Talk:9/11 truth movement/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tag link to discussion

If it is not too much trouble is it possible to get a link to the discussion which involved why a tag is on this article? The reason being If i want to fix the issue and get rid of the tag I need greater clarity on why it is there. Any tag restored on personal opinion without support/justification on the talk page will be removed. WP:DETAG, I have no interest in what someone else says is Fringe, and unbalanced, that is subjective. You must demonstrate why the TAG is there. At this rate i could tag anything with any tag and not be accountable to establish evidence for the tag. If you cannot explain it, then there is clearly no need for the tag. --Inayity (talk) 15:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not obvious why the tag is necessary, but it's obvious why it's appropriate. It may be necessary because "Truthers" (pejorative intended) add self-published material justifying the accuracy or prevalence of the claims that the mainstream explanation is not correct. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:59, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
I can't find where the tag was ever discussed, though. Removal seems appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:31, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

"and families"?

Repeated along the article many times is the term "and the families" or "the families and", giving the impression that most of the family members of those lost in the attacks, agree with the truthers, or that that most of the truthers have immediate family or friends killed in the attack, or both. The fact is that they are clearly, till now, a small minority among the families and friends of the people killed, as can be easily seen in all the major memorial events. (And then there are truthers who claim that no one was hurt and the whole thing was staged. So they cannot be from the family and friends, or could they...) פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 23:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia LEAD policy

It is pretty clear WP:LEAD anyone interested can read. But I will repost here for the editors here. The first paragraph should define the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being overly specific. It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it. The official account is already mentioned, that is what they dispute. DETAILS of the official account are not for the lead, for the body, or can be read in the other article. If it is a problem we can request for comments. --Inayity (talk) 22:32, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Having reviewed a few articles NONE of them have a recap of 9/11 official story. It is not in keeping with Wikipedia LEAD policy see Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth or Alex Jones (radio host) you dont just copy and paste a summarized account into every article for every person/article that disputes it.--Inayity (talk) 22:48, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

NPOV Conspiracy theory

If the person adding and WP:EDITWARRING by inserting so-called RS information into the lead of this article has any WP:CONSENSUS for this please the talk page is the place for this. You came and you did not find it in the lead and now you are edit warring to get it in the lead outside of WP:TALK. If you are familiar with RS then you should also be familiar with NPOV. As it relates to RS vs RS, there is no one position that is greater, some call them conspiracy, they deny that (by RS). So we honor NPOV and do not go with one version over another. There is no evidence that all of them are conspiracy theory as the engineers and architects are simply challenging evidence and the commissions finding, I do not think that falls under a conspiracy theory to dispute an official report. --Inayity (talk) 19:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

It is not a violation to call them "conspiracy theorists". Wikipedia is a collection of scholarly opinions. Reliable sources and scholars call them "conspiracy theorists". They are a fringe movement on par with creationists and Moon landing hoax promoters. Fringe movements which offer wildly speculative, implausible or factually incorrect conspiracy theories are typically called "conspiracy theorists".

I do not think that falls under a conspiracy theory to dispute an official report.

They say way more than that. They say that the Towers were brought down by explosives in a controlled demolition, or that there was no plane that hit the Pentagon, but a missile. Or any other fringe theory.

This sort of discussion comes up time and time again on fringe theory pages. See also: Talk:HIV/AIDS_denialism/Archive_12#Fairness

See the following policies:

--Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

No conspiracy just questions [ref ]B/c it seems like you are picking on some aspects of what is a broad movement and Generalizing them. Also mixing in actual 9/11 conspiracy theorist with a movement which is clear in its aims. It is not a monolithic group like HIV denialism which central position is Fringe. It is NOT a fringe theory to challenge the official report. The policy of FRINGE does not apply, maybe to some of them. But the primary argument is they challenge the official report, they want a new investigation. That does not meet the Fringe or Conspiracy theory criteria. And since we like RS, there are RS that say they are not! Hence it is a vio of NPOV to take a side, esp when that is a prejudicial term like conspiracy theorist. --Inayity (talk) 20:40, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

First, reliable sources call them a fringe conspiracy theorist. If reliable sources called them frogs, Wikipedia would call them frogs. You have to convince the academic community first before changing Wikipedia. Wikipedia is all about sources, not our personal opinions. So you must bring forth reliable sources before any change can be made.

Now look right on the main page of the AE for 911 Truth site:

"We made a formal offer of proof based on the evidence — forensic evidence that overwhelmingly and irrefutably shows, by itemization of the key facts and by supplemental video of important witnesses, that the three skyscrapers at the World Trade Center were destroyed on 9/11 as a result of professionally engineered controlled demolition, not by office fires and/or aircraft collision."[Source http://www.ae911truth.org/]

They are doing much more than just asking questions, they are proposing specific pseudo-scientific and fringe theories. WP:FRINGE completely applies to the controlled demolition theory.

--Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I thought I already gave you RS, so it is unclear why you are telling me about my opinion when at no point did i offer one. Also is it policy to declare all theories not in keeping with the US government FRINGE? or Pseudo-scientific. So you see a building coming down like a controlled demolition, you are not allowed to question that and ask for further investigation? I guess I am not allowed to challenge Darwinism or Eurocentrism either. Nice way to debunk everything without any critical challenges.--Inayity (talk) 03:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Is there a reliable source which supports the (I'd say hypothesis, but it isn't even that) that the WTC destruction resembles a "controlled demolition"? I haven't seen any. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

It is NOT a fringe theory to challenge the official report.

I thought I already gave you RS, so it is unclear why you are telling me about my opinion when at no point did i offer one.

AE for 911 Truth are not a reliable source. Far from it. It is common for fringe groups to include huge lists of supposed experts who agree with them. The lists are padded with people who are not experts. Creationists and AIDS deniers have such lists. The AE for 911 Truth list includes anyone with a degree that includes the word "engineer" even if they are not related at all.

Ahmet Iscen

Software Engineer

BS Computer Engineering

David Isham MS Computer Science, Cal Poly SLO

Luis Rivera MS Chemical Engineering

Source: [1]

And so forth. These are not cherry picked examples but the majority of the signatories. It's basically a list of anyone who has a university or college degree who also believes in a particular fringe theory. Which is unremarkable. Similar lists could be produced for any fringe theory. The real question would be, what percentage of actual experts, PHD civil engineers support controlled demolition ideas? The answer is zero or near zero. A viewpoint with such little support from the academic community is the definition of WP:FRINGE. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

David Cameron Comment

Can this be included? http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/10/01/380620/911-uk-activist-hands-himself-in/

It's interesting, but Press TV is not a reliable source. I think it would fit better in "public opinion".... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Press TV is the Iranian News broadcaster and not a reliable source. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:08, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Are details about official 9/11 attack in WP:LEAD

NAC:It doesn't appear to have been entirely clear to the commenting editors what the question was. However, to the extent that there is consensus, it appears to be that the current link to the September 11 attacks article, containing the consensus account, is sufficient. There are other questions raised by other responding editors, but that do not address the question in the RFC. There is no consensus that the lede of the article needs any specific change. Another RFC might be in order with another question, but this one is being closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:30, 13 February 2015 (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.

