weasel language. Deny while factual should be dropped because it is not neutral. "Deny" and "deniers" are used to delegitimize people that are denying by suggesting a comparison to Holocaust deniers. My suggested language "9/11 conspiracy theories theorize that the September 11 attacks were not perpetrated solely by al-Qaeda[1] without any detailed advance knowledge on the part of any United States government agency.[2]". All the arguments over polling only enhance my belief that detailed material about polling if not all material about should be dropped form the lede. I have believed the lede should note the vast majority of reliable sources conclude the 9/11 conspiracy theories are wrong. In the 8 years I have been looking at an occasionally editing this article we have not been able to come up with language that is neutral, awkward or not disputed. That is telling me I have been wrong. Edkollin (talk) 20:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

No. We do not create a false sense of balance. This article will remain written under the understanding that the official report is what actually happened on 9/11, and these 9/11 conspiracy theories are not. In that respect, we can use the word "deny" in the same sense that we would label someone a Holocaust denier. JoelWhy?(talk) 21:02, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Unlike Holocaust deniers denying is a secondary thing 9/11 conspiracy theorists do, theorizing is the primary thing they do. Those are the primary monikers for these two phenomena reliable sources have come up with. Unless I missed something the only place in the article describing what 9/11 conspiracy theorists do as denial is in the first sentence. There is material about conspiracism, fitting facts to to fit theories etc, nothing specifically saying anything about denial. Denial as with conspiracism belongs in the criticism section. One source describing these theories that way was used in this thread . Edkollin (talk) 06:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
There, I disagree. The primary activity of 9/11 conspiracy theorists is to deny the facts. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:05, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Yep, deny seems the correct word to me. To call it otherwise is to give undue legitimacy to their viewpoint that the most reliable sources just don't give them. They deny what occured, and replace it with conspiracy theories, IRWolfie- (talk) 18:24, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I fail to see undue legitimacy in just stating what the theories are theorizing. By putting in the first sentence what is not mentioned anywhere else in the article I do see the most egregious case of undue weight I have ever seen in since I started editing Wikipedia articles in 2006. You would be on more solid ground in saying 9/11 theories theorize so and so because of conspiracism because pretty much "most reliable sources" say that. Hell while I would disagree on notability grounds you would be on more solid ground in calling for article deletion or major article shrinkage based on undue weight. And since we are "not mincing words" I don't see much difference in editors calling for this article's name to be changed to "alternative theories" because a few reliable sources confirmed what they know to be true (they are probably truthers after all) to the reasoning used here. Edkollin (talk) 09:37, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Whatever else we might say, I can't support anything that includes "theories theorize." Tom Harrison Talk 12:06, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
How about "claim"? The rest of the sentence would have to be inverted. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
That's better than theorize, but less good than deny. What's consistent is their denial. What they postively claim shifts, e.g. explosives -> thermite -> nano-thermite. And though self-description isn't that significant, a number of Truthers would deny making any positive claim at all and say they are just asking questions. Tom Harrison Talk 12:51, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
"Claim" is less awkward sounding then "Theorize" but less accurate in part for the reasons Tom mentioned. As far as truthers denying making any positive claim at all, this is not a truthers article but a theories one so by definition that should leave "just questioning" out of this article altogether. "9/11 conspiracy theories describe an array of theories that differ from the nearly unanimous conclusion reached by reliable sources that the September 11 attacks were perpetrated solely by al-Qaeda[1] without any detailed advance knowledge on the part of any United States government agency." I say United States government agency because there were reports in RS that other governments had warned the US about a major attack. Edkollin (talk) 17:35, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
So what are we even questioning at this point?Zdawg1029 (talk) 16:31, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Involvement of Saudi government

