Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories/Archive 40

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35 ← Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42

The Rainbow Connection

This isn't exactly academia, but it's also not exactly pulled from the author's ass. Plenty of hyperlinks to reliable mainstream sources, though shrouded in weird humour. I'm not calling it "the truth", but next to a lot of things that have crossed this Talk Page, it is certainly worth a glance. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:14, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

So, why is it not in the article? Vincent Amadeus von Goethe (talk) 10:59, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on 9/11 conspiracy theories. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Pravda Putin Claims

Pravda claims Putin is "threatening to reveal the truth about 9/11" but haven't seen any source beyond that. Anyone want to write a piece on that? is there enough info? --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 04:23, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Has he been listed as another proponent of these theories? I'll bet it's nothing we haven't already heard before from other kooks. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 02:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
A little common respect is in order here. Wikipedia is not FaceBook. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 06:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Safe to say its just more nonsense from bad sources. Sounds more like urban myth looking at the very poor sources for anything connected. Earl King Jr. (talk) 09:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
It could be. But Putin has already gone along with the moon landing conspiracy nonsense, despite the fact that his KGB ancestors knew the US landed on the moon. He's been doing things like that just to spite the west. Maybe spewing the same old 9/11 conspiracy delusions will be another part of it. Or maybe it is just a rumor. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 19:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Can anyone find the original news article from Pravda? Probably worth a blurb here. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 07:51, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Article does not mention the most common theories correctly

Recently editors ArtifexMayhem, and Tom harrison reverted content related to alternative theories (This edit here), without giving a reasonable summary. Issues with these reverts are:

  • Current background section reads, "The impact and resulting fires caused the collapse of the Twin Towers and the destruction and damage of other buildings in the World Trade Center complex."Very unclear sentence, also appears to be unsourced. WTC7 should be linked directly, since its a very common talking point of people who question the mainstream version. My edit there is based in part on a BBC source, we can change the other reference if that is the issue.
  • The external link section should link directly to an example, otherwise why do we have the section proponents and opponents in the first place.
Do you support above article improvements, if not explain why not.
This is a paradox of the page itself. Wikipedia must follow the Ruling Party line on all subjects. The only sources it may cite are the Party-approved sources. To discuss any contending parties or ideas, Wikipedia must look through Party lenses. Wikipedia cannot link to unconventional sources. Hence, if we can find a Party review of the forbidden youtube video, we can use that. Otherwise not. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 16:50, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
BBC is a reliable source. Do you object to the inclusion of content sourced based on the BBC source? prokaryotes (talk) 17:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Should I presume I am the editor addressed as "you"? I was responding to the comment, "external link ... to an example". To be clear, BBC yes, "external link", no. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfarney (talk • contribs)
Thanks for your clarification, Grammar'sLittleHelper. Anyone against inclusion of content sourced from reliable sources such as the BBC (part of the previous edits)? prokaryotes (talk) 17:46, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Are you suggesting that a source does not exist for the statement "The impact and resulting fires caused the collapse of the Twin Towers and the destruction and damage of other buildings in the World Trade Center complex"? That is a perfectly sensible and clear sentence, and ample sources exist for the statement on the main 9/11 page. I would strongly object to presenting that as anything other than fact; the "people who question the mainstream version" embrace fringe theories, and we can and should discuss those theories without lending them credence—per explicit Wikipedia policy. As to the BBC source, it's a blog entry, not a reported piece. Dyrnych (talk) 17:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Currently none of the references includes a cite which supports the paragraph's lede intro segment, "9/11 conspiracy theorists reject some or all of the following facts about the 9/11 attacks:", in regards to the article scope. There are two links to the official report, which are fine, one reference unavailable, one reference about flight 93 (not discussed here). In fact the current paragraph as it stands resembles original research. Hence, why we have to add a source which supports the claim , "9/11 conspiracy theorists reject...". prokaryotes (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Additional there is no reference supporting the claim that cts reject the damage of other buildings.prokaryotes (talk) 18:07, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
The main text on the BBC page is written by a BBC editor: "About this blog: Welcome to The Editors, a site where we, editors from across BBC News, will share our dilemmas and issues. Here are tips on taking part, but to join in, all you need do is add a comment." This qualifies under the following clause of WP:RS: "Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control." Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 18:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Building 7 has been described as the "Achilles heel" by 911-Truthers. I also don't think Popular Mechanics is a reliable source, they even have a webpage touting UFO's. Raquel Baranow (talk) 18:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
   I have no idea how you think that Popular Mechanics site is "touting" UFOs. If you actually read the articles, they dismiss all UFO conspiracy theories.Kdb1965 (talk) 14:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

The opinions of NIST and popular mechanics do not count as "science." For science to be science, data must be published in a peer reviewed journal and be open to the public to view. Neither the NIST report or a magazine meet the criteria of science. DrJFunk72 (talk) 16:20, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Alternative BBC source to outline cts

Above editors raised concerns in regards to a BBC reference. Alternatively, take this one from 2011. http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-14665953 Anyone take issue with that BBC reference, in order to identify the cts part of the article scope? prokaryotes (talk) 18:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Support I support the inclusion of above reliable source (WP:RS), in order to outline important article content, and is in agreement with the article scope. prokaryotes (talk) 18:30, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

RFC: Update of Background section per BBC 2011

No consensus has emerged from this discussion. While it is certainly the case that we should remove theories that aren't backed up by reliable sources and/or give more prominence to those that are covered in such sources, no specific sections were noted as being particularly problematic other than the background section, which has since been improved. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 10:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The article has multiple issues, among them the lack of explaining the actual conspiracy theories in the background section. The background section begins with "9/11 conspiracy theorists reject some or all of the following facts about the 9/11 attacks." References, either do not mention conspiracy theories, or make misleading claims such as, "..fires caused the collapse of the Twin Towers and the destruction and damage of other buildings..."