Should the Lead revisit and list out the official 9/11 account going into details when already there is a link to the official 9/11 report which is known to most, constantly in the news. This article is about the movement challenging the official account first and foremost. The movement, not the official account. Suffice to say they challenge the official account.--Inayity (talk) 22:41, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Inayity, excuse me, but it seams to me that you oppose adding those details to the lead section. Currently, the lead section does not include any details about the 9/11 attaacks themselves. And I don't see any other user who argues that details should be added. Then, why are we discussing this at all? Vanjagenije (talk) 00:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
The details were recently removed from the lead; I don't object to the removal provided that "official" is also excised from the lead. The phrase "results of official investigation", jargon on the part of the Truth Movement, should be replaced by "mainstream account", "consensus account" (or "accurate account"; however, WP:TRUTH prohibits that.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Vanjagenije, if you look at the edit history a few editors have been adding in that content. This is the second time I have returned to this page this year about this issue. The first time I gave up (you can see the archive). So this time when I saw the content being re-added, I realized the page need non-involved opinions to curb this problem. --Inayity (talk) 08:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
  • No. The lead section of this article should not go into detail about the official/mainstream account of 9/11 attacks. That would be unnecessary and contrary to WP:LEAD. There is a link to "September 11 attacks" in the lead, so anybody can click it and read more there. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:28, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The lead is a mess, because it does not summarize the article itself. Another problem is the assertion of the existence of a "movement" in the article's title. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:55, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  • (Edited for clarity: yes) Mention of the "official" story is not optional. It must be listed and briefly described within the first paragraph, preferably in the first sentence. This movement is defined by its rejection of the explanation widely accepted by outsiders. You might as well write the pro-life page without mentioning abortion in the lede. Red Slash 00:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The 911 Truth Movement is a fringe group. We need to absolutely mention that their views are rejected by the academic communities. Mentioning that their popular theory of a controlled demoltion has no scientific support is needed as well. This is in line with WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 10:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion of the official story. The current version of the lede suffices in its mention of the official version.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 01:49, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment.Agree with Cwobeel. The lead has larger problems, namely asserting that a "movement" exist, which isn't supported by secondary sourcing. Dmrwikiprof (talk) 23:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support the inclusion of the official story. However, I think that maybe the word "mainstream" to maybe something more concrete. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 03:42, 17 January 2015 (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.

"Internal Critique" needs expansion

"Within the movement, there are alternative theories about what may have happened.[5]"

Such as? 143.167.243.95 (talk) 23:56, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

This is probably referring to different conspiracies theories. Essentially none of the believe the official reports but that doesn't mean they agree with each on who committed the attacks and why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeoStalinist (talk • contribs) 18:49, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Seems this should be expanded or removed. Because yeah reading it, makes some wonder "such as"? It may not be needed in the article though because it's common sense, obviously within such a large movement there are many different theories. And it does say that elsewhere in the article so this section is redundant. Popish Plot (talk) 14:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

9/11 Truth Movement & Dr. Judy Wood

Seeing as Dr. Judy Wood is the only person to have filed her evidence with the courts in pursuit of truth and justice, and also considering that one of her court cases made it all the way to the Supreme Court, I think it is fairly obvious that the following information needs to be included in the 9/11 Truth Movement Wikipedia Page:

1. I think that Dr. Judy Wood's Journal of 9/11 Research & 9/11 Issues needs to be included in the external links section alongside the other Journals of 9/11 Research.

2. I also think that her name needs to be included in the Adherents of the 9/11 Truth Movement, especially considering she is the only person to actually take legal action, in addition to scientific research, in pursuit of 9/11 truth.

3. I also think that her legal efforts, especially the Supreme Court case, needs to be included in the History of the 9/11 Truth Movement, as it was the only court-case ever filed in pursuit of 9/11 Truth, and it made it all the way to the Supreme Court.


In 2007, Dr. Judy Wood filed several legal cases against the National Institute of Standards & Technology's (NIST) contractors for science fraud, and legal requests that NIST’s fraudulent data gets reexamined. [2] The filings in these legal cases included Requests For Corrections (RFC) based on the Data Quality Act [3], and Qui Tam whistle-blower cases. [4] Dr. Wood is the only 9/11 researcher who has submitted evidence to the courts in pursuit of the truth.


These are obviously supposed to be on this Wikipedia page, so I truly question the motives of those who are deleting this information. Her effort speaks for itself, and this information needs to be included in the 9/11 Truth Movement Wikipedia page for the sake of honesty and accuracy.

Please help.

Thank you,

-Abe

'''Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez''' (talk) |}

Couldn't agree more. However wrong they thought her case this article is about the movement so yes I agree. Iheartthestrals (talk) 07:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

This Wiki misrepresents the 9/11 movement

The main argument for the 9/11 movement has always focused on the ridiculousness of the falling of building 7 which didn't get hit by a plane and suffered very little damage, but crumbled down perfectly into itself instead of toppling or showing localized destruction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.98.131.4 (talk) 13:43, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Claims that that's the crux of the movement (which are easily countered by the sources cited at 7_World_Trade_Center#9.2F11_and_collapse) require reliable sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Deletion Review: 'Judy Wood'

Deletion review here. Please discuss in the proper forum. Any discussion of Judy Wood-related material to be included in this article should provide properly-sourced claims for evaluation in a new section on this page.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Please have your say in the discussion. Dr. Judy Wood is the only 9/11 researcher ever to have filed evidence with the courts in pursuit of truth and justice, and one of her cases made it all the way to the Supreme Court. I think she deserves a Wikipedia page. Please comment here: [Deletion Review: Dr. Judy Wood & the 9/11 Truth Movement]

Thank you.

-Abe

'''Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez''' (talk)


External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 9/11 Truth movement. 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 22:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Fringe conspiracy theorists

How is wikipedia supposed to be a neutral point of view when you start the article with such a loaded phrase like that? The 9/11 truth movement is hardly fringe, and one day it will likely be the mainstream. Starting the article in such a way shows the authors clear bias against 9/11 truth and in favor of dismissing it out of hand when it's an active area of investigation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.0.26 (talk) 02:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

See WP:GEVAL, WP:FRINGE, WP:NOTPROMO, and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories. We only summarize mainstream academic and journalistic sources. The "bias" is that almost no professionals in any of the relevant fields thinks the "truthers" are on to something, and so our article reflects that reality. If you'd leave the echo chamber for a bit, you'd laugh at the claims that the "truthers" will ever be mainstream. It's not an active area of investigation except for conspiracy theorists. Wikipedia's official stance is that the "truther" movement is wrong. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

This is a waste of my time. Clearly wikipedia is a tight-knit clique not the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Towerseven (talk • contribs) 04:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 9/11 Truth movement. 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 14:06, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Description of IEEE paper reverted without good reason

I added information on a published paper that challenges the NIST report. (View my edit.) To me it seems relevant, notable, neutral, and properly footnoted. It certainly fits under the heading "NIST Report Reaction". My edit was reverted, with only the dismissive edit summary, "any reason why this should be in here?". A reversion should have a better reason than this! How does my edit make the article worse? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdgboulder (talk • contribs) 19:10, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Really needs non-primary sources to indicate that it's worth including. Otherwise, we'd have every paper by every crank on here, and that's not what we're here for. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:49, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation, Ian. I thought the publication of a dissenting paper, in a respected journal, was a significant event in the history of the controversy which this article describes. Anybody else? Rdgboulder (talk) 13:57, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
There is no way to evaluate if it is a "significant event in the history of the controversy" without secondary sources. VQuakr (talk) 15:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Book->Books, MediaCoverage->Media, re-arrange?

