Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories/Archive 39

Archive 35

←

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Motives not properly explained

It suggests one of the alleged motives was to justify the invasion of Iraq. Yet the Bush administration never claimed that Iraq was involved in 9/11, so how exactly does that work? Why would the government successfully frame al-Qaeda for the attacks but fail in framing Iraq? I'm not trying to bring "logic" into the conspiracy theories, but this a really obvious question that needs further exposition.

CJK (talk) 14:50, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The Bush administration was very successful in framing Iraq; even if many of the accusations made were more implicit than explicit. According to a Washington Post poll, 70% of Americans believed that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attacks.[1] The USA Today article states, "President Bush and members of his administration suggested a link between the two in the months before the war in Iraq." If reliably sourced references for this are needed to supplement this Wikipedia article, they are easy to find. Wildbear (talk) 21:48, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Well obviously many people assumed the worse when it came to Saddam but the administration itself never actually claimed he was involved in the attacks. If the attacks were hypothetically staged in part to justyify invading Iraq, it makes absolutely no sense for them not to explicitly implicate Saddam and invade in late 2001 or early 2002 instead of 2003.

CJK (talk) 00:48, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Really? No connection?
In remarks on May 1, 2003, announcing the end of major combat operations in Iraq, President Bush stated: “The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 — and still goes on. . . . [T]he liberation of Iraq . . . removed an ally of al Qaeda.”
Umh...TMCk (talk) 17:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Right, the administration's position was that Iraq had a relationship with al-Qaeda, but was not involved in the September 11 attacks. The article claimed that the attacks were used to "justify" the invasion of Iraq, the historical record is that the attacks occured in September 2001 and Iraq was invaded in March 2003 a full 18 months later.

CJK (talk) 18:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

It takes time to make up a case. End of 2001, Blair talked Bush out of going too quickly with his belief that Iraq was involved. The rest is history.TMCk (talk) 20:27, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I do not think it is productive to argue the details. The fact is the article is accurate and should not be changed. TFD (talk) 19:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Wow, the article is "accurate" and "should not be changed"? You do understand this is an editable encyclopedia, right? The administration did not claim Iraq was involved in the attacks, which is what is being implied when it alleges they used it to "justify" the invasion.

CJK (talk) 20:02, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

You mean the administration claimed they did not claim Iraq was involved. No reason for your unsourced addition. I will revert and please do not put back in without sources and agreement of other editors. TFD (talk) 20:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

No, I meant the administration did not claim they were involved in 9/11. If they did you should present evidence. I'm not sure why I should be required to prove a negative but I nontheless will attempt to comply with your unreasonable demand.

CJK (talk) 21:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The text is sourced. You are required to prove a negative anytime you want to add it to an article. You can't for example add to Obama's article that he was not born in the U.S. TFD (talk) 21:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

It takes time to make up a case.

They wouldn't need time if they were the ones behind the attacks. It would all be pre-planned.

End of 2001, Blair talked Bush out of going too quickly with his belief that Iraq was involved.

And your saying they couldn't just fake evidence?

CJK (talk) 22:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

They weren't the ones behind the attacks, and no one suggested they were. And I don't think they would deliberately fake evidence either. TFD (talk) 23:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Gee, in case you hadn't noticed this is an article about conspiracy theories. Your statement (I don't think they would deliberately fake evidence) is so radically at odds with what you said in 2013 (The U.S. government fabricated evidence that he did [have WMDs]) I'm wondering if you did it just to provoke me.

CJK (talk) 23:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

It turns out that they did not fake evidence but used evidence that was obviously faked. In any case this is becoming a tangent. The U.S. government implied that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11 order to build support for the invasion of Iraq. Of course you do not have to believe that but the article must accurately reflect sources. TFD (talk) 03:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

It turns out that they did not fake evidence but used evidence that was obviously faked.

Wow...

The U.S. government implied that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11 order to build support for the invasion of Iraq.

When did they do this? I have provided a source which states clearly that the Bush administration chose not to use the attacks to invade Iraq even though every single poll taken in late '01 and early '02 showed massive popular support for it. Saying Bush used 9/11 to justify invading Iraq makes absolutely no logical sense, either in the context of a conspiracy or not.

CJK (talk) 04:17, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Just to be clear: the 9/11 attacks definitely increased concern over terrorism and these concerns were later used by the Bush administration to help justify invading Iraq. But that's completely different than saying the attacks themselves were used to directly justify an invasion of Iraq which is what I believe is being implied here.