  • Suggestion (A): Update the current background section in accordance with this BBC article (2011), for the five most prominent 9/11 conspiracy theories.
  • Suggestion (B): In particular add the following content based on an edit for two of the BBC's listed conspiracies, (read the edit here).

Either support A and/or B, or oppose the article addition, with a brief explanation why. Use the discussion section to make suggestions and for general input. - prokaryotes (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Survey

  • Support (A and B) Per my proposal above. prokaryotes (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose both A and B, at least in the form that the editor has chosen to use. There is no reason why the particular claims deserve special prominence, even if the citation in question is used. Dyrnych (talk) 00:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
The reason why to add the content discussed here, and deserves more prominence, is because the BBC notes, "..the five most prominent 9/11 conspiracy theories.." (status of 2011) prokaryotes (talk) 01:35, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
That is a fine example of begging the question. Note also that the section in question summarizes the disputed facts of 9/11 and doesn't assign prominence among those facts in terms of what conspiracy theorists dispute. Dyrnych (talk) 01:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
But do you realize that the lede of that section and at least the first paragraph content in respect to the lede outline, and the towers - is not referenced? This is particular an issue because i never heard of a conspiracy which disputes building damage. The part on towers is just to meddled, not clear enough. Alternatively, we could break the article lede with related content down and move it into a background sub section.prokaryotes (talk) 02:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
It's a summary (not a lede), references occur later in the article with respect to each conspiracy theory, and "some or all" suffices. Dyrnych (talk) 02:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose both A and B as per Dyrnych Earl King Jr. (talk) 04:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose both since the linked edit is grammatically incorrect and there is no evident problem to fix anyway. Guy (Help!) 10:11, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
"edit is grammatically incorrect" -- Thank you Guy. prokaryotes (talk) 13:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Actually I was wrong, it is just that any bullets or whatever were not rendered. It would make sense as a bulleted list of statements, but not as paragraphs. So, what problem does it fix, exactly? Guy (Help!) 15:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Nutshell: We should use the BBC source to outline the 5 most prominent cts. So far i am only concerned with the towers. The background section(intro paragraph) is vague, unclear, and meddled, and unsourced in parts. With the lack of enthusiasm for RS based edits here, i guess the article will just stay the way it is now. prokaryotes (talk) 19:48, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Moot, Oiyarbepsy has made the edit, other edits have happened since. Guy (Help!) 15:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support (A and B). This article is overlong and needs pruning. Also, it lacks structure, so it is hard to identify the conspiracy theories precisely and to explain why (if at all) they should be rebutted. Arrivisto (talk) 13:45, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Just so everyone knows, I changed the section to that particular wording and modeled it after Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. I feel this wording is best, since it states the facts as facts and doesn't give the conspiracists any credit for accuracy. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
It's easy to frame a topic in your prefered term. However, there are also many official statements or reliable sources which differ, and those are certainly not conspiracy theories. My point being, you need to exactly identify certain statements or views, otherwise you are not objective. prokaryotes (talk) 08:28, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • If a reliable source support it, then it's not a conspiracy theory. This is about all the theories that reliable sources don't support. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 14:29, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • "If a reliable source support it, then it's not a conspiracy theory". Au contraire! A conspiracy theory is NOT inherently unreliable or "wacko"! Rather, a conspiracy theory is one that suggests that, contrary to received opinion, the true facts have been distorted or concealed. Provided a conspiracy theory is capable of disproof, it is a valid theory awaiting scientific rebuttal. See Karl Popper's "Conjectures & Refutations". Arrivisto (talk) 13:45, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • The problem with these theories is that, for believers, no amount of evidence will ever disprove it. They merely expand the conspiracy to claim the new evidence is part of it. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:49, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • "The problem with these theories is that, for believers, no amount of evidence will ever disprove it." So what?! The point of the page is to explain to rational and disinterested persons what the fringe theories are; and if the page is to serve a purpose it should examine such "fringe beliefs" and reject them if and when found wanting. Continual plugging of the official line rather than explaining why the fringe theories are faulty becomes reminiscent of the "thought police"! Arrivisto (talk) 14:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep in mind that this is not a forum for discussion of the subject, personal opinions, or the opinions of others. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 17:57, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Some users could do with a careful reading of WP:FRINGE and, indeed, the FAQ at the top of the page. We're not required to present fringe theories as plausible, nor are we required to present them from the perspective of believers. Dyrnych (talk) 00:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The following facts