Sections "9 Book" and "8.1 Media Coverage" seem misplaced, currently down there, below Refs and Externals; maybe should be merged into "5.1 Books" and somewhere into "5 Media" ? -- Wda (talk) 09:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Film: "In Plane Sight"

  • [Dave von Kleist's] 911: In Plane Site (2004) [1]

deleted by "The Original Wildbear," who wrote "In Plane Site is conspiracy theory garbage; little or nothing historically correct about it. Leave it off this page, please."

(1) Assuming (at least for the sake of argument) that above judgement/opinion is true, is this a good reason for non-inclusion (as opposed to, say, (properly referenced, of course) addition of this opinion)? Note that the section is not titled "recommendable films..." or some such. As to "conspiracy theory..." - this is how the article starts.

(2) "...garbage; little or nothing historically correct..." seems rather vague (close to name-calling). Can you point out - best by adding to http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0454587/goofs - specific errors/falsehoods?

-- Wda (talk) 07:22, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Wda. Addressing your question (1) from above: The 9/11 Truth movement can mean different things to different people, and sources can be found to define it in different (and opposing) fashions. It can be defined as serious and intelligent people making a serious call for investigation into a criminal matter, or it can be defined as a bunch of conspiracy theory wackos spouting fanciful imaginings, or it can be defined as a mixture of both (which is probably closest to reality). The nonsensical stuff has a tendency to obscure and distract from the serious side of the matter, to the extent that many people are not even aware that a serious side exists. (See current news articles about evidence of high-level Saudi involvement in 9/11 as an example of inadequately investigated matters related to the 9/11 crime; plenty of reliable sources for that are available.) Wikipedia can help its readers understand the difference between serious calls for investigation and fanciful conspiracy theories by directing the matters to the appropriate article. Fanciful conspiracy theories would best be placed in the 9/11 conspiracy theories article. Keeping the nonsensical conspiracy theories to a minimum (or totally absent) from the 9/11 Truth movement article would be appreciated and helpful for readers to understand what the (rather loosely defined) movement is about at its core.
Addressing (2) above: admittedly, declaring 911: In Plane Site to be nonsense is a judgment call, by myself and others who have seen it, some of whom have reviewed it on IMDB. It is hypothetically possible that everything in 911: In Plane Site is true, though I regard that as very improbable. This production does not appear to be consistent with what is known about the event, and rather appears to be catering to those who like to grasp at straws in support of fanciful conspiracy theories; hence it appears to me to be an item better suited for the 9/11 conspiracy theories article, if it has to appear anywhere. Wildbear (talk) 08:18, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi! In Plane Site does seem to meet WP:MOVIE and has its own WP-page. Even if some (or all) of its claims were untrue, it very probably helped put "9/11 Truth" into the minds of many people, esp. since it was on of the earliest attempts. It is thus undoubtedly part of (what i'd consider) the "9/11 Truth Movement". Please name some (of what you consider) "Fanciful conspiracy theories" advanced by this film! -- grts fro VIE Wda (talk) 11:04, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
There is a lot which could be said, but recognizing that this talk page is supposed to be about improving the article and not about the article's topic, I'll try to keep this as brief and direct to the point as possible. It has been a long time since I saw this film - probably more than 10 years, so I will rely on IMDB reviews to jog my memory on some of the "fanciful conspiracy theories" it contains. "Missile hit the Pentagon", "missing debris from the plane that hit the Pentagon", "flashes of light" and "pods under planes" are mentioned. While perhaps not impossible, none of these conjectures appear to be well supported by the known evidence about the matter. The movie may have touched upon some more serious matters, but in associating anything serious with the previous deeply speculative "theories", it has effectively poisoned the well for more serious issues. Some individuals may have taken this as their introduction to the 9/11 Truth movement; my sense from reading the communications of people on this topic (over a decade or more) is that conspiracy theory movies like this one have done more to turn people off to the 9/11 Truth movement than to bring them to it. If my observation is correct, (and I accept that it is contestable) then by being more unhelpful than helpful to the 9/11 Truth movement this movie would be better placed in the 9/11 conspiracy theories article. Wildbear (talk) 05:15, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
In Plane Sight was one of the earlier conspiracy documentaries and IMHO that is one of its few good qualities. Despite being sensationally speculative and semi-exploitative I still believe it deserves mention, as do all of them good and bad - with qualifiers. Some may have low production values or may be tediously long but feature valuable content. Some may be intentionally or unintentionally far fetched and/or misinformation. These issues are not new to controversial subjects and history from JFK to OJ to OKC etc. It seems to me that there must be some sort of system that exists or needs to be developed or a very least tables charting factors and review ratings would be appropriate. Even including or linking to a list of the "rejected" projects would at least present all sides, even those I disagree with. I really wish every wiki page featuring history would have a paragraph on alternative perspectives, perhaps even linking to full articles like this one. JasonCarswell (talk) 10:00, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ 911: In Plane Site @ IMDb

List Proposals To Discuss

~ JasonCarswell (talk) 13:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

POV ???

much of this page is written in a way i cannot help asking if it is intended to describe the 9/11-Truth-movement, or if it tries to belittle/disparage/&c it.

To pick but one example: "Support for the movement is negligible from professionals in relevant fields, such as civil and aerospace engineering." - Now, if this is "written from a neutral point of view ... representing fairly, proportionately ... all of the significant views" (WP:POV) to describe a movement that -- despite dire threats (like "Who is not with us is with the terrorists.") and dire consequences (like being attacked, insulted, put down, called names, ... by the mass(stupidification)media &c. -- has (like not many other movements, if not uniquely) been endorsed/supported by numerous celebrities and well-renown people (amongst them e.g. (high)judges, MPs, former heads-of-state!), has spread worldwide, has been presented/discussed in Parliaments, has produced a plethora of books, and videos translated into more than 15 languages-- well, if this is NPOV ... then i am the queen of Saba's great-grandmother.