CJK (talk) 13:28, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Here is a contemporaneous csmonitor article that sums it up pretty well. A lawyer would say that technically the administration didn't come out and say "Saddam planned 9/11", but through repeatedly linking them in speeches and discussions, public opinion went from 2% to over 50% that Iraq was involved: http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html , and people who thought they were involved were many times more likely to support an invasion --Sam (talk) 22:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

This Page Should Be Deleted

Off topic - no changes proposed to improve the page
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Consider these facts: The destruction of the WTC is a controversial subject. A number of highly qualified people disagree. The editorial policy of WP is to present the prevailing view WP:sources on each subject. This page purports to relate the non-prevailing views Thus, as these policies shake down, this page will wind up as page of arguments, with the prevailing view having the last say on each minority opinion. Each point of argument will (by definition, and almost by design) be unsympathetic, probably incomplete, and usually without the due diligence necessary to produce a fair statement of the minority opinion. The page will have a tendency (nay, a compulsion) to offer rebuttal for each minority opinion. In the end, what will we have? The Vatican's summary of various Protestant movements. A Republican survey of Democratic Party platform planks. A Skeptic's survey of world religions. An ascetic's cook book. A eunuch's guide to California night life. A blind man's tour of the Painted Hills. An AA wine tasting tour. A deaf man's summary of the greatest performances of the New York Metropolitan Opera. A vegetarian's ... you get the picture. Thus, the page is not a factual page nor an Encyclopedia page. It is merely another page of polemic arguments. Constitutionally, it is incapable of providing a fair statement of each alternative theory because to do so would violate the WP editorial policy. The very existence of this page is a paradox, and it does not even touch the prevailing conspiracy theory about 19 hijackers guided by a Saudi in an Afghan cave secretly conspiring to bring down the WTC in ruins and embarrass the USA. Let the Wikipedia do what it does well. And let the Wikipedia NOT founder on doing what it does NOT do well. This page should be deleted. Slade Farney (talk) 21:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC) This comes up on every single page covering WP:Fringe theories. Most of your questions are covered on the FAQ on the top of this page. I'll also point to: WP:FRINGE WP:UNDUE WP:HISTRS WP:SCIRS Also the quotes on my talk page are perfect for this situation: User:Harizotoh9#Quotes_to_live_by --Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC) With all due respect, I think you missed my point. Let me try to say it less colorfully: Since by editorial policy, Wikipedia cannot cover anything that is not the prevailing opinion, it should not pretend to explore minority opinion. The effort to do so runs into a paradox and the page should be deleted. This is not a question. This is a statement. Slade Farney (talk) 22:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC) The procedure to delete an article is here.--McSly (talk) 23:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC) Wikipedia does in fact cover historic frauds, misconceptions, delusions, obsolete conceptios (see phlogiston for example), fabrications and fringe ideas in proportion to their documentation. Articles must clearly state the credibility of the topic according to academic sources. It is not at all true that Wikipedia cannot cover something that is not the prevailing opinion. Acroterion (talk) 23:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC) My understanding is that Slade Farney is saying that it is unfair to use mainstream sources to discuss fringe theories. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC) Thank you, Harizotoh9. "Unfair" is close, but "unworkable" might better describe it. I do not advocate moving away from mainstream sources, since that is the charter policy of the Wikipedia. But even the nicest guy in the world should not be asked for a character portrait of his ex-wife. It violates a principle of jurisprudence called the "appearance of fairness," from R v Sussex. It just makes the Wikipedia look a bit silly -- in the eyes of people who are humble enough to know that nobody is capable of fairly representing the views of someone with whom they fundamentally disagree. Slade Farney (talk) 21:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC) 1. Talk pages are not the place to debate changes to Wikipedia policy. It is the place to discuss how to improve Wikipedia pages and have them conform to previously discussed and formulated policies. 2. You just have to accept that this is how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia is not going to change their policies, and these have been discussed and debated and tweaked for years. Feel free to try, but it's not going to go anywhere. To change the policies on reliable sources would mean to remove any and all standards of evidence and sourcing, which would open the door to all sorts of crazy nonsense. 3. Conspiracy theorists, Creationists, etc all have it backwards. They have to convince the scientific community of the merit of their work first, before it gets put into text books or Wikipedia articles. This is how all science and history is done and fringe theories should not be treated differently. Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2015

Bin Laden Wanted Poster- Evidence of Conspiracy?

According to the FBI wanted Poster for Osama (Usama) bin Laden[1], he has never never been wanted for any bombings on the mainland of the USA, and has never been wanted for questioning in any. Since the FBI will post what a person is wanted for, only from a preponderance of actual evidence, the FBI Wanted Poster seems to be ample reason for skepticism.

Skeptics point out that each videotape, of the three that was said by the Bush administration to be bin Laden actually confessing, would have indeed been classified as evidence. At least two have been reportedly debunked as not about 911, the US government has not acknowledged any debunking of any of the three tapes.

The US government had/has the Afghan al Qaeda hard drives, and the head of al Qaeda should certainly have known about 9-11 since the Bush administration said he planned it[4], but bin Laden immediately put out a tape denying he had any knowledge of the 9-11 attack, but said he applauded those who carried it out. Bush himself wrote in a journal, ""The Pearl Harbor of the 21st century took place today...We think it's Osama bin Laden."[5] 9-11 skeptics point out that bin Laden, head of al Qaeda, would certainly known if this size of operation were being planned by so many of it's top operatives.