Any edit that treats what happened as anything other than fact will get a revert from me. It puts this entire encyclopedia in disrepute when fringe beliefs are given similar weight to established historical fact. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:55, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I fear you seem to miss the point! This page is not a justification for 9/11 conspiracy theories, it is a description thereof. Nor is there an implicit suggestion that the conventional view is wrong; rather the page simply states what "conspiracy theorist/fringe believers" object to. So your knee-jerk reverts are ill-advised and undermine the purpose of this page, and make the issue less clear. It is also unscientific and dogmatic to talk about "established historic fact" when all versions of history are subjective; and in this particular case there are valid reasons to query some aspects of the official version of the events. Arrivisto (talk) 14:15, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
— The reputation of Wikipedia is neither so lofty nor so fragile that it would suffer from a suggestion that the US government might be wrong. Wikipedia is still a creature of the Internet. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 18:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
True, but neither do we portray conspiracist claptrap as if it were valid. Guy (Help!) 18:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
US Gov't might be wrong? And so is Popular Mechanics, Time, The Times of India, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the BBC and Le Monde? C'mon, with that many sources from that many countries, it is not merely an issue of the official view of the US government. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:42, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

That said, if someone does want to create a section listing the prominent conspiracies, you could add one, but I think it would be redundant. We have some listed in the lead section, and to some extent in the Types of Conspiracies section. Such a section would make the most sense, in my view, as a subsection (an ===heading===) of the Background section. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I did precisely that, but you reverted it! Also, how on earth could, on a conspiracy theory page, could a section listing the theories be redundant?! Arrivisto (talk) 11:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 22 external links on 9/11 conspiracy theories. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:15, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Reptilian aliens

Note: This was originally posted at User talk:Supaflyrobby

If you wish to add a section about reptile aliens causing 9/11, please discuss it at Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories. While such ideas certainly belong on an article about Icke, I doubt they belong in an article about 9/11. Thanks, Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:40, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

It's a conspiracy theory about 9/11, clearly, so it would not belong there. I am reverting, and please bring your comments to the talk page
  • Since it's your material, the onus is on your to justify it. While you would naturally expect everything on the article to be fringe, this is way more fringe than everything else there. Several of your sources did not back up your claims about Icke's conspiracy, like the public survey that merely said 4% believed in alien reptiles, but nothing about reptiles and 9/11. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:37, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
@Oiyarbepsy:, @Ian.thomson: Perhaps you missed the Time Magazine mention cited by User talk:Supaflyrobby: "They are our leaders, our corporate executives, ... and they're responsible for the Holocaust, the Oklahoma City bombings and the 9/11 attacks". Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 19:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
What's needed here is at least secondary, preferably tertiary mainstream academic or journalistic sources which describe Icke's delusions about 9/11 in the broader context of 9/11 conspiracy theories (or perhaps his general ideas as they are used by 9/11 cranks, or his 9/11 conspiracies in the even broader context of conspiracy theories in general). Ian.thomson (talk) 06:41, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Actually, I think I am going to let this one die. I wanted to make the section on Icke mainly because the novelty of his lunacy amuses me. Could I spend the time and scour to pull it off? Sure, but it is probably not worth it just to slight some conspiracy theorists. Supaflyrobby (talk) 09:55, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


The material has been restored and removed again. Its sources are three works by Icke himself, and a Time article that doesn't mention 9/11. As I said, we need non-primary sources which describe Icke's general ideas in a broader context of 9/11 conspiracy theories, or Icke's 9/11 ideas in a broader context of general conspiracy theories. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Icke is a crackpot, we do not cite him directly, we rely on reliable independent sources to establish the significance of his statements and give context. Guy (Help!) 08:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
I think crackpot is too kind a descriptor for Mr. Icke. However, if whoever did restore it is hellbent on keeping the material up, I will help-a-brother out and point you in the right direction, but you will have to do the legwork yourself. Supaflyrobby (talk) 13:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
I guess I am the "whoever" but I am not hellbent. Icke is constructed of same material as Donald Trump, and he attracts the attention of major media with the same mysterious charm. We find his theories discussed in The Atlantic Monthly], Time Magazine, The Guardian, and The Sun. The Daily Mail reports that On September 20, 2001, nine days after 9/11 — the lizards blew up the Twin Towers, according to Icke — Pamela and Icke were married in a simple ceremony at Newport county court on the Isle of Wight. Now that we have a RS citing Icke's lizard theory of 9/11, can we keep it off this page? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 18:31, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I was not trying to be rude with the "whoever" comment, you are just an editor I do not know. You have obviously done your homework. Indeed, Mr Icke does have the uncanny ability to attract publicity, especially in his home UK. I did watch part of his "9/11 was an inside job" video and I must say it was one of the most bizarre things I have ever witnessed. It's a long and winding diatribe that might be of use to folks who are really into Cannabis or LSD-25. Based upon the WP:RS's that you have presented, I have little choice but to vote Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supaflyrobby (talk • contribs) 19:00, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
@Oiyarbepsy:, @Ian.thomson:, who opposed including this material on the page, I am looking forward to actual discussion on the Talk page. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 22:37, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
(Was the discussion before fake or something?) As I said earlier, my issue with the material was the sourcing.
The Atlantic, Time, Guardian, and the Sun articles don't discuss 9/11, so using them risks WP:SYNTH. The issue is not whether he's notable in a broader context, it's whether he has noteworthy ideas about 9/11 or whether 9/11 conspiracy theorists have used his ideas in any noteworthy way.
The Daily Mail article would be a start, but there's just the throwaway line. Really, without going into synth, all it would let us say is "Icke believes lizards were involved in 9/11."
The following sources probably have something about Icke's views on 9/11 or how 9/11 conspiracy theorists have used Icke's ideas, but I just woke up and still need breakfast:
*Internet Fictions by Davies, Kirchhofer, and Leppänen
*Rough Guide to Conspiracy Theories by McConnachie and Tudge
*A Culture of Conspiracy by Michael Barkun
*Suspicious Minds: Why We Believe Conspiracy Theories by Rob Brotherton
Ian.thomson (talk) 00:31, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
@Ian.thomson: Perhaps you missed the Time Magazine mention cited by User talk:Supaflyrobby: "They are our leaders, our corporate executives, ... and they're responsible for the Holocaust, the Oklahoma City bombings and the 9/11 attacks". Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 19:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)/ Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 00:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Ok, again, just woke up. Between that and the Daily Mail, we have enough for "David Icke believes that lizard people disguised as world leaders are responsible for 9/11." Ian.thomson (talk) 01:02, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. In poking around, there are books reviewing his ideas, too, but sometimes the work in "notabl-izing" the books is not trivial. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 01:10, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
He does have a book on 9/11 called [http://www.amazon.com/Alice-Wonderland-World-Center-Disaster/dp/0953881024 "Alice in Wonderland and the World Trade Center Disaster" ] that I found when I was writing the original post. I am not saying I am planning on reading it, but based upon the reviews it seems like he weaves a pretty far reaching web. I suspect that is how he manages to lure people in. If he just hit people with "Reptilian Aliens" right out of the gate he would lose them. Like any good propagandist, he starts small with digestible Emotional ploys, then builds upon that. I was honestly planning on ditching this section, but since you worked to bring it back I will happily pitch in if you need me to.Supaflyrobby (talk) 02:46, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