And i am certainly not the only one to think so. This has e.g. been pointed out by journalists, specifically naming this page as a "Musterbeispiel [textbook-examplar]" (for absurdly slanted POV). For one example (which i happen to have bookmarked; there'd probably be a lot more to find) see "Karl Reitter: Tabuthema 9/11" (2014, in grundrisse, ISSN 1814-3164). --Wda (talk) 22:17, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Celebrities and well-known people are not professionals in relevant fields. The sole source you have presented fails WP:RS; anything else? VQuakr (talk) 00:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Opinions of public figures are not irrelevant. Politicians who are not "us", doctors, or scientists, but always try to tell us what we can and can't do with our bodies as if we're children. Celebrities may not be "us" but they, like politicians, often speak for us who cannot. If we are skeptical, they may voice the skepticism felt by many of the masses. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 01:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
I was pointing out your non sequitur. You started with a quote from the article, then changed subjects mid-paragraph. VQuakr (talk) 01:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
I forgot "or". I rearranged it but it's still an awkward sentence.
Just as there are lists of lists such as lists of atheists organized by profession and surname I'm working on a List of celebrity Truthers which may develop into Lists of Truthers organized into profession, surname, and perhaps their truths and/or skepticisms since there are so many doubts about so many things. It's a big project that could use help and patience. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 13:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
A thorough reading of WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:FRINGE and WP:NOR would be advisable first. Acroterion (talk) 16:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Acroterion, you may have been within rights to delete some material from my user page but you didn't even read it. This television interview quote of a Roseanne Barr and Abby Martin in their own words, voices and images is relevant for a new List of celebrity Truthers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8txXzLdhH8 :
"You know we just have to keep laughing at the scorn and watch it die. It doesn't have any place left to go now. I think now it's like eating its own tail. I mean the whole Saudi Arabia, all royal family, 9-11, Bush [[[Bush family|family]]] - all of it. It's eating its own tail, and everybody's like "Truther!? You're a truther!" You know when idiots are calling brilliant people stupid, you've got a real problem." "I find it amazing this kind of pejorative term "truther" [is] for seeking the truth. And I mean that we've been saying Saudi Arabia was involved from the very beginning. We were called "crazy" and now look at how validated we are." "It's House of Saud morphs with House of Windsor works with the Vatican works with Rothschild. It's all one big friggin mafia scam. I mean I'll probably get assassinated or droned when I'm outta here, but it's all a scam. A tired effin scam."

If I am wrong please let me know how. Thanks. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 17:30, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Also, is there a proper place out of the way before acceptable release to collaborate and gradually build up a proper List of celebrity Truthers? For example, if the List of celebrity Truthers existed at least in title then we could discuss it in Talk:List of celebrity Truthers. Thanks in advance. I'm off to learn Sandbox. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 18:07, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Opinion pieces such as the section you just linked (and quoted with wikilinks for some reason) above are primary sources and unsuitable for contentious information or determining levels of acceptance of a fringe theory. A small embedded list already exists at 9/11 conspiracy theories#Proponents. "Proponent" is more likely to be a palatable name than "Truther" (why are you capitalizing it?), but it seems unlikely that you'll find much support for such a list either way, IMHO. VQuakr (talk) 22:22, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
It was a copy of part of a barely started rough draft. I wasn't sure if the the links were a good idea or not. Roseanne was running for president. I don't know that's worth her opinion. I still have to get through a lot of reading up on how to do this right.
I didn't know that "truther" was capitalized until I saw it on Wikipedia enough to notice, obviously mistakenly now. I wanted to be respectful. "As a christian..." deserves to be "As a Christian..." and no one says "As a religious nut job..." Christian is usually a good title. Truther is still a proudly held title by most of them. Many of them are proud to be skeptics and conspiracy theorists, conspiracy analysts, conspiracy historians, etc. but the word "conspiracy" still has pejorative connotations beyond those circles. "Proponent" is still deflective semantics again. To use "As a proponent..." in most conversations would follow "...of what?" and the answer is "conspiracies" which is not as nice as "truther". Con vs Truth. Criminal vs Saint.
~ JasonCarswell (talk) 00:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)


How Are These Missing?!

Speaking of "negligible from professionals in relevant fields", how are these missing?

Issues with flight paths, speed and turbine limits, Ground effect (aerodynamics), and other stuff I know little about have been raised by professional groups. I knew about the first two and just Googled the others. I haven't read these sites yet but know those first two certainly deserve inclusion. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 00:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

And maybe include:

~ JasonCarswell (talk) 00:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
What reliable, secondary sources cover these groups in enough detail to show that they merit mention as discussed at WP:NFRINGE? VQuakr (talk) 00:34, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
From WP:NFRINGE: "For a fringe theory to be considered notable, and therefore to qualify for a separate article in Wikipedia..."
This is the article where these sources might apply if appropriately vetted and that's why I placed them on this appropriate talk page, if I am not mistaken.
~ JasonCarswell (talk) 00:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Given aspects of a fringe theory still need secondary sources written about them. Primary sourcing is not appropriate here because it doesn't let us judge levels of acceptance. VQuakr (talk) 01:36, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand but I'll try. Maybe this isn't the best example, but if you had a cat named Truther that said he was a cat (if cat's could talk), that wouldn't be acceptable without the veterinarian Dr. FoxNews verifying that it was indeed a cat. And the doctor has to have the highest credentials. Am I close?
Also, how was my stuff above under "Revising "Absent Issues""? It felt like I was on to something. I compiled it out of WP and was lazy so the citations aren't properly formatted but I figured you'd be checking them anyway and I'd fix them if I got a go ahead.
~ JasonCarswell (talk) 23:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theorists" is a pejorative term

Famspear, I see that you have taken a personal interest in my edits. I am sure life as a shill is very rewarding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ripleysnow (talk • contribs) 22:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

See WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Conspiracy theorists is an accurate description for people who advocate conspiracy theories. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:27, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
And also see the arbitration sanctions note I left on your talkpage concerning appropriate conduct before you left the personal attack above and this one [5]. Acroterion (talk) 22:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, Ripleysnow, "conspiracy theorists" is a pejorative term. So what? Wake up!
"Nazi" is a pejorative term, yet it is an accurate description of someone who was a member of the Nazi Party. "Convicted felon" is a pejorative term, yet it is used to describe people who are convicted felons. There is no rule in Wikipedia that prohibits the use material from reliable sources that includes descriptions of people with pejorative terms.
You're new here. I suggest that you read WP:V and WP:NPOV and WP:NOR.
A "shill" is "one who acts as a decoy". Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, p. 1069, G.&C. Merriam Co. (8th ed. 1976). I am not a "shill." See WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Yes, I have taken a personal interest in your edits. I'm an editor here. The whole point of Wikipedia is that anyone can edit anyone else's posts. If you don't want other people to take an interest in your edits, or you don't want your edits removed, then you probably aren't going to be happy here.
As noted by another editor, the term "conspiracy theorist" is an accurate description of someone who advocates conspiracy theories. Pay attention. Read the article. Learn something. Famspear (talk) 00:32, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Absent Issues