Skeptics of the official 9-11 storyline point out the fact that Bush wasn't in some hidden-away place, and was never rushed to safety by his Secret Service after hearing that "America is under attack"[12], nor did he look to be taken to command a response as Commander in Chief, points to the surmise that the Secret Service and Bush himself must have "believed" Bush to be completely safe or completely at ease with his administration handling any emergency, even though members of his administration later commented that they thought there might be as many as 11 hijacked planes at one time. A reporter's own notes, said they left the ground at the scheduled departure time, and that Air Force One's pilots didn't have any belief that they were safe in any manner, as they departed in what is called a near "Viking Departure"[6]("Max Climb"), as in as straight up as possible.

One Wall Street Journal reporter bought 2 al Qaeda computers, a desktop and a laptop, during the Afghan operation from a black market guy who stole it from al Qaeda HQ, to make cash as al Qaeda was rushing to get away. His editors reported it to the Military at Central Command (CENTCOM) and the reporter turned both computers over to the CIA before he could see what was in them. The laptop was returned to him with the hard drive almost empty. [2]

Only tapes released by the US government have been purported to be bin Laden confessing. None of the bin Laden tapes released to the media have him confessing. A confession on tape, or any discussion of planning 9-11 by bin Laden on tape or a hard drive, would absolutely constitute "evidence" that should have been reflected in bin Laden's FBI wanted poster. Another fact that has skeptics still claiming conspiracy is that Bush quit looking for bin laden within 6 months, according to his own words in an interview still circulated on the internet.[3] But then, there are those that say that Bush was simply protecting his ex-president father's employers (bin Laden Family) on the board of the Carlyle Group. It was bin Ladens who were allowed to immediately fly out of the country without being strictly interviewed about any knowledge of their infamous family member, Osama.[7]

Conspiracy theorists base their beliefs on facts and sometimes questionable facts. "...the 339-page book, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, by David Ray Griffin, claimed the report had either omitted information or distorted the truth, providing 115 examples of his allegations.[8][9][10] He has characterized the 9/11 Commission Report as "a 571-page lie".[11] By definition, one lie about 9-11 equals a conspiracy. Most news and media organizations tend to miss that most important fact.

Smoking Gun (Crater) The smoking gun pointed out as proof positive, is the actual news video of the first minutes of finding Flight 93's crater(s) by the news media. [13] Yes two were reported by two news agencies, the one ignored told of being directed there by US Radar "Ground Control" [13]. The first interview was of a nationally known news photographer who said there was "no evidence of any plane crashing there."[13] No pilot has ever said that a jet can crash without leaving any debris.

[1] http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/usama-bin-laden [2] http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2004/09/inside-al-qaeda-s-hard-drive/303428/ [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLTz-p0ZYKc [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_for_the_day_of_the_September_11_attacks 8:30-9:00pm, 11:30pm [5] Balz, Dan; Woodward, Bob (January 2002). "America's Chaotic Road to War:Bush's Global Strategy Began to Take Shape in First Frantic Hours After Attack". Washington Post. Retrieved 2007-04-05. [6] http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-66174.html [7] http://www.nbcnews.com/id/5403841/ns/dateline_nbc/t/bin-laden-half-brother-breaks-silence/#.VRRJDvzF-So [8] Harmanci, Reyhan (March 30, 2006). "An inside job?". The San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 2009-09-17. [9] Abrams, Joseph (July 15, 2008). "Critics Demand Resignation of U.N. Official Who Wants Probe of 9/11 'Inside Job' Theories". Fox News. Archived from the original on 2009-08-05. Retrieved 2009-09-17. [10]^ Bhaerman, Steve (June 14–20, 2006). "Unquestioned Answers". Bohemian. Retrieved 2009-09-17. [11] ^ Solomon, Evan (August 25, 2006). "9/11: Truth, Lies and Conspiracy". CBC News. Archived from the original on 2008-06-11. Retrieved 2009-09-17. [12] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rO3F6mZUaE Videotape of Michael Moore's summary of Fahrenheit 9-11 [13] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maY54MwUsu8 Flight 93 Rare Footage, never seen again.

Lldenney (talk) 19:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

 Not done No actual requested change made. Amortias (T)(C) 20:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2014

The article states that the civil engineering community accepts that the jetliners brought down the towers. That is largely untrue, as many experts, with sources, in that community have stated that it's merely impossible for jet fuel to bring down a building of the magnitude of the Towers. Especially since they were built to withstand multiple aircraft. That is bias, false, and laughable writing. 24.59.67.74 (talk) 07:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Reliable sources are also required. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 09:45, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

References

None of the sources cited are reliable. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

What criterion for reliability are you using, sir? Many of the authorities are licensed practitioners of mechanical engineering or architecture. How is anyone harmed by including their dissenting opinions? Slade Farney (talk) 23:12, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

My edit request are in bold. Could anyone do it please. Thanks. "Others, like Daniele Ganser, who reject the accepted account of the September 11 attacks are not proposing specific theories, but try to demonstrate that the U.S. government's account of the events is wrong." 82.126.7.242 (talk) 02:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Ganser is a historian...why does his opinion matter?--MONGO 05:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

History is "the accounting of events." That is the specialty of historians. Slade Farney (talk) 16:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

"Instant best seller"

I removed the following dialogue from the article:

"Meyssan’s book, L’Effroyable Imposture (published in English as 9/11: The Big Lie) became an instant bestseller in France and is available in more than a dozen languages."