According to the Joint Inquiry of 2002, "a foreign government" was directly involved in funding the attacks. Bob Graham claimed that the US government covered up the fact that it was Saudi Arabia, and he also wrote a book about this. This seems to be almost censored out from WP, but it was all over the news in 2003. It's not mentioned at all on the Joint Inquiry page. Nor is it mentioned, not even his book, on the Bob Graham page. I've previously written about it on the talk page there. The present article says, "9/11 conspiracy theories dispute the widely accepted account that the September 11 attacks were perpetrated solely by al-Qaeda", and that this account refers to "The reports from government investigations – the 9/11 Commission Report (which incorporated intelligence information from the earlier FBI investigation (PENTTBOM) and the Joint Inquiry of 2002)". So this is just plainly false. I have found one mention of this on WP, and it's sourced: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_advanced-knowledge_debate#al-Qaeda_investigations There is even a new development, sourced on the same place: Bob Graham and former senator Bob Kerrey confirmed the tie in sworn affidavits. This is then in direct conflict with the claims in this present article. 80.202.76.96 (talk) 22:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC) (Nick)

Reliable source for old and new development needed. The book The Eleventh Day by Robbyn Swann and Anthony Summers deals with Saudi Arabia. Edkollin (talk) 01:49, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Reliable source needed? Huh? It's sourced in the Wikipedia article i linked to. Are you saying those sources aren't reliable? Will you be changing that article then? 80.202.76.96 (talk) 23:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC) (Nick)
Not a valid argument. See WP:CIRCULAR and WP:OTHERSTUFF. Please suggest an actual edit and provide sources. TippyGoomba (talk) 03:32, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Nope you can not use other Wikipedia articles as a source. What you can do for the most part is use the same reliable sources used by other Wikipedia articles. An exception to this is if the source relies on Wikipedia. Edkollin (talk) 19:07, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Definitional lead

There has been a little dispute lately over the content and purpose of the opening sentence. WP:LEADSENTENCE & WP:REDUNDANCY state that, where "possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence." That is, the sentence should define, as simpy and neutrally as possible, what precisely is being talked about. Further into the article we can begin to raise problems or disputes with the subject matter, but the opening is simply to allow the reader to see if they want to read the rest of the article.

--Andrewaskew (talk) 01:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

It did.Zdawg1029 (talk) 01:54, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
The subject in this case is a noun, it needs to express an identity with a more general noun. I do not mind if we pick theory, hypothesis, conjecture, opinion, belief, conspiracy theory, delusion, etc. (Well, some of these are better than others. Whatever consensus says.) But we need a word there. Andrewaskew (talk) 02:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Maybe the best thing to do at this point is to suggest actual sentences and we can work on it from there. I don't know what else to do at this point because everyone wants to change this. "9/11 conspiracy theories attribute the planning and execution of the attacks to parties other than al Quaeda".Zdawg1029 (talk) 02:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Good plan. How 'bout one of:
  1. 9/11 conspiracy theories are conjectures that attribute the planning and execution of the attacks to parties other than, or in addition to, al-Qaeda.
  2. 9/11 conspiracy theories are conspiracy theories that attribute the planning and execution of the attacks to parties other than, or in addition to, al-Qaeda.
  3. 9/11 conspiracy theories are explanatory propositions that attribute the planning and execution of the attacks to parties other than, or in addition to, al-Qaeda.
  4. 9/11 conspiracy theories are beliefs that attribute the planning and execution of the attacks to parties other than, or in addition to, al-Qaeda.
--Andrewaskew (talk) 03:17, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I would be fine with #4, I say go for it. I think something needs to be added saying how it goes against the official account though somewhere if we can figure that one out at some point. I have to say that I have never seen such a difficult sentence to write on Wikipedia.Zdawg1029 (talk) 03:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
You mean something like, "9/11 conspiracy theories are beliefs which, contrary to accepted consensus, attribute the planning and execution of the attacks to parties other than, or in addition to, al-Qaeda?"
Mmm, I don't know. The 1st sentence should be straightforward. That sort of break feels clunky. Every step we make away from readability lowers the overall quality of the article, in my opinion.
We definitely need to discuss such things in the lead, but we shouldn't mangle the opening sentence unecessarily. I agree this is a tricky one. My preference would be something like "9/11 conspiracy theories are conjectures that deny that the September 11 attacks were perpetrated solely by al-Qaeda." Andrewaskew (talk) 04:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