That's a primary source, though. We really need other people writing about Icke, to ensure WP:DUE weight, avoid original research, because he's rather prolific, and because we don't want to encourage his fanbase into going "but this citation was fine" after inserting twelve-pages sourced entirely to his works.
Did the books I link to have nothing? I'm about to head out, so I don't have time to check. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:56, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I totally get that, and IMHO he does not deserve more than a paragraph or maybe 2 at the most in this context. Supaflyrobby (talk) 03:02, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Earl King Jr. (talk · contribs) just removed the text again on an WP:IDLI complaint. I have re-reverted his edit. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 05:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
It not a notable addition to the article, it is not even fringe theory. [1] Reverting and name calling a vandal in the process is not a sign of getting along with others to build an encyclopedia. Earl King Jr. (talk) 06:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Don't just rant, King -- Make your case. Argue against all the cites and sources. Collaborate, cooperate, and consult. Wantonly destroying the work of others is vandalism. Stop doing it. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 07:57, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
@Ian.thomson: -- sorry I blitzed on your sources. They look promising. I will check them out when I can. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 08:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2016

Like to add a section name Alternative ViewPoint or CounterPoint: Containing the following text:

911 was it Orchestrated?

1. Jet fuel is essentially "kerosene" and can not melt or weaken the very very high strength steel that was specially designed to withstand cat 5 hurricanes for 110 story high twin towers. The steel beams were vertical for 110 stories and as said very high strength special steel (not the re-bar type that the fool on youtube put in a "forge" at much higher temp than kerosene burns. It couldn't happen,

2. The fires burned "White" hot for 3 weeks in the basements.

3. Another mysterious building was destroyed but upon inspection the vault in the basement of building #7 had already been opened and emptied: the missing vault contents were the ENRON investigation Evidence that was going to be used to prosecute the ENRON culprits. Yeah... getting the picture?

4. Rumors are that NO JEWS went to work that day , they were "rumored" to have gotten a "jew" call to NOT go to work that day ( I would hope this is not true but that is the rumors and on top of that the Israeli President was rumored to be very happy about the towers coming down as he knew the USA would come to do the war for them using our young men and women and its still going on in VietRaqIstanYria, at the direction of foreign Trillionaires who control our govt thru "Campaign Donations" (payola)).

5. 1,600 FIRST RESPONDERS DIED, but not in the 1st day, rather they died days, weeks, months and years later from what is rumored to be nano-lead particle ingestion into their lungs.

6. Since jet fuel of that quantity burns off in less than 30 minutes and would not melt or even make soft that high quality steel, the question becomes what did melt the steel holding up the twin towers? Rumors are that the newly developed THERMITE NANO particle explosive was packed into specific floors (the same floors that planes hit directly) to make sure the towers came down AND the same NANO Thermite Explosive was also packed into the basement again to make sure the towers came down, which explains the 3 week "white hot" fires in the basement. *Thermite is normally known as an incendiary and burns white hot like phosphorous, but in the nano version its about 100 times more powerful and becomes more of an explosive.

7. Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD's) 's were never found at all period in Iraq.

8. The scuttlebutt is that there are 80 people who own more than 50% of all the worlds wealth and resources, AND they want the other half; thus using the foolish USA's military, they take a country , then order our guys out and move in their developers buying war ravaged property for nothing, and rape the resources, then on to the next area.

9. Similar to other govt cover-ups, All the evidence was covered or destroyed, and no independent studies were allowed at all. Strangely like the JFK assassination in which the Limo was immediately refurbed and all evidences (like bullet hole in windshield, bullet holes in seats, etc) were all destroyed, the substitute driver who did not speed up but actually slowed down until he was sure JFK was dead were never independently investigated, all the agents were on the chase car instead of Limo where they were sworn to be, etc ), all evidences of 911 are still suppressed.