It was returned about an hour later by Mezique with the edit summary, "It is relevant." I've reverted it yet again, because I cannot fathom how an (uncited) best-seller is at all german to the article wherein the book is being used to note part of a conspiracy theory regarding 9/11. To that end, I had truncated the sentence to read as follows:

"Meyssan’s book, L’Effroyable Imposture (published in English as 9/11: The Big Lie) became available in more than a dozen languages."

Concise (and admittedly, unreferenced) and trimmed of all the gushing enthusiasm. I invite Mezique here to discuss the matter; of course, other viewpoints are welcome. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:45, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Mezigue has twice reverted to include a statement that Mayssan and Avery's book was an "instant bestseller." This is a clear synthesis and peacock phrasing. The book was heavily marketed and sold out its initial press runs, as the sources state. I don't see "instant bestseller" in the sources or any indication that it actually appeared on bestseller lists. "Instant bestseller" is an unencyclopedic stretch of the sources. Acroterion (talk) 12:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Here are a couple of sources indicating that the book sold spectacularly: 1) http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/apr/01/september11.france and 2) http://www.liberation.fr/evenement/2002/03/30/l-effroyable-escroquerie_398776. "Instant bestseller" is the only neutral way (Libération uses the phrase "tidal wave") to describe sales of 100,000 in one week for a pamphlet. I am baffled by your claims that the turn of phrase (which has been in this article for years) constitutes peacockery or "gushing enthusiasm". It is relevant because it illustrates the popularity of these theories. The book would hardly be noteworthy in the first place if it hadn't been a big seller. Mezigue (talk) 14:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

"The book sold briskly at its release" is neutral and supported by sources. "The book sold well, surprising publishers and booksellers" is also neutral and supportable without synthesis. "Bestseller" indicates that it appeared on a bestseller list and is neither neutral nor supported by sources. Acroterion (talk) 16:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

"The book sold briskly at its release" - as it is supported by sources and is in fact far more neutral - sounds fine to me as well. I am still unclear as to why the book sales are indicative of anything but interest in the subject. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Sales indicate interest, interest in non-fiction indicates belief, belief implies credibility, credibility suggests truth. That is the natural progression that most people presume. Slade Farney (talk) 16:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

So through that extended chain of implication you want the material included to indicate that a book that has been broadly ridiculed by credible sources is the truth? Acroterion (talk) 18:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Completely agree with Acroterion here. A book's sales must be supported by explicit reference, or it cannot be said. Additionally, book sales have no bearing on the weight of the words within. Take Dianetics or Chariots of the Gods, for example. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not in the business of determining "truth," else it could take a position on Cathedral row beside the other edifices of "truth." As John Carter (talk · contribs) just informed me, in some cases, even explicitly proven error can be included: "FWIW, there is a long-standing precedent, even if it is one I personally don't particularly like, that even errors in otherwise reliable sources can qualify for inclusion if they are prominent enough or repeated often enough." However, this page is a list of conspiracy theories rather than conspiracy facts. If this page fails to include broadly believed conspiracy theories, it does not serve the function it purports to serve. It is disingenuous to offer a list of only those theories that are only marginally credited and easily dismissed, while excluding those that are broadly credited. By the same measure, this page is disingenuous to exclude assertions of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. This editorial policy of enabling the orthodox to avoid strong opponents could be compared to the actions of the Prince Feyd Rautha in Dune (novel), who personally engaged professional gladiators in the colosseum, but always with the precaution of secretly drugging his opponents and poisoning his blade. Slade Farney (talk) 19:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I fail to see how any of the above explicitly deals with the matter at hand. While I do not in any way discount the assertion I made, which is based on the essay WP:NOTTRUTH, I do not see that the specific claim in question, that the book was an "instant bestseller," meets WP:V claims, and on that basis there are I think reasonable grounds for questioning the inclusion of the specific material in question in the article. John Carter (talk) 20:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Heck, if that is the only point in question, consider this quote by the NY times: Yet in the past three months, Mr. Meyssan's book has sold more than 200,000 copies in France, placing it at the top of best-seller lists for several weeks. Foreign rights have also been sold in 16 countries (a Spanish version is already on sale), and Mr. Meyssan traveled to Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates in April to present his arguments at a local university. Slade Farney (talk) 21:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