Whether one man kills ten people or 19 men kill 3000 people, those are extremist individuals committing crimes. 19 men is not an army. There was no declaration of war by government bodies or standing armies. It was a crime that was spun into two national wars and a global war on terror. Truthers say it was a crime with motives before it was a war of ideologies. Characteristics > Views = The MOTIVES are far too simplistic (war pretext and power consolidation) and/or missing (sooo much wealth was made, derived, moved, and stolen. ( view: The Corbett Report's 9/11 Trillions: Follow The Money http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3xgjxJwedA with documentation reference: https://www.corbettreport.com/episode-308-911-trillions-follow-the-money/ ) The second sin is the COVER UP that continues with Obama refusing to dwell on the past preferring to look forward, something no one would say to a serial killer, mass murderer, or war criminal. If the buildings (especially 7) failed so spectacularly that day then engineering safely laws would need immediate radical revisions yet none were made. I won't go on... While 3000 died that day, three times that number of first responders died yet have been denied the care they deserve. I don't know where that fits in. And lastly missing is the RHYMING HISTORY. History doesn't just repeat in Star Wars. Themes echo throughout political, economic, elite, military, and covert histories. False flag events, Pearl Harbor, Northwoods, Gladio, JFK, Tonkin, 93 WTC bomb, Oklahoma City, and events since 9-11. All of this also applies to 9/11 conspiracy theories. JasonCarswell (talk) 11:51, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Revising "Absent Issues" Muted Views, First Draft FAIL 2016-08-19

I'm not done, but here's a start for today's [2016-07-20] dissection regarding Characteristics > Views > 1st Paragraph >

As is:

Some within the movement who argue that insiders within the United States government were directly responsible for the September 11 attacks often allege that the attacks were planned and executed in order to provide the U.S. with a pretext for going to war in the Middle East, and, by extension, as a means of consolidating and extending the power of the Bush Administration."
With these citations that seem wrong (expired articles link to the homepage):
* Grossman, Lev (September 3, 2006). "Why the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Won't Go Away" . Time.
* Harvey, Adam (September 3, 2006). "9/11 myths busted" . Courier Mail (The Sunday Mail (Qld)).

Revise with:

Some within the movement who argue that insiders within the United States government were directly responsible for the September 11 attacks often allege that the attacks were planned and executed in order to provide the U.S. with a pretext for going to wars for profit and plunder[1] in Afghanistan[2], to purse alleged 9-11 terrorist Osama Bin Ladin[3], Iraq[4] despite no "imminent threat" from Saddam and an unjustified intelligence case[5], and expanded regional turmoil[6][7] rather than Saudi Arabia[8][9][10].
"The disastrous legacy of the Iraq War extends beyond treasure squandered and lives lost or shattered. Central to that legacy has been Washington's decisive and seemingly irrevocable abandonment of any semblance of self-restraint regarding the use of violence as an instrument of statecraft.[11]"

References

  1. ^ Weigley, Samuel (2013-03-10). "10 companies profiting the most from war". USA Today. USA Today. Retrieved 2016-08-19.
  2. ^ Walsh, Nick Paton (2016-02-25). "Afghanistan war: Just what was the point?". CNN. CNN. Retrieved 2016-08-19.
  3. ^ Schone, Mark. "9/11 Perpetrators: Where Are They Now?". ABC News. ABC News. Retrieved 2016-08-19.
  4. ^ Castle, Stephen (2016-07-06). "Analysis: Britain's Iraq War Inquiry". New York Times. New York Times. Retrieved 2016-08-19.
  5. ^ Hunt, Peter (2016-07-06). "Chilcot report: Tony Blair's Iraq War case not justified". BBC. BBC. Retrieved 2016-08-19.
  6. ^ Dodge, Toby (2013-03-16). "Decade of regret - Iraq: From War to a New Authoritarianism". The Economist. The Economist. Retrieved 2016-08-19.
  7. ^ Chulov, Martin (2015-10-25). "Tony Blair is right: without the Iraq war there would be no Islamic State". The Guardian. The Guardian. Retrieved 2016-08-19.
  8. ^ Scarborough, Rowan (2016-07-19). "Saudi government funded extremism in U.S. mosques and charities: report". The Washington Times. The Washington Times. Retrieved 2016-08-19.
  9. ^ Cevallos, Danny (2016-08-19). "Suing Saudi Arabia over 9/11?". CNN. CNN. Retrieved 2016-05-26.
  10. ^ Lionel, Lionel (2016-07-19). "Saudi Arabia's Behind 9/11 So Sue Them!". YouTube. Lionel Nation / Lionel Media. Retrieved 2016-08-19.
  11. ^ Bacevich, Andrew J.; Boot, Max; Kirkpatrick, Jeane; Ignatieff, Michael; O'Hanion, Michael; Masters, Jonathan (2011-12-15). "Was the Iraq War Worth It?". Council On Foreign Relations. Council On Foreign Relations. Retrieved 2016-08-19.

~ JasonCarswell (talk) 17:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
I improved this paragraph revision today by incorporating the listed links, a month later with no comment, so I will add it to the main page soon since there are no comments or objections. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 02:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC)


Revising "Absent Issues" Muted Views, Second Attempt PENDING

I finally learned after a month of silence on this talk page before I inserted it, that the above first attempt had a bad case of the synthies WP:SYNTHESIS aka WP:ORIGINALSYN. This revision certainly holds no surprises but, if I understand correctly, this will be tricky because: mainstream media doesn't report well on the truth movement, these common issues need to mentioned in conjunction with the truth movement and/or truthers. So now we need to find which are good and which need better sources. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 07:03, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

The defenders won't help modify so I'm doing this the best I can. Of the three paragraphs below, the first is what is on the page today (2016-08-20). The second is very close to what I proposed a month ago then submitted but was rejected today (2016-08-20). These two as reference may have useful sources. The third is what could be, needing citations, and is open for discussion about it's content, it's precise wording, the sources, etc. On the third, suspicion of other countries involvement such as U.S. allies like Saudi Arabia, Israel, or others may go in another paragraph. The quote from the Council On Foreign Relations seems appropriate. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 07:03, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Characteristics > Views > 1st Paragraph > As is:

Many adherents of the 9/11 Truth movement suspect that United States government insiders played a part in the attacks, or may have known the attacks were imminent, and did nothing to alert others or stop them.[1] Some within the movement who argue that insiders within the United States government were directly responsible for the September 11 attacks often allege that the attacks were planned and executed in order to provide the U.S. with a pretext for going to war in the Middle East, and, by extension, as a means of consolidating and extending the power of the Bush Administration.[2][3]

With these citations that STILL seem to need work:

  1. BAD LINK - "Conspiracy theories: The Speculation" . CBC. October 29, 2003. Retrieved 2009-06-02.
  2. good link - Grossman, Lev (September 3, 2006). "Why the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Won't Go Away" . Time.
  3. BAD LINK - Harvey, Adam (September 3, 2006). "9/11 myths busted" . Courier Mail. The Sunday Mail (Qld).