As I stated previously, the lead should make two clear points: (1) The "official story" is what actually happened; and (2) the 9/11 truthers reject this and believe a whole bunch of things, none of which are supported by the evidence. JoelWhy?(talk) 12:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Or 9/11 conspiracy theories reject either partially or in full the known events surrounding the September 11 attacks.--MONGO 14:12, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Good work, MONGO! JoelWhy?(talk) 15:24, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
As much as I would like to, I am not sure it is necessary to make the point in the first sentence that none of the theories are supported by evidence. It definitely needs to be said somewhere, but I think the first line should basically state what 9/11 conspiracy theories are. I like MONGO's sentence, but I was thinking of this while I was sleeping so I'll post my try as well: "9/11 conspiracy theories are beliefs that shift blame for the planning and execution of the attacks away from the official story that al Qaeda was the sole perpetrator" Zdawg1029 (talk) 15:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
See, I believe it absolutely does belong in the lead, and I'll tell you why: This is not intended to be a 'thumb in the eye' of truthers. This is about providing readers with the most important information about the topic right at the beginning, allowing a casual reader to read a sentence or two and have at least a very rudimentary understanding of the topic. So, if this were an article on, say, one of the various hypothesis explaining dark matter, you could say it's a belief subscribed to by some, but not all scientists. It's not a fringe theory, it's just a belief that just doesn't have enough evidence to raise it to the level of a scientific theory. (At least, not yet.) Here, we have a collection of theories, none of which are supported by the evidence, and there is zero indication that any of them will ever be supported by evidence. I'm sorry, but to me, this is one of the most essential components of this article, and therefore belongs squarely in the lead. JoelWhy?(talk) 16:43, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I see your point, which is a good argument. Do you think the mention of no supporting evidence should be made in the very first sentence, or just somewhere near the beginning? I'm having trouble thinking of a way to include it in the very first sentence without sounding completely biased. "9/11 conspiracy theories are beliefs that are not supported by evidence that shift blame for the planning and execution of the attacks away from the official story that al Qaeda was the sole perpetrator"Zdawg1029 (talk) 16:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Bolded the subject and linked to the primary article since this one was spun off years ago. I kind of like the sentence for the opener, but it's not a huge deal to me one way or the other.--MONGO 20:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, excellent idea MONGO. Much better than the current first sentence. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 20:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
What am I missing here? What sentence are you all referring to?Zdawg1029 (talk) 21:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
The first sentence in the current version of the article. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 23:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
9/11 conspiracy theories reject either partially or in full the known events surrounding the September 11 attacks works for me. Tom Harrison Talk 23:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

It's an alright 2nd sentence, but it doesn't meet the needs of a lead sentence, because it is descriptive rather than definitional. We need to specify what the subject of the article actually is, before we go about describing it. How about a 1st and 2nd sentence:

  1. 9/11 conspiracy theories are conspiracy theories that deny that the September 11 attacks were perpetrated solely by al-Qaeda.
  2. They reject either partially or in full the known events surrounding the attacks.

We need to stay conscious of the purpose of the lead sentence, and what needs to go in the overall lead section. In a fringe theory like this, we need to firmly establish how far beyond sensible reasoning the theory is in the lead paragraph. But the lead sentence simply needs to establish what we are talking about; "to draw the reader in." Once the reader knows what the subject of the article is, then we can begin to address proper documentation and refutation.

--Andrewaskew (talk) 01:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I do not see why we need a definition, which no matter how phrased will be a tautology, a re-wording of "9/11 conspiracy theories are conspiracy theories about 9/11." Hence the proposal that "9/11 conspiracy theories reject..." is probably the best approach. Then say what they suggest as an alternative. TFD (talk) 01:26, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Force-fitting this definitional format adds nothing. All conspiracy theories are conspiracy theories, and they aren't really anything else. I think it's fine to link the first occurence, as 9/11 conspiracy theories reject either partially or in full the known events surrounding the September 11 attacks but that's probably contrary to some guideline. Tom Harrison Talk 01:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I'd reword slightly and say "9/11 conspiracy theories either partially or fully reject the known events surrounding the September 11 attacks". Possibly add "led by Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden" at the end. Having "partially" and "in the full" in the same sentence seems to mix up expressions betwixt the pond. --DHeyward (talk) 02:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
The reasons we need to start with a definition, are readability and Wikipedian policy. (These policies were created to serve readability (among other aims), but it is nice to understand why a policy exists, rather than simply state a policy as though it were law.) Andrewaskew (talk) 07:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'm just wondering... What exactly is wrong with the current sentence? I think JoelWhy said it best "We can use the word "deny" in the same sense that we would label someone a Holocaust denier." And no one answered Zdawg1029's question "So what are we even questioning at this point?" Kirothereaper (talk) 04:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