And again, the overriding question is. so what? Book sales don't explain a conspiracy theory; it just shows how titillating it is to people. Prove to me that book sale numbers prove the conspiracy (or contribute to it in some way), and you're on firm ground. Otherwise, it's inconsequential and trivial. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Please review John Carter's post. According to John Carter, book sales is the "specific claim in question," so that was the issue I addressed. To address your concerns, the page has neither purpose nor intent to explain or prove any of the theories. From its general structure, it seems rather the opposite -- it mentions each theory in just enough detail to identify it, then offers a rebuttal from mainstream sources or other arguments. Book sale numbers are relevant only to show that the theories in the book should be included because that is the roughly the popular level of interest and credence in a theory. If those theories are not included, the page purports to be a census of elephants without mentioning the one in the kitchen that is currently munching on the dinner salad. Wikipedia is valid when it is relevant. If editors exclude what is relevant to the public, Wikipedia will also cease to be relevant. Slade Farney (talk) 12:42, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

That's a bit overdramatic, right? We can note a book sold briskly (or whatever) without gushing about it being a bestseller, and note how its content was curb-stomped by critics. That isn't favoritism; its reality. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

As Jack says, the emphasis given by "instant bestseller" over "sold briskly" and your own evident enthusiasm for this theory are overdone. I think it's worth noting that the book sold well, but that doesn't negate or substantially offset the fact that it has been not just panned, but widely ridiculed. Acroterion (talk) 02:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

You misunderstand. For what it's worth, I have never read the book. I am answering only the repeated questions: 1. Who said it was a bestseller, and 2. Who cares that it was a bestseller. I have answered both questions several times because the questions are repeated in rotation, as though the questioners do not read the history of the dialog. Since we have a reliable source that says it was "at the top of bestseller lists for several weeks," what is your objection to stating the fact? That is not "gushing" -- those are the words in the source. My "evident enthusiasm" is nicely balanced by the torpid disinterest in the truth among those whom I address. Slade Farney (talk) 14:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

The book sold spectacularly and saying that is sold "briskly" is an understatement. I don't see how mentioning - accurately - that fact that it was very successful is "gushing" or endorses in any way its content. (In fact I would argue that it is precisely because its content is so inane that its considerable sales are noteworthy). Mezigue (talk) 15:01, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

"Curb stomped by critics"? That is rather an "overdramatic" statement all of its own. When controversy is controversial, the voices get loud and the stomping gets curby. You should attend court some time and see what people say about each other. But shrill criticism is not necessarily correct criticism. And the number of critical voices is no measure of invalidity. The NIST report was "curb stomped" by ITS critics, too, and the number of those critics are legion. Thankfully, Wikipedia is not in the business of determining the truth of this or any other matter. Like Joe Friday, we just collect and report the facts. Given the facts, the Court of Public Opinion can sort out the truth. Slade Farney (talk) 20:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2015

9/11 conspiracy theories = 9/11 conspiracy thories

66.74.176.59 (talk) 06:39, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Done Stickee (talk) 07:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

404

here is the new URL for the currently dead external link http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6384/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.122.166.141 (talk) 05:41, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I wonder why Popular Mechanics put this article in its "military" tree? We might believe the 9/11 event was a military event, but the civilian FBI took management of the Pentagon on 11 Sept 2001. Did the propaganda wing of the Pentagon write the Popular Mechanics article? As Lewis Carroll remarked, curiouser and curiouser. Slade Farney (talk) 14:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a blog on your personal thoughts. Please discuss improving the article not o.r. on conspiracy. Thanks. Earl King Jr. (talk) 05:47, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Dissecting the 9/11 Truth movement community

This section gives a lot of UNDUE WEIGHT to one article from a couple of social scientists based on their observations of the United Kingdom's 9/11 Truth Movement. Even if Jamie Bartlett and Carl Miller are reputable experts in the field, four paragraphs detailing how they characterize proponents is a bit much. Comparatively in the preceding section on proponents, Dr. Michael Wood and Dr. Karen Douglas have their observations condensed concisely into a single paragraph, without delving into the whole body of their analysis. It seems weird to lend more coverage to Bartlett and Miller's views than Dr. Wood's & Dr. Douglas'. I'd recommend a consistent treatment of the Bartlett and Miller article and have the section collapsed and placed under the Proponents section.

"Skeptical Inquirer published an article in 2011 by Jamie Bartlett and Carl Miller who argue proponents join the 9/11 Truth movement for different reasons, loosely self-assemble to fill different roles, and are united by their shared mistrust in experts and the establishment (government and reputable sources of knowledge), and conspiratorial stance. Through the proponent's engagement with the movement, they each find their own fulfillment and satisfaction. Together, members of the movement contribute to the persistence, resilience and exaggerated claims of acceptance (in general public) of the movement."