Characteristics > Views > 1st Paragraph > FAILED First Attempt (complete, actually submitted, and slightly different than the draft up this page):

Many adherents of the 9/11 Truth movement suspect that United States government insiders played a part in the attacks, or may have known the attacks were imminent, and did nothing to alert others or stop them.[1] Some within the movement who argue that insiders within the United States government were directly responsible for the September 11 attacks often allege that the attacks were planned and executed in order to shock the public into granting the Bush Administration means of consolidating and extending power[2][3] and providing the U.S. with a pretext for going to wars for profit and plunder[4] in Afghanistan[5], to purse alleged 9-11 terrorist Osama Bin Ladin[6], in Iraq[7] despite no "imminent threat" from Saddam and an unjustified intelligence case[8], and expanded regional turmoil[9][10] rather than Saudi Arabia[11][12][13].
"The disastrous legacy of the Iraq War extends beyond treasure squandered and lives lost or shattered. Central to that legacy has been Washington's decisive and seemingly irrevocable abandonment of any semblance of self-restraint regarding the use of violence as an instrument of statecraft.[14]"

Characteristics > Views > 1st Paragraph > Second Draft (needing citations):

Many adherents of the 9/11 Truth movement suspect that United States government insiders played a part in the attacks, or may have known the attacks were imminent, and did nothing to alert others or stop them.[1][citation needed] Some within the movement who argue that insiders within the United States government were directly responsible for the September 11 attacks often allege that the attacks were planned and executed in order to shock the public into granting the Bush Administration means of consolidating and extending power[2][3][citation needed] and providing the U.S. with a pretext for going to wars for profit and plunder[citation needed] in Afghanistan[citation needed], in Iraq[citation needed] despite no "imminent threat" from Saddam and an unjustified intelligence case[citation needed], and expanded regional turmoil[citation needed]. From a Council On Foreign Relations publication:
"The disastrous legacy of the Iraq War extends beyond treasure squandered and lives lost or shattered. Central to that legacy has been Washington's decisive and seemingly irrevocable abandonment of any semblance of self-restraint regarding the use of violence as an instrument of statecraft.[15]"

References

  1. ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference CBC-Speculation was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference Grossman was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference Harvey was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Weigley, Samuel (2013-03-10). "10 companies profiting the most from war". USA Today. USA Today. Retrieved 2016-08-19.
  5. ^ Walsh, Nick Paton (2016-02-25). "Afghanistan war: Just what was the point?". CNN. CNN. Retrieved 2016-08-19.
  6. ^ Schone, Mark. "9/11 Perpetrators: Where Are They Now?". ABC News. ABC News. Retrieved 2016-08-19.
  7. ^ Castle, Stephen (2016-07-06). "Analysis: Britain's Iraq War Inquiry". New York Times. New York Times. Retrieved 2016-08-19.
  8. ^ Hunt, Peter (2016-07-06). "Chilcot report: Tony Blair's Iraq War case not justified". BBC. BBC. Retrieved 2016-08-19.
  9. ^ Dodge, Toby (2013-03-16). "Decade of regret - Iraq: From War to a New Authoritarianism". The Economist. The Economist. Retrieved 2016-08-19.
  10. ^ Chulov, Martin (2015-10-25). "Tony Blair is right: without the Iraq war there would be no Islamic State". The Guardian. The Guardian. Retrieved 2016-08-19.
  11. ^ Scarborough, Rowan (2016-07-19). "Saudi government funded extremism in U.S. mosques and charities: report". The Washington Times. The Washington Times. Retrieved 2016-08-19.
  12. ^ Cevallos, Danny (2016-08-19). "Suing Saudi Arabia over 9/11?". CNN. CNN. Retrieved 2016-05-26.
  13. ^ Lionel, Lionel (2016-07-19). "Saudi Arabia's Behind 9/11 So Sue Them!". YouTube. Lionel Nation / Lionel Media. Retrieved 2016-08-19.
  14. ^ Bacevich, Andrew J.; Boot, Max; Kirkpatrick, Jeane; Ignatieff, Michael; O'Hanion, Michael; Masters, Jonathan (2011-12-15). "Was the Iraq War Worth It?". Council On Foreign Relations. Council On Foreign Relations. Retrieved 2016-08-19.
  15. ^ Bacevich, Andrew J.; Boot, Max; Kirkpatrick, Jeane; Ignatieff, Michael; O'Hanion, Michael; Masters, Jonathan (2011-12-15). "Was the Iraq War Worth It?". Council On Foreign Relations. Council On Foreign Relations. Retrieved 2016-08-19.

Other "Absent Issues" demanding discussion:

~ JasonCarswell (talk) 02:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

References

How Can "Other Groups" Be Improved?

Because I thought it was low hanging fruit, and obviously a lot of people would like to see these listed I thought if I compacted the list it might not bother Acroterion so much. But he/she reverted it saying "please do not keep spamming links to all sorts of groups without discussion" when he/she has not bothered to discuss it here on this page. If these groups are not valid, we need to know why and/or how so we can or they can legitimize themselves. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 07:03, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Reverted: Other truth groups include: Political leaders for truth, Religious leaders for truth, Commissioned and Non-Commissioned Military Officers for truth, Military, intelligence and government patriots question 9/11, Pilots for truth, Firefighters for truth and unity, Scientists for truth, Lawyers for truth, Medical professionals for truth, and Actors and artists for truth.

Consensus 9/11: The 9/11 Best Evidence Panel

Why was this section removed? JasonCarswell (talk) 12:45, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Imo it was removed giving a (mostly) er phony reason. I'll re-upload a slightly corrected version. Greetings from Vienna: Wda (talk) 22:13, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I, for one, would consider Consensus911's absence from a page on "The 9/11-Truth-movement" a defect and (certainly not the only one, by far (see "POV ???"); probably not the worst one (just one i do have an idea how to fix); but) definitely a shortcoming.
Ad "no evidence of notability" (1) C~911 may well meet WP:GNG / WP:ORG; (2) WP:N says, "Notability guidelines do not apply to content WITHIN an article [MY caps]"
Ad "POV promotion" - actually, most of my upload is cobbled together/summarized from the 3 refs given - please point out what exactly you consider "POV Promotion," and suggest different wording! --Wda (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I've reworded the inappropriately in-Wikipedia's-voice claims that the site aims prove "the precise points which undoubtedly show that the official version is inconsistent, incomplete or misleading." I've also removed the detailed business about the Delphi method, which strikes me as a tangent, particularly the reference to BMJ which describes the methodology in medicine, not as it relates to 9/11. I'm still unconvinced that the group is notable, particularly if the best reference that can be found is Indybay. At least AE911 knows how to get press - isn't there something better that can be cited? Acroterion (talk) 01:41, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
The Delphi method was illustrative of relevant open scholarly processes over complex issues rather than tinfoil hat speculation. The presentation might be improved and it should be reintroduced. A few more lines are not overly verbose.
~ JasonCarswell (talk) 23:55, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Regarding this: [6], I would argue that Wikipedia itself cannot take a position as to whether some study or another study "proves" or does not "prove" something. Wikipedia can say that the authors of the study assert that such and such a thing is "proved" (if the authors in fact say that), or that such and such an authority asserts that the study "proves" such and such a thing. But, I don't think Wikipedia can take sides. Famspear (talk) 00:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Anti Semantic Edits

@User:Famspear How is:

"with the objective to bring together, in an "Official Claims" vs "Best Evidence" format, to show that the official version is inconsistent, incomplete or misleading. The multi-lingual site limits its work entirely to demonstrating that the official account is false."

better than:

"with the objective to bring together, in an "Official Claims" vs "Best Evidence" format proving the official version is inconsistent, incomplete or misleading. The multi-lingual comprehensive resource site limits its work entirely to demonstrating that the official account is false."