References: [1]


INVENTPEACE (talk) 17:03, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

 Not done No. This isn't Infowars or Stormfront. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:06, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


References

  1. ^ Book by "Christopher Bollyn" : Bollyn.com with book named: "Solving 911 The Deception that Changed the World" .

The article does not mention anything about the camera's perspective toward the original World Trade Center towers!

Hello everyone!

I've read through the 9/11 conspiracy theories article and it looks like to me that we never mentioned that almost every news source pointed their cameras to the same spot (North Tower to the right, South Tower, to the left, North Tower closer to the camera and the South Tower farther from the camera). If someone has some spare time to maybe add this to the main article and word it correctly for the people to read and understand it, that will be very awesome. You are more than welcome to post any suggestions, research information, and comments under the "Comments, suggestions, and research information" section. Thank you everyone and have a wonderful day! Torninterconnected (talk) 01:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


Comments, suggestions, and research information

Do you have an RS discussing the subject in the context of conspiracy theories? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 01:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
What Sfarney said. Bear in mind that the geography of Manhattan largely dictates that view, since that is what the cameras on tall buildings in Midtown and points north (where the TV studios are) will see. There's nothing south of the Battery before Staten Island, and Brooklyn's not a place where TV crews tend to congregate. Acroterion (talk) 01:12, 25 February 2016 (UTC).

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 9/11 conspiracy theories. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:51, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

FF911Truth pic of backhoe with "molten steel"

I forgot where I read this, but the picture of the backhoe picking up some molted slag being cooled off that was provided by "Fire Fighters for 9/11 truth" was apparently cropped from a larger picture, possibly even before the 9/11 attacks. Does anybody know of any evidence of this? Even if it wasn't, I doubt the picture was originally taken by them. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 15:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

@DanTD: Apologies for this very late response. I am familiar with this picture but not its origin; it almost certainly doesn't show what has been claimed. For one thing, the color of the "slag" indicates that it should be hotter than the temperature at which the backhoe's hydraulics would fail. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 22:03, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 9/11 conspiracy theories. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Fahad al-Thumairy should be moved to another page

Fahad al-Thumairy's role in 9/11 is no longer a conspiracy theory. He probably should get his own page.

A New York Times article from today: Saudi Imam, 2 Hijackers and Lingering 9/11 Mystery. The "Saudi Imam" in the title is Thumairy.

I'm not certain of Wikipedia's rules on copyright laws so I won't quote anything. Instead, at the article Ctrl-F for "Thumairy".

AllThatJazz2012 (talk) 18:57, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

False consensus, irrelevant sections

"The civil engineering community accepts that the impacts of jet aircraft at high speeds in combination with subsequent fires, not controlled demolition, led to the collapse of the Twin Towers."

This phrasing implies a global consensus has been reached in the "civil engineering community", while the source is none other than a publication of the 'American Society of Civil Engineers'. Regardless of what is believed about their credibility, other architects and engineers, including the 'civil' specialized, have questioned the NIST report, demanding reinvestigation.

Also, the 'Dissecting the 9/11 Truth movement community' section is rife with opinionated phrasing and irrelevant psychoanalysis; all from a singular source. How does csicop.org's attempted explanation for the existence of '9/11 conspiracy theorists' contribute to the factuality of the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.49.211.235 (talk) 04:11, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Accurate language; and [failing that] adequate explanation

I would suggest, based on notions of accuracy and logic, that the phrase "The civil engineering community accepts..." change slightly to "A few members of the civil engineering community put forward a peer-reviewed theory that states the impacts of jet aircraft...". A similar modification to reflect accurately the situation could also work.

significant analysis by wikipedia editors

Wikipedia's editors believe that since no other expert has bothered to come forward in a peer-reviewed publication, to make contradictory claims, that the few authors - lead by Bazant - must speak for the community, through their couple articles)[1] This conclusion appears to represent significant analysis that merits its publication/inclusion in the article itself.

As it stands, Wikipedia appears to make claims, without providing support or explanation for these claims. At least the article should explain or footnote why the editors believe that the point about acceptance by the civil engineering community should require no explicit support or factual evidence. Their [referenced] explanation can stand in place of factual support for the claim to inform readers of the state of knowledge. Kruchkamgar (talk) 00:05, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I am afraid I don't understand the point your are trying to make. What do you think needs to change, and based on what reliable independent sources? Guy (Help!) 00:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

This phrase: "The civil engineering community accepts that the impacts of jet aircraft at high speeds in combination with subsequent fires, not controlled demolition, led to the collapse of the Twin Towers."

Should change to this: "A few members of the civil engineering community put forward a peer-reviewed theory that states the impacts of jet aircraft at high speeds in combination with subsequent fires, not controlled demolition, led to the collapse of the Twin Towers." Or modification of similar meaning.