Thoughts? 70.36.233.104 (talk) 16:38, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

References

Agents

Sfarney I reverted you because something like agents seems to open ended for this article where energy seems more in line with the subject in a neutral way [2]. Agents' has too many possible meanings as in secret agents, people as agents, groups as agents etc. I know the word could refer to energy agents or any number of things but I think it was more clear before you made the edit about agents. Earl King Jr. (talk) 12:26, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

If you have trouble with one word, why do you revert 20 words? You can find a synonym as easily as I can. Can I suggest more "collaborative editing?" Based on your statement that you objected to only one word, I am restoring my text with a synonym. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 01:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Lets not get touchy/aggressive on this. I left an edit summary saying your edit was not an improvement in general. I said why. I included the whole edit as not being an improvement and singled out something specific. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. That means discuss not accuse. Edits are not held on the amount of aggressive apology they contain on the talk page or edit summary. They are held if they are an improvement or not. Since it appears, from all appearances of your editing on this talk page that you are a believer in 911 conspiracy theory's (not that there is anything wrong with that) particular care must be given to neutral presentation. Earl King Jr. (talk) 02:27, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

This wording: "without additional energy involved to weaken their structures." First, this phrase didn't even parse as an English phrase. Second, the A&E thesis concerns thermite, not energy. Third, thermite is not "explosives," so the statement further down "which they conclude to be proof that explosives brought down the buildings" is not correct. It doesn't matter whether we disagree with a thesis, we should confine ourselves to truthful statements. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 02:52, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I remember reading somewhere that Wikipedia is not a truth telling machine or something like that. It also sounds a little funny as in truther. As said if you believe these things it might be best to take it easy and proceed with caution. Sorry to be so blatant. Earl King Jr. (talk) 03:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Earl King Jr., your speculations on whether I am a "believer" in any particular idea, theory, political philosophy, or religion are just as unwelcome and inappropriate here as they were on other pages. Notwithstanding, you are spot on that Wikipedia is not a truth machine, and this fact should be explained to another editor, who wrote above (00:04, 26 July 2015 UTC), "The findings of the NIST, the ASCE, the US government, et al, are enough that Wikipedia's official stance is that those findings are reality." Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 03:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Not a clue about that. Are you saying reality and truth are being denied somehow? Sorry, I just reverted the thing you did about agents which sounded a little sinister or vague. We do not want the article to speculate about 'agents'. That is all, plus the other part of your edit did not improve the information delivery, in my opinion. Earl King Jr. (talk) 05:14, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Missing evidence

This article deals largely with a relatively small number of large claims, but ignores other, convincing evidence for the movement. What about the fact that the incredibly difficult maneuver performed by the Pentagon pilot was one that, according to his old instructor just months before, was an expert move, and that he was incompetent at flying? Or how mini-explosions can be seen as Tower 7 fell? How about the fact that the towers upgraded their insurance to include terror attacks just weeks before? Or, my personal favourite, that workers in the towers basement were badly burned and injured by explosions well before the towers fell? This is evidence that belongs in an article about conspiracy theories for 9/11. And seriously, should we just rename this article: "9/11 Conspiracy Theories and why they such?" Half of the article is how this person and that magazine claimed the theories as wrong. Iheartthestrals (talk) 07:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, per WP:FRINGE we have to explain why these silly theories are wrong. Also per that guideline, we can only include theories that have been discussed by reliable sources. What sources do you propose using that document the prominence of the specific items you list? VQuakr (talk) 07:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: OP has been notified of discretionary sanctions, thanks to other edits relating to this topic. Obvious advocate is obvious. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:01, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

It is funny. No official government program or reliable source will dare discuss the more convincing evidence of an inside job. I understand that Wikipedia cannot truly document such theories as there are no mentions, however obvious the facts are, of this evidence among sources deemed reliable. I will not try and press such things upon the Wikipedia community. But I must admit, ending every paragraph with official rebuttal of these theories makes for quite a choppy and odd read. Iheartthestrals (talk) 07:32, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Other than the status quo we have two alternatives: not cover the conspiracy theories at all, or leave the readers with the impression that these theories have some merit. The former runs against our goal to be a collection of all knowledge since some of the conspiracy theories are notable, and the latter runs against WP:FRINGE and WP:V since the theories you describe as "more convincing" are, of course, garbage. If you admit that no reliable source covers them, there really is no point in bringing them up here. VQuakr (talk) 07:42, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

The Architects & Engineers is a reliable source. Each of the members is a professional in the field with a degree. They are scholars and they have produced a number of reports. The are the Gelileo/Kepler group of modern times. The fact that the Vatican does not publish their findings is not our concern on Wikipedia. A&E is a RS in its own right. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 18:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

No, A&E is not reliable. Fringe groups operating contrary to the consensus in their field are not reliable. Toa Nidhiki05 19:21, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

"Consensus" in that article refers to scientific consensus, but I cannot find a reference to other fields. Can you point me to the statement in policy that you intend? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 19:31, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

AE911 is emphatically not a reliable source for anything beyond an account of their beliefs. They've been disavowed by the American Institute of Architects, ignored by the American Society of Civil Engineers, and are firmly on the fringe of the profession. Possession of standard professional credentials in any field does not automatically make someone an authority on a given topic. Acroterion (talk) 19:43, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Can you give me a pointer to those denunciations, please? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 20:03, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

AIA: "the AIA doesn't want its name associated with Trutherism," "We don’t have any relationship with [Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth whatsoever," the AIA labels Gage a conspiracy theorist who only "maintain[s] a façade of being a scientist."]