We're negating a conjunction (A and B). All the proposals suggest we change it to affirming not A or not B, the disjunction of two negations. The result is consistently inferior in style and readability to the negation of the conjunction. I'd be fine with changing the word used to negate, something along the lines of replacing deny that with refute the fact that. I can think of nothing superior to deny and I don't understand the reasons given for not using the word deny, I deny all sorts of things. TippyGoomba (talk) 06:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I think we are thinking to much into this, we should just pick one that explains it real quick and go with it. These are my best shots:
1. "9/11 conspiracy theories are beliefs that are not supported by evidence that go against the official story that al Qaeda was the sole perpetrator of the attacks"
2. "9/11 conspiracy theories are beliefs that go against the official story that al Qaeda was the sole perpetrator of the attacks"
3. "9/11 conspiracy theories are beliefs that contradict the official story that al Qaeda was solely responsible for the planning and execution of the attacks"Zdawg1029 (talk) 15:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I still prefer MONDO's intro: "9/11 conspiracy theories reject either partially or in full the known events surrounding the September 11 attacks." Perhaps you have the first sentence as more of a definition and this as the second sentence.
That's fine, we have to do something at some point though. If you like MONDO's then lets go with it.Zdawg1029 (talk) 15:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
It's MONGO....toss my sentence in for the lead, then simply expand on that...easy.--MONGO 16:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
LoL, sorry about that MONGOZdawg1029 (talk) 16:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Okay, lets go with MONGO. Kirothereaper (talk) 01:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Agreed, the MONGO one. Also, rename MONGO to MONDO. TippyGoomba (talk) 02:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Let's have an RfC of MONDO vs MONGO. I say MONDO is the MONGO of the MUNDO. --DHeyward (talk) 02:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
What we had before this recent flare-up was perfectly fine and I have restored it. This an encyclopedia, not Snopes. Articles aren't about telling people the "truth", but to reflect an academic view of a subject. No one trying to present a serious scholarly take on this subject would write in such a ham-fisted fashion.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 04:47, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Honestly, just simply saying "deny" is fine. Nothing is wrong with the current version. Either that or change "widely" to "official". Kirothereaper (talk) 04:59, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Actually, there is something seriously wrong as "deny" is taken to mean "seeing a truth and rejecting it" and this is an inherently tendentious way of defining conspiracy theories. That is not how 9/11 CTs are commonly defined and not how the cited source defines it.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 05:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Then it's also contradicting the source that says "No consensus on who was behind Sept 11: global poll" http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/09/10/us-sept11-qaeda-poll-idUSN1035876620080910 If you have read the discussion so far, "widely" is not technically correct either so we should technically change it to "official account" or just say "accepted account". But also in fact, as Tom harrison correctly pointed out: What happened is not an account at all. It's simply what happened. Honestly, "deny" is fine. We do not create a false sense of balance. This article will remain under the understanding that the official report is what actually happened on 9/11, and these 9/11 conspiracy theories are not. In that respect, we can use the word "deny" in the same sense that we would label someone a Holocaust denier. If not deny, then we should also change "Holocaust denial" article to "Holocaust revisionism" instead. Honestly, deny is fine. Kirothereaper (talk) 05:46, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Where are all the major reliable sources talking about CTs as "denial of known events" or saying that they reject the "factual account"? No one really knows all the facts about the events of 9/11 in the first place, as some of it is simply beyond knowing or has not been investigated thoroughly enough. I think a possibly inaccurate lede ("widely" does not mean "majority" you know) based off reliable sources is better than a plainly inaccurate lede based off nothing but the opinions of a bunch of random people on Wikipedia.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 06:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