I explain why in the first comment I made, just prior. Editor "Acroterion" himself said, in the archived talk page I referenced, that "...and Bazant is the only engineer who's bothered to even comment." Kruchkamgar (talk) 00:50, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

That is not what the sources cited in our article say. Bažant (vol 134) states that the engineering community has universally accepted the progressive collapse explanation. That is direct support for the cited sentence in our article, fully in compliance with WP:NOR and WP:FRINGELEVEL. VQuakr (talk) 01:40, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
The suggested wording tries to imply that airplane crashes and fires are fringe theories, when in fact the opposite is true. Don't take my comments out of context: nobody in the academic or engineering community thinks the conspiracy theories are worth the time it takes to type a rebuttal. Silence is not assent. Acroterion (talk) 03:03, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:9/11_conspiracy_theories/Archive_38#.22Civil_engineering_community.22

There are thousands of respectable architects, engineers, and scientists who believe the World Trade Center was brought down by controlled demolition. There are very few engineers other than NIST who claim it was brought down by fire. The video evidence of all three collapses makes it pretty clear that all three are demolitions. It is somewhat embarrassing that Wikipidea is afraid to report accurately on this. Anyone with a critical eye will see that they are lying and thus complicit in the cover-up. To save their credibility I suggest they allow an honest description of the destruction of the World Trade Center. "Reality must take precedence over public relations for Nature cannot be fooled" -- Richard Feynman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.115.27 (talk) 07:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

The only thing embarrassing here is the tinfoil haberdashery you just posted. If you bothered to critically sources outside your echo chamber with a truly open mind, you'd laugh at what you just wrote. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
I wonder if you have looked at the evidence put forward by the truth movement. Have you noticed how numerous and well credentialed its members are. At least watch the videos of the demolitions - that's really all you need to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.115.27 (talk) 07:33, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
"Numerous and well credentialed" -- wrong on both counts, unless you were talking about engineers and so forth who agree with the NIST. I've seen the videos of the towers; did so without looking to imagine controlled explosions. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Revert

I reverted this a couple of times [2] because it seemed to alter the actual meaning or import of what was being said. Earl King Jr. (talk) 08:47, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2016

False consensus, irrelevant sections

Agreed, many low quality sections, much manipulative language. Uncertain how 'CSICOP' was allowed to be considered a credible source for however long it has been.

Either rephrase or remove these sections. Grebslam (talk) 23:03, 7 September 2016 (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. clpo13(talk) 23:22, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2016


When talking about the episode of Bones where the character is involved with 9-1 conspiracies, the name is spelled correctly the first time, Hodgins, and then incorrectly the second time.

108.171.135.166 (talk) 17:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done Ruslik_Zero 19:10, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 9/11 conspiracy theories. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:10, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2017

Steven Jones is a former full professor of physics at Brigham Young University, his major research interests have been in the areas of fusion, solar energy, and archaeometry. He has authored or co-authored a number of papers documenting evidence of extremely high temperatures during the WTC destruction and evidence of unreacted nano-thermitic material in the WTC dust. Robert Korol is a professor emeritus of civil engineering at McMaster University in Ontario, Canada, as well as a fellow of the Canadian Society for Civil Engineering and the Engineering Institute of Canada. His major research interests have been in the areas of structural mechanics and steel structures. More recently, he has undertaken experimental research into the post-buckling resistance of H-shaped steel columns and into the energy absorption associated with pulverization of concrete floors. Anthony Szamboti is a mechanical design engineer with over 25 years of structural design experience in the aerospace and communications industries. Since 2006, he has authored or co-authored a number of technical papers on the WTC high-rise failures that are published in the Journal of 9/11 Studies and in the International Journal of Protective Structures. Ted Walter is the director of strategy and development for Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth), a nonprofit organization that today represents more than 2,500 architects and engineers. In 2015, he authored AE- 911Truth’s Beyond Misinformation: What Science Says About the Destruction of World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2, and 7. He holds a Master of Public Policy degree from the University of California, Berkeley. Together, they recently published a paper titled “15 Years Later, On The Physics Of High-Rise Building Collapses” in the European Scientific Journal.“

In it, they conclude that: It bears repeating that fires have never caused the total collapse of a steel-framed high-rise before or since 9/11. Did we witness an unprecedented event three separate times on September 11, 2001? The NIST reports, which attempted to support that unlikely conclusion, fail to persuade a growing number of architects, engineers, and scientists. Instead, the evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that all three buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition. Given the far-reaching implications, it is morally imperative that this hypothesis be the subject of a truly scientific and impartial investigation by responsible authorities. Apart from all of the evidence presented in the paper, they also point out how more than 125 first responders were documented saying that they saw hear, and/or felt explosions prior to and/or during the collapses. It’s also emphasized in the study that the collapse mechanics are only a fraction of the available evidence indicating that the airplane impacts and fires had nothing to do with the building collapse: Videos show that the upper section of each tower disintegrated within the first four seconds of collapse. After that point, not a single video shows the upper sections that purportedly descended all the way to the ground before being crushed. Videos and photographs also show numerous high-velocity bursts of debris being ejected from point-like sources. NIST refers to these as “puffs of smoke” but fails to properly analyze them. NIST also provides no explanation for the midair pulverization of most of the towers’ concrete, the near-total dismemberment of their steel frames, or the ejection of those materials up to 150 meters in all directions. NIST sidesteps the well-documented presence of molten metal throughout the debris field and asserts that the orange molten metal seen pouring out of WTC 2 for the seven minutes before its collapse was aluminum from the aircraft combined with organic materials. Yet experiments have shown that molten aluminum, even when mixed with organic materials, has a silvery appearance—thus suggesting that the orange molten metal was instead emanating from a thermite reaction being used to weaken the structure. Meanwhile, unreacted nano-thermitic material has since been discovered in multiple independent WTC dust samples. Steefr (talk) 06:09, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Conspiracy theory hogwash does not constitute reliable sourcing. Did you forget that the fires were caused by planes hitting the building? Ian.thomson (talk) 06:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Ian.thomson - It seems that you refuse to actually look at the evidence because you have already decided that it is a "conspiracy theory." It is not a conspiracy theory - just a theory of how 3 buildings collapsed. How you can watch WTC 7 collapse and not see it as a demolition is beyond me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.115.27 (talk) 07:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