How is the "multi-lingual" description better than the "comprehensive resource" description? Is there a description limit? It's not like I said it was fantastic. To show is to demonstrate or prove. Seeing is believing and I believe this is an effort to dilute by a thousand semantic edits. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 01:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Did you read my comment and Famspear's farther up the page? Please try to keep discussion in one place. And what on earth is an "Anti-Sematic Edit"? Acroterion (talk) 01:17, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Dear JasonCarswell: You're asking the wrong question. The question is not "which version of the text is better?". The question we are discussing is: "How should Wikipedia report what the source says while presenting the source material from a Neutral Point of View?".
Using the word "prove" in this context gives the false impression that Wikipedia itself concludes that the authors of the study have established the truth or validity of what the authors say, by evidence or demonstration. Whether the authors have "proved" anything or not, Wikipedia itself cannot properly claim that the authors have "proved" whatever the authors claim they have proved. Wikipedia itself cannot decide who is right or who is wrong, nor can it decide what has been proven or what has not been proven. Famspear (talk) 03:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Here's a possibility:

".....with the objective of showing that the official version is inconsistent, incomplete or misleading. The contributors to the multi-lingual site attempt to demonstrate that the official account is false......"

That verbiage might be better, in that it is less likely to give the impression that Wikipedia itself is rendering a conclusion about whether the source has achieved its objective or proved its case. Famspear (talk) 03:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Backing up further - what reliable, independent sources talk about this particular group? If they exist, what do they? VQuakr (talk) 05:29, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
We were all active on this page simultaneously and I hadn't caught up but I've waited until things calmed down a bit. I apologize for not keeping this within the correct section. I've moved it up. "Anti Semantic Edit" is a pun. I hope you know that. Not just you, I hope everyone gets it.
As Burning Man links to List of regional Burning Man events (not all cited by "mainstream media" yet nonetheless relevant to their "fringe" culture, (my apologies to the Burning Man community for dragging you into this)), it seems a List of 9/11 Truth conferences and a List of 9/11 Truth websites would be good rather than just deleting them.
Firstly, thanks for keeping me on my toes. I'm learning a lot about precision, deflection, diversion, obfuscation, and neutralization. I'm trying to tighten up my act as I learn about the deeper workings, policies and politics of Wikipedia. (I'll try to appropriately re-edit the other #Absent Issues section being "censored" after this.)
You did not answer my question about the comprehensive resource issue. I'd like to learn.
These semantics are important here. I can show a cat. I can prove a cat. I can show a theory. I can prove a theory. They weren't showing a movie, they were proving theories. "Proving to themselves"? "Show" neuters their effort. "with the objective of proving" is far better than "with the objective of showing".
The whole "Consensus 9/11" thing has been removed again. It's important to the 9-11 Truth movement as an event milestone, including the Delphi method, and that's a List of 9/11 Truth conferences is necessary if not here. It can be summarized here and expanded upon there.
Wikipedia can take sides and it does. "needs sourcing outside the conspiracy echo chamber" What about the mainstream echo chamber (media)? Journalistic objectivity is a great ideal that we must strive for but media bias is always present since the medium is the message. (Even essays and documentaries have points of views and agendas.) We know what the difference is between "official" stories which all too often assume and omit "assertions" and this page, why it needs to be "airtight", and whether efforts help or deflect.
Experts of the government-skeptical and counter-mainstream media 9-11 Truth movement are by their very nature outside mainstream media as experts in their own field. A cat is a better expert at knowing what it's like to be a cat than anyone else. Does anyone know, are there other catch-22 examples we can reference, learn from and apply here? "Historical views on expertise" (which does not cite any sources) states "expertise can also be understood as a form of power; that is, experts have the ability to influence others as a result of their defined social status. By a similar token, a fear of experts can arise from fear of an intellectual elite's power." Plato's "Noble Lie", concerns expertise - "In politics, a noble lie is a myth or untruth, often, but not invariably, of a religious nature, knowingly told by an elite to maintain social harmony or to advance an agenda. The noble lie is a concept originated by Plato as described in the Republic."
I hope this is good. I tried to be rational. I hope I didn't miss anything. Please let me know. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 13:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
We write articles based on polices and guidelines such as WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV. Until you can concisely frame your reasoning for a proposed edit in the context of those, you're not going to make much progress here. You may want to review WP:GREATWRONGS as well. VQuakr (talk) 22:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Good to know. My reading list just got longer. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 23:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

This conversation is not over. (Though I seem to be talking to myself.) The whole "Consensus 9/11" thing has been removed without explanation or discussion (which also makes my semantic points moot). No one has adequately answered my questions. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 07:11, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Iron Rich Sphere

Your text for the picture of the "iron rich sphere" leaves a lot more to be explained. Your statement "However, such spheres have been found to form when iron particles are affected by normal fuel fires" is not explained by the source.


1) The particles found at the WTC site were close to 100% iron spheres while those found in fly ash of your source are a combination of iron oxide and amorphous alumino-silicate

as described here: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016236106001906

2) Apparently the iron spheres were formed by being ejected in molten form from the building and were weightless during their free fall to the earth. They cooled enough during this fall to turn back to a solid.

Note lead buckshot was once made this way by being dropped from a high tower, In falling their weightless state caused them to become spheres and to cool during their descent. Lead of course is not used in shotgun shells any more.

3) "Normal fuel fires" is not a good description of the fire in a coal burning electric generating plant where the flames are fanned by huge blowers and the coal is atomized into dust before being burned. see: https://www.duke-energy.com/about-energy/generating-electricity/coal-fired-how.asp

4) Is the magazine skeptical inquirer (your source) a recognized source for Wikipedia? I was under the impression Wikipedia desired per reviewed journals as source material. Please clarify this for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arydberg (talk • contribs) 01:41, 3 September 2016 (UTC) Arydberg (talk) 01:43, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 9/11 Truth movement. 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) 14:49, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Popular Mechanics source enough for claim about professional support?

Hi y'all. I deleted what I felt to be an inappropriate line tonight, and it was immediately restored by another user. Since I'm new, I figured the talk page is the place to discuss whether it should stay or go, rather than just undo the undo.

The line is "Support for the movement is negligible from professionals in relevant fields, such as civil and aerospace engineering.[19]" The source is the infamous Popular Mechanics book with John McCain's foreword.

Firstly, I find the line overly tendentious, being where it is at the last sentence of the introduction, and there being no attempt in it to address other opinions, even though later on in this same article, namely in the "Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth" section, professional support is explicitly acknowledged (though of course that does not provide enough perspective so as to definitely clarify whether such support is "negligible" or not).