ASCE: "Universally though has the foregoing explanation of collapse been accepted by the communities of structural engineers and structural mechanics researchers, some outside critics have nevertheless exploited various unexplained observations to disseminate allegations of controlled demolition." -- That dismissive, vague, and passing reference to fringe groups is the closest the ASCE comes to mentioning AE911.

AE911 acknowledges that National Institute of Standards and Technology knows fully well what happened but claims they are lying about it -- they are conspiracy theorists just like anyone who thinks that the FDA is lying about vaccination.

The findings of the NIST, the ASCE, the US government, et al, are enough that Wikipedia's official stance is that those findings are reality, and that "alternatives" are nothing but WP:FRINGE conspiracy theories by WP:Lunatic charlatans. If you check the discretionary sanctions log, I guarantee will not any editors sanctioned for "pushing the official version," or even for uncivil comments towards anyone who doubts the known and documented reality of the September 11 attacks. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:04, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh. I thought they might have real technical disagreements with A&E. But it seems the disagreement is merely a political dispute over the conclusions. And since the Architect Magazine is not a RS on politics or history, that magazine's voice is not really reliable on the subject of A&E. Likewise, the civil engineers don't seem to have applied their specialty of knowledge to the subject. They comment that the foregone conclusion was most conclusively foregone and cannot be unconcluded. However, the words "lunatic" and "charlatan" are not in those reviews. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 08:23, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Seriously? You don't think the official accepted version is based on technical facts? If AE had technical findings accepted by the majority, they would be included in the official version.

We've firmly established that AE911 is a fringe group that is seen by reputable professional organizations as promoting a non-credible conspiracy theory. Architect reported the AIA's reaction to AE911's stunt, it's clearly a reliable source to indicate the absence of support in the profession, which is what you specifically requested. If you think that the professional organizations are part of the conspiracy (after all, the AIA is just two blocks from the White House...) there's really nothing more to be said here. Extraordinary assertions of widespread conspiracy require extraordinary proof, which does not exist, even if a few of its proponents seek to claim expertise based on standard professional requirements shared by hundreds of thousands of other architects and engineers who are not fringe enthusiasts. Acroterion (talk) 11:35, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Addressing the statement, We've firmly established that AE911 is a fringe group that is seen by reputable professional organizations as promoting a non-credible conspiracy theory. A&E does not suggest a conspiracy, so that statement don't float. A&E states the evidence found by degreed, practicing professionals who are credible in their fields. That is all. There is no blame, no accusations, no suggestion of a group known or unknown doing harmful or illegal things. We in Wikipedia are very careful to use only the words that say what we mean, and we don't say "conspiracy theory" when we really mean "politically incorrect." Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 01:31, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

There are about 106,000 degreed, licensed architects in the United States, you know. There are about 820,000 degreed, licensed engineers. How many are active in AE911 again? How many have specific professional expertise in the forensic analysis of fire and impact on large structures, not just a degree and a license? Read our own article on the organization, the copious references too: it has been amply documented that AE911 speculates that a conspiracy used explosives to demolish WTC. We have already referenced and established the credibility-in-the-profession issue. You're advocating that a fringe group and a fringe theory should be given undue weight and credibility. Acroterion (talk) 02:36, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

No, I am not, sir. And we note these pointed remarks about "you" in violation of Wikipedia discussion protocol. Perhaps we should review the GS status of these subjects together. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 06:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

You said "The Architects & Engineers is a reliable source. Each of the members is a professional in the field with a degree. They are scholars and they have produced a number of reports. The are the Gelileo/Kepler group of modern times" - That's advocating them. It has been demonstrated that they are a fringe group that promotes a fringe theory. Therefore, you are advocating a fringe group. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Give a read again on what was originally asserted and I denied. You're most recent assertion is different. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 06:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

AE911 might not technically advocate conspiracy theories, but the theories they do advocate, in addition to being fringe, require additional conspiracies to explain the inconsistencies between their theories and the mainstream version of the facts. However, they are clearly a fringe group, and Sfarney's suggested edits advocate their positions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. And to get to that statement about conspiracies requires WP:OR, as shown above. If we have such a source, we should state only that "so-and-so called A&E a conspiracy theory group." We should not state it in Wikipedia's own voice as is done now, or vaguely lump it in with all the others as "Among the organizations that actively discuss and promote such theories..." Once again, I do not believe in misrepresenting anyone, be he the Sydney Omar or Edgar Casey. That is contrary to our purpose. A&E says thermite heated the steel and brought down the buildings. If Wikipedia calls thermite an "explosive" or says that "A&E says explosives brought down the buildings," we are fibbing. All I advocate is telling the truth about the sources, gentlemen. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 08:58, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

The article currently states, Gage has been warned by the AIA against giving a false impression that he has a relationship with them. And no source is given for this statement. However, in Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, there is a nicely sourced statement that Gage, who is a member of the American Institute of Architects,[2] has worked as an architect for 20 years and was involved in the construction of numerous fireproof steel-frame buildings.[9] If Gage is a member of AIA, he does have a "relationship" with them and the first statement is deceptive. Comment, please? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 09:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Simply follow the sources, for starters...