No, after reviewing the evidence without prior conclusions (instead of looking for any "evidence" that it *must* be a controlled demolition) and checking seeing that the majority of mainstream scientific authorities side with the NIST report, I concluded that the truther movement is pushing an unparsimonious conspiracy theory. Then I saw that Wikipedia operates off professionally published mainstream academic and journalistic sources of instead of what you or I think. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2017

This line, "According to David Shayler, 'the only explanation is that they were missiles surrounded by holograms made to look like planes', he says. This is well beyond the capabilities of current hologram technology." is a bit suggestive and sounds like WP:OR without a link. It would read better if it were to be worded as, "According to David Shayler, 'the only explanation is that they were missiles surrounded by holograms made to look like planes', he says, which would be well beyond the capabilities of contemporaneous hologram technology." 107.77.211.160 (talk) 12:15, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: The line you requested changing does not exist. Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 08:15, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Luis150902 What? It does exist, it's right before the section "Cover-up allegations". Neither was my edit request "fake", as you so claimed in your edit summary. Please WP:AGF. 107.77.212.99 (talk) 20:38, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Looks like this was done. El_C 22:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
El_C Luis150902 I'm looking at the article right now, 9/11_conspiracy_theories#No-planes_theory, and it hasn't changed at all. This[1] was the last edit made to the article, dated 12 February 2017. 107.77.212.99 (talk) 00:49, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Done Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 07:48, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories&diff=765060021&oldid=764556384

‘Facts’

I queried the use of ‘facts’ in this statement: ‘9/11 conspiracy theorists reject some or all of the following facts about the 9/11 attacks:’ and replaced it with ‘official explanations’.

Toa Nidhiki05 has reverted me with no comment. Since the whole article is about the questioning of the official version, I think it is inappropriate, even presumptious, to talk about ‘facts’, unless their accuracy has been proved beyond further doubt. I hold no brief for either side in this debate. But I do believe in appropriate terminology. Valetude (talk) 11:47, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

We're describing conspiracy theories, not writing from the perspective of a conspiracy theorist. Facts don't cease to be factual solely because they are disputed by conspiracy theorists. Dyrnych (talk) 13:01, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

"Official explanations" is deceptive Conspiracist framing. If a scientist analyzes the world trade center collapse and concludes it was due to structural failure due to the plane impact and resultant fires, and not a controlled demolition, is that an "official explanation"? This framing implies that GWB came out, said what happened, and then everyone just accepted that. It's black/white thinking (There's only two sides, official explanation vs. conspiracy). It's dishonest to our readers to imply that. There's tons of incidents where leaders gave an "official explanation" which turned out to be lies. In those cases, Wikipedia documents those incidents, and explains how the "official story" was a lie. Example: Iran-Contra. Harizotoh9 (talk) 15:49, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

(If the facts are being questioned, they should not be called facts.)

If that's the criteria, then we should not call evolution, the holocaust, or the moon landing "facts" since someone, somewhere questions it. Lots of people question lots of things. It doesn't mean that their questioning has any validity. Harizotoh9 (talk) 15:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2017

Change Gallup to Gallop. Source: http://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/10-1241/10-1241_opn-2011-04-27.pdf 138.253.76.222 (talk) 09:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Done —MRD2014 📞 contribs 02:56, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on 9/11 conspiracy theories. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:08, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Denial of mass murder template

I have removed the Template:Denial of mass killings template. It's use in this context is improper, as (a) the theories are not being referred to as "denial" in reliable sources, (b) the overwhelming number of the theories do not deny that a mass murder has taken place. I have no objection to reinserting the template if it can be shown that a larger share of news reports in reliable sources actually refer to the theories as "9/11 denial".

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on 9/11 conspiracy theories. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:50, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on 9/11 conspiracy theories. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:06, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

The Article Doesn't Mention If All the Victims Are Verifiable

Some conspiracy theorists are claiming that the "passengers" and some of the WTC workers supposedly present that day had fictitious identities, brought to light by the WTC memorials. Examples could include findings on the Social Security Death Index or morphing technology processes. How come this topic isn't addressed here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.25.172.62 (talk) 22:56, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Because it hasn't been discussed in reliable sources, unless there's something that's been discussed in the past year or two. What's a "morphing technology process"? Acroterion (talk) 00:22, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

"Morphing technology process," or whatever variants used, like "identity-generating software." Taking a base picture and creating multiple identities from it, identities that don't show up with death certificates or in the SSDI, identities that have dubious origins and connections. Providing an example, as that by a Simon Hack in his September Clues Website in what he calls "Vicsims," showing picture similarities through digital software, inconsistencies in stories and events, inconsistencies in memorial names across different organizations (names removed or missing), etc.

How many Jews died in the 9/11 event?