The 9/11 conspiracy theories are wrong. Investigators have already proven these conspiracy theories wrong. 9/11 conspiracy theories are not supported by evidence. The CTs are denying the known and factual events. "The 9/11 deniers". Retrieved 2013-08-14. Whatever the conspiracy theory - that the Mossad was behind it, or the CIA did it, or rogue elements in the US government did it, or it was the Military Industrial Complex under a false flag did it, or lizard men with backpacks of nano-thermite did it, they believe goofy stuff. Kirothereaper (talk) 14:09, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
An eye-catching headline from one tongue-in-cheek source is not sufficient. Even in that article its description is more nuanced, saying that truthers are "skeptics who doubt the official story" and it does not treat all claims the same or as undeniably wrong. Importantly, while the current wording in the lede refers to Al-Qaeda acting on its own as being part of this truth, the article quotes a prominent elected official who suggests the possibility of other foreign parties being involved and he is not the only one to have made such a suggestion. Certain claims have been proven wrong or dubious, but not all and I doubt you will find any reliable sources claiming otherwise.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 18:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Conspiracy theories are not supported by the evidence, and there is zero indication that any of them will ever be supported by evidence. Again, we do not create a false sense of balance. The lead should make two clear points: (1) The "official story" is what actually happened; and (2) the 9/11 truthers reject this and believe a whole bunch of things, none of which are supported by the evidence. Kirothereaper (talk) 19:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
We are not here to tell people which position is the "truth", but to tell people what position is the established view, why some do not accept that position, and what evidence is cited for or against dissenting positions. Despite what you claim, a view being "widely accepted" does not suggest it is the majority view and nearly half of respondents accepting the view is a good indication of it being the widely accepted view, not considering that the levels of acceptance are higher among experts in the field. There was nothing wrong with the previous version, which best reflected how the theories are described in reliable sources, and it seems people are changing it simply to push their own personal attitudes onto the reader.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 04:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Again, have you read the discussion so far? Nearly half of respondents accepted, but more than half holds a different view. Also, keep in mind that the source says "no consensus on who was behind it". But it still does not change the facts of what actually happened. It should be made clear that the "official story" is what actually happened. And all established views are already in the article. There's nothing wrong with this version. Either this, or change it to "official account" but like Tom Harrison correctly pointed out: What happened is not an account at all. It's simply what happened. Kirothereaper (talk) 06:20, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Read the source, it does not say more than half disagree with this view. A quarter did not know, which is not indicative of anything. Mind you this was a poll of regular people all over the world, focusing heavily on Middle Eastern countries, and did not even include the United States. Saying it isn't widely accepted because of that is quite absurd and original research given that we have plenty of reliable sources describing the official account as being widely accepted. Using that as an excuse to shoehorn in a more tendentious version of the lede is simply unacceptable. This change is not based off reliable sources, but is instead just a gaggle of editors who want the article to say what they believe to be the truth and that is not how we are supposed to do things.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 16:48, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The current opening sentence that is up there is something I wrote a couple days ago with alteration at the end, this pleases me.Zdawg1029 (talk) 17:43, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Fine, but I think the global poll should be included somewhere. Not in the lead, but somewhere. Maybe in the "See also" section. Kirothereaper (talk) 18:54, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
I'll agree to that, the pole does seem like it's relevantZdawg1029 (talk) 19:25, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, the problem with the poll is that it excluded the United States and drew heavily from the Middle East. This meant that views about Israeli responsibility were vastly over-represented (basically every country outside the Middle East had few to none adhering to that view) and the wider acceptance of the official account was under-represented. That said, we do seem to be lacking in a meaningful elaboration on popular opinion regarding the conspiracy theories.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 21:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Million Muslim March