"[...]pulled out a black marker and scribbled "AE911" in the painting's bottom right-hand corner. The tag is a reference to the website AE911Truth, or "Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth" — a self-described "non-partisan association" that focuses on 9/11 conspiracy theories." – Time.com

Gage is not a practicing architect, and there is no evidence he ever worked on any "steel-frame buildings" greater than three stories when he was. There is also no such thing as a "fireproof" building so that bit is just primary sourced puffery. AE911 is also a supporter of the "controlled demolition" conspiracy theory[3]. The facts about why the buildings collapsed are well know and universally supported in the peer-reviewed literature. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 10:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

So what are you saying about the RS in that article? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 10:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

The one cited for Gage is probably pretty poor considering the author looks to be just parroting the AE911 web site for biographical information [4]. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 11:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2015

I wish to add my site bushdid911.net to the conspiracy site on the end of the article.

Verdefe (talk) 07:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

 Not done as WP:LINKFARM - Arjayay (talk) 11:56, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

What about the "official" conspiracy theory?

Shouldn't this section contain the "official" conspiracy theory as well (that nineteen Muslim fundamentalists who were into cocaine and strippers knocked down three buildings with two planes, etc)?89.100.155.6 (talk) 14:03, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

See Question number 4 in the FAQ at the top of this page. VQuakr (talk) 17:38, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2015

Please change(This was part of a renovation program which had been begun in the 1980s, and Wedge One was the first of five to be renovated.[111])on the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories#The_Pentagon, referring to the renovations made on the plane because the source for it does not exist. This blurs the existing evidence about the conditions of the plane when it crashed into the Pentagon. 76.11.26.211 (talk) 19:57, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Not done: Per WP:LINKROT, but I will add the archive URL to the citation. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 20:22, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Explosives?

Not all "conventional" demolition is by explosives — I thought the "mainstream" conspiracy theory (to coin an oxymoron) was that super-incendiaries were used, not explosives. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 September 2015

Please change this sentence: "The plane crashes and resulting fires caused the collapse of the World Trade Center." To: "The official government position as supported by NIST is that the plane crashes and resulting fires caused the collapse of the World Trade Center due to structural failure."

Reasoning: This is an explanation of alternate conspiracies as a counter point. The beginning sentence is a conclusion. Grantk9 (talk) 23:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

But the government position as supported by the NIST isn't an alternative conspiracy theory, it's reality as observed by a large number of highly trained and qualified experts. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

It's not "reality", it's a viewpoint. Bear in mind that a large number of highly trained and qualified experts also do not believe the US Govt's conspiracy theory to be tenable. 81.151.26.102 (talk) 04:32, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

A fringe minority of individuals usually speaking outside of their field is not "a large number of highly trained and qualified experts." Ian.thomson (talk) 05:17, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

If that were the case, that would be the case. However, that is not the case, so it is not the case. They are not fringe, not a small number, and not speaking outside their area of expertise. Surely the Wikipedia is robust enough to survive a little diversity of opinion? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 05:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Gparyani (talk) 03:47, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Removal of Washington Times source was an error

earl king Jr. (talk · contribs), this edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories&action=history) was obviously erroneous. (1) The source reference was not in the lede as stated in the comment. The source was in the body. (2) Arnaud De Borchgrave was a senior editor of the Times. His statement is not opinion and not a blog. He was summarizing dozens of articles previously published by the times with the authority of a senior editor. The source is worthy of the Wikipedia. You are turning this into another edit war and I am asking you politely to back off and quit deleting content and sources. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 05:17, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I guess his record is not so good at that paper though he was a legit journalist no doubt. [5] He was more or less fired from that gig. Also why do you want to include that citation? It seems like a rehash of stuff already covered. Also it seems in the opinion area. Earl King Jr. (talk) 10:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Request For Video Replacement

I think it a bit uncouth to embed a security video from outside the Pentagon that shows the word "KABOOOOM" as the explosion occurs. This is a bit insensitive to the families of victims and those sympathetic to their loss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dizziewiki (talk • contribs) 15:00, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2015

The author uses "which" within the first paragraph where "that" is correct (and "which" is incorrect). This is a pretty endemic error, but it'd be nice to start to swim against the tide a bit and make corrections as we go. People ape what they see other apes doing; they don't verify with authoritative sources (i.e., look in a dictionary) so each case of this is making the situation worse. I fix these errors when I can on Wikipedia but in this case you've blocked me. 24.22.165.103 (talk) 00:53, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done. The notion that that "is correct (and 'which' is incorrect)" in restrictive relative clauses is a matter of dispute with little support in the practice of the best English writers. As far as I know, the Wikipedia manual of style is silent on the matter, so I see no reason to perform the requested edit. Deor (talk) 19:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)