The wikipedia article says: "Contrary to some conspiracy theories about Jews being warned not to go to work that day, the number of Jews who died in the attacks is variously estimated at between 270 and 400, based on the last names of the dead." -- Based on the last names? This is utter horse shit. There are countless German names which may or may not sound "Jewish" to american ears, but really only tell about the German background of their bearers, such as Lehman(n) or Wittman(n). Is there no authoritative and confirmed list of actual Jewish deaths? -- Alexey Topol (talk) 21:16, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Alexey Topol Can you at least point out in the article where this is stated? It doesn't seem to appear anywhere. Boomer VialHappy Holidays! • Contribs 20:57, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Then the article has been changed in the meantime! --Alexey Topol (talk) 16:02, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 9/11 conspiracy theories. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:17, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Please strike or at least correct this sentence

"In April 2016, the Deputy Prime Minister of Sweden, Åsa Romson, called the events of September 11 an "accident" and refused to apologise for it."

Mrs Romson didn't say this in English, she used the Swedish word "olycka", and, as the article Åsa Romson already mentions, the word "olycka" can mean "disaster" just as well as "accident". It can also mean "tragedy".

In my opinion, there is nothing interesting at all about someone calling 9/11 a "disaster" or a "tragedy", so the sentence should be stricken. But at the very least, the original Swedish word and it's different shades of meaning must be mentioned. This is not some personal agenda of mine. It's simply a misleading bit of information, based on mistranslation, that I'd like to see corrected. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.70.68.121 (talk) 00:03, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

No answer for a month? That is indeed the Swedish word's meaning, and that is indeed the word he used. See [3].
I think that part should be deleted. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:33, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:38, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2018

change:

Such theories revolve around the putative content of the 28 pages of the 2002 report of the U.S. Congress Joint Inquiry that are withheld from publication.[1][2]

to:

Such theories revolve around the putative content of the 28 pages of the 2002 report of the U.S. Congress Joint Inquiry that were withheld from publication[1][3] until July 15, 2016.[4]

The "28 Pages" were released (albeit in a redacted format) subsequent to the writing of that paragraph. I have no idea whether or not the claim that 9/11 theories revolve around those pages remains true in the present day, but either way this article should reflect their publication (perhaps with the reference I copied from the 28 Pages article to show that it happened). Thanks, CodyIsIn (talk) 23:52, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference post2013 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Justin Elliott (September 7, 2011). "The enduring mysteries of 9/11". Salon.
  3. ^ Justin Elliott (September 7, 2011). "The enduring mysteries of 9/11". Salon.
  4. ^ Demirjian, Karoun (15 July 2016). "Congress releases long-classified '28 pages' on alleged Saudi ties to 9/11". Washington Post. Retrieved 15 July 2016.
 Done DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 05:37, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

new link to ae911truth

You may want to add this. https://www.ae911truth.org/project-due-diligence

Claustro123 (talk) 18:17, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

@Claustro123: Why? I don't think we don't even link to the old site. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:34, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Not a reliable source (WP:RS). —PaleoNeonate – 00:55, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Well, yes. But 9/11 conspiracy theories themselves are based on unreliable sources. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 22:59, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
See WP:FRINGE. Our articles about conspiracy theories are based on skeptical sources that are reliable, not on the conspiracy theorist writings themselves. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:02, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

It seems that in the "no-planes" section, someone got biased

I was looking through this article when I saw the no-planes sections. I saw this 


         "I know, I know, I'm out of the mainstream, but that's the way it is". According to David Shayler, "the only explanation is that they were missiles surrounded by holograms made to look like planes", he says, which would be well beyond the capabilities of contemporaneous hologram technology.

The bolded and italiced section is what I would call biasism. It's outside the quotes, so the conspiracy argumentor is not downvoting their belief.

Wikipedia calls of unbiased opinions. AND, this is a theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmaxx37 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

The "no planes theory" is just sheer nonsense, even among the conspiracy enthusiasts. You expect Wikipedia to take it seriously? Acroterion (talk) 23:37, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
It's not your place to determine what's nonsense. There is a notable phenomenon of people believing there were no passenger planes, thus inclusion is warranted. The bolding was clearly meant to mock, and your own biases on the issue are obvious. No mentioned or unmentioned no plane theorists other than Shayler believe there must have been holograms, while all the others share several beliefs (fabrication of hijackers, possible use of winged cruise missiles or drone aircraft to simulate impact, CGI overlay in broadcast and amateur video footage, etc.) Muirchertach1 (talk) 12:25, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
So - why are you removing this particular item? All of the no-planes theories are complete nonsense, why pick and choose which are somehow more credible? And there's no bolding at all, that's just the highlighting in the diffs. And you've reverted four times. Acroterion (talk) 16:25, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 18 December 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Consensus against moving. (non-admin closure) –Ammarpad (talk) 04:19, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

9/11 conspiracy theories → Conspiracy theories surrounding the September 11 attacks – To keep it consistent with the actual page(September 11 attacks [Username Needed] 14:38, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

You'll need to explain your rationale more. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:07, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:Common Name and WP:Concise. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:02, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose The current title is used by the BBC and appears to be more common in other sources while the target doesn't get anything much calling it that. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:31, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - but possibility for redirect? Currently, as the title stands it's concise and using the word 'surrounding' makes the article sound less credible as the word connotes to it being 'up in the air'. Although the main article is named September 11 Attacks, a redirect from 9/11 - this page could redirect to an alternative title such as Conspiracy Theories of the September 11 Attacks, but using 'of' to replace surrounding. Jake Symons (talk) 20:43, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - (WP:CONCISE) but I also think that a redirect would be fine. —PaleoNeonate – 22:44, 25 December 2018 (UTC)----
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:9/11_conspiracy_theories/Archive_40&oldid=1079511730"