This damp squib apparently had Truther participation. Dougweller (talk) 14:06, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

What are you getting at here?Zdawg1029 (talk) 14:12, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
It's not relevant? Just mentioning it. Dougweller (talk) 12:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
According to the Wiki page, "Less than a month before the march, the event's Facebook page had 57 members." A few dozen conspiracy nuts throwing a rally hardly seems worthy of inclusion. JoelWhy?(talk) 13:29, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The buildings collapsing downwards doesn't point to explosives

This article, as it stands, makes it seem like evidence for a conspiracy that the buildings collapsed like a demolition. Imagine you're planning to feign a plane crash into a building. Where would you place the bombs to make damage appear to be due to impact? At the place of impact--where else? And that should make the building blow apart from there. Placing bombs throughout the whole building would unnecessarily risk detection. It is possible that the conspiracy was so poorly planned they thought only within the conventions of demolitions where bombs are spread evenly. But they can't be that senseless if they learned not to stage many more attacks. 135.0.167.2 (talk) 05:47, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

What's your theory? --DHeyward (talk) 05:51, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
The building wasn't designed to withstand plane crashes, so its possible it had some unconsidered weakness to them. Some things can withstand strong stresses, but not the failure of one area. It may be resistant to forces, but as soon as one part collapsed, a chain reaction destroys the rest like a tower of card. 135.0.167.2 (talk) 05:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm intrigued, Which tower of cards fell when an airplane hit the Pentagon? I hope the plot involves more than Purdue University attacking the Pentagon. --DHeyward (talk) 06:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm talking about the WTC. 135.0.167.2 (talk) 06:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
DHeyward, with respect I think a better question would be, "what previously published theory did you see that should be covered in this article?" This is, as the IP editor may not be aware, not a forum for general discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories. VQuakr (talk) 07:24, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Ain't it funny how you write an article with strong false impressions that a even collapse implies demolition, while dismissing all challenges to it as "general discussion." For goodness's sake anyone thinking of feigning a plane crash will consider planting bombs only in the area of impact if the impact is not enough. And VQuakr, your post strongly appears to reply to my comment in the above section, not this one. 135.0.167.2 (talk) 11:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Is this simulation correct or nonsense?

[3]

is a picture of the plane in the pentagon. I believe the wings were ripped off and never made it completely inside the structure (does the consensus here support me?), but this source depicts it as inside. I do not know how certain/speculative the source is about the depiction, or how reliable it is. But it seems to support a position that neither matches our story, nor the conspiracy theorists', so it could deserve mentioning if it's notable. 135.0.167.2 (talk) 04:50, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are asking. We have the reality article and the conspiracy theory article. What sources are you relying to dispute either one? The picture doesn't say much other than a plane hit the the pentagon. --DHeyward (talk) 05:26, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
That is a single image from a project that attempts to perform computer modelling, homepage here. The specific image is a 3D model of a plane impacting an idealized field of columns - for example, there is no front facade as there was at the pentagon. Inspection would imply, then, that this image is not meant to accurately model the 9/11 attacks. Looking over the Purdue team's project, it is clear that they do not support a conspiracy theory, so using their image as an example of a conspiracy theory here and crediting it to them would be wildly unethical. VQuakr (talk) 05:38, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

They did a lot of programming on 9/11... it suggests they had an abnormal interest or believed it was more likely than the average scholar would. Or they just had a bit too much time.

Maybe they don't have a position of their own. Maybe they believe exactly what I believe. But they suggested something completely different as a mere idea, which can be notable if they feel it's likely, even if they don't believe it.

And just to make it clear, I don't think the results of some simulation bear perfect weight (otherwise we wouldn't still have crash tests today). The comp graphics simulation simplified everything, simply guessed many parameters (about the plane's position/orientation). Journalists, in fact are shy about asserting any accuracy in simulations and merely boast their technological sophistication. [4] But they are as noteworthy as the other even more speculative claims mentioned here. 135.0.167.2 (talk) 06:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

You are missing the point. The people that made the graphics describe their motivations in the article they linked - their focus of study was in making complex 3D simulations of physical events more accessible to the general public. Basically, to take very good models of the impact and make them look more like a popular culture 3D rendering useful not for technical analysis, but for communication with the general public. They did not suggest any conspiracy theory, though I get the impression that you found the image linked and misrepresented on a "woo" website. Unless there is a coherent hoax theory worthy of discussion for addition to the article linked to the Purdue group, I think we are done here. VQuakr (talk) 07:35, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
I hope you're not now saying it is a reality representing simulation. Because I thought we had finally reached an agreement on the point it wasn't. 135.0.167.2 (talk) 11:42, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
It is a visualization of a real event rendered from a mathematical simulation of reality. And, yes, the wings did completely enter the buildings. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 12:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:9/11_conspiracy_theories/Archive_36&oldid=1151018304"