Mainly, though, my criticism is that one 10-year-old source—concerning a topic that is only 15 years old—does not justify a sweeping present-tense claim ("IS negligible").

I therefore suggest one of the following four changes: 1) Simply remove the statement. It is not needed in the introduction. 2) The statement should remain the same, but additional and more recent evidence should be supplied that shows that professional support really (still) is so little. 3) The statement should be changed to say that professional opinions differ, offering the Popular Mechanics source as one piece of evidence and, for example, something similar to or from among the sources for the material in the "Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth" section as another. 4) The statement should be changed so as to be a much weaker claim, namely, that, at one point in time, namely in 2006—which predates 2/3 of the time elapsed since 2001—professional support was claimed to be low.

I'm curious to hear arguments for why it should remain as it is now.

Tyler.g.neill (talk) 19:01, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

No professional has published anything in any professional journal that supports any aspect of any of the conspiracy theories. The PM report is more than sufficient. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 05:29, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
I see. Well, on a taboo subject such as this, and in a field where not all professionals necessarily publish, I'm not sure that published work is the only possible metric of such support. For example, not all doctors publish results of clinical studies, but they still may hold a view on a given medical issue. The trouble comes when one tries to make a negative claim about something that is as subtle as "support for a movement"; the suggested proof here is apparently in the form of a lack of proof, given that, besides the outdated example in question (itself being also not a journal but rather a magazine owned by the multinational conglomerate group Hearst), no other demonstration of dissenting professional opinion is being offered, be it an explicit scientific survey of professionals' views or else a published peer-reviewed technical study. Which I think is not responsible writing, which is why I say: just delete the line. On the other hand, I think that being a signatory on the petition of ae911truth (> 2,500 professionals) actually does count as support, and namely support that is more recent than 2006. (Honest question: Has anyone created an equivalent opposing petition that I don't know about yet? If so, it had better have some huge numbers, since swimming with the current as opposed to against it is much less risky and thus much less useful for learning about people's hidden beliefs.) Not that I even think that such a fact should be mentioned at this place in the article, but the point is, it is a controversial statement, and, as-is, an unnecessarily tendentious one too. Further thoughts, those who have weighed in so far, or anyone else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyler.g.neill (talk • contribs) 22:43, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
A proportion of any profession includes people with fringe points of view. AE911 is a fringe group in the A/E community. It's been repudiated by the AIA [7] (there are three pages) and represents less than 1% of licensed architects and engineers, none of them with any specialist knowledge beyond the basic credentials required by their professions. The Architect article specifically mentions Popular Mechanics in case you doubt its continuing relevance. You may also find this from Slate [8] interesting. There are about 105,000 licensed architects and several times that many engineers in the United States. The "movement" is more like a cottage business and hasn't grown or changed in the past decade. This has been discussed before and is covered by WP:FRINGE. Acroterion (talk) 00:34, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 9/11 Truth movement. 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) 17:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Follow-up on "Popular Mechanics source enough...?"

In reference to Talk:9/11_Truth_movement/Archive_5#Popular_Mechanics_source_enough_for_claim_about_professional_support.3F:

Many thanks for the response, Acroterion, and apologies that it took me a few months to get back. I read the sources you suggest and appreciate the perspective. As for the proposed change, I still favor changing the wording to "Active support" rather than just "Support" so as to avoid the appearance that a Wikipedia article is attempting to speak on behalf of a group of people's unmeasured internal beliefs as opposed to representing actually measurable criteria, such as explicit support or the lack thereof. That is, because "support" often has the connotation of private opinion, the word needs qualification here. I understand the need not to give undue emphasis to this fringe movement, which this certainly is, but it must be possible to go too far in that respect, and I think this line currently does so.

Since I'm relatively new to editing, I'm barred from making this edit myself, due to the semi-protected status of the page. Tyler.g.neill (talk) 13:25, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: You need to provide where you want the change to be made in the article. Also, you will be able to edit the article yourself after you make a couple more edits, please see WP:AUTOCONFIRMED. Aurato (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Documentary listing:

The Documentary section has items that typically only list imdb as sources. This is not enough to establish notability. Neutral third party sources should be found. Documentaries that can't have sources found should be removed from the list. This is so that non-notable documentaries are not added, and that items are added to promote the film itself. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 14:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

changes regarding "commonly accepted" and "officially accepted"

Harizotoh9 wanna discuss this? Signewton (talk) 17:27, 2 March 2017 (UTC)signewton

I think it's important that it's clear that the Truth Movement Does dispute the official Account of the 9/11 events. I want to try to stay clear of any edit war, but I also want to make the sure the article stays bi-partisan and we don't let any sort of personal views sneak into our edits and description of the movements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Signewton (talk • contribs) 17:29, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

It's framing used by Conspiracists, and thus a POV. "Official story" vs. Questioning it. This article and others is not simply just accepting the American government has said unquestioningly. There's countless articles that detail when American governments (or any government) have mislead the public. We go with evidence as reported by reliable sources. The difference between those articles and this one is that the evidence does not support conclusions of a Controlled demolition, or any other claims by the 911 Truth movement.

The Talk:9/11_conspiracy_theories page has a FAQ that covers many of these common objections. It should be posted to this page too. Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:53, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Good PointSignewton (talk) 00:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on 9/11 Truth movement. 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) 13:05, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 9/11 Truth movement. 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) 16:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Wiki's censorship is not good for Wiki's neutrality claim

My aim is/was to put more r.e.c.e.n.t. 8/2018 information to "NIST Report reaction" section this page as follows:

August 21, 2018 Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth released their most comprehensive video as "A Critique of the NIST WTC Building Failure Reports and the Progressive Collapse Theory" [1].

But it seems that contributors are not welcomed here. This censorship wiki-style is my Own, True and Verified experience for Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mik-kiss (talk • contribs) 19:31, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Please read wp:notaforum.Slatersteven (talk) 19:33, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Even Wikipedia articles about fringe topics should not present those views from that point of view (WP:FRINGE), but from that of reliable sources that discuss it. "The most comprehensive" is promotional (not WP:NPOV). This is also not an article for every news about campaigns (WP:NOTNEWS). If secondary sources discuss it, then it would be interesting to add it and we would have something to write about. —PaleoNeonate – 03:08, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.ae911truth.org/project-due-diligence (referenced August 28,2018)

Incorrect use of the term 'conspiracy theorists'

Concerning my changing “Adherents of the 9/11 Truth movement are conspiracy theorists who dispute the mainstream account of the September 11 attacks of 2001” to “Adherents of the 9/11 Truth movement are people who dispute the mainstream account of the September 11 attacks of 2001”.

My change was undone twice within 24 hours. I made this change because the definition of “conspiracy theory” (Wikipedia: A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy—generally one involving an illegal or harmful act supposedly carried out by government or other powerful actors—without credible evidence)” only applies to theories which are “without credible evidence”.

Conspiracy theory promotion unrelated to discussion of article improvement
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Let’s take a look at the two main theories here in question, and which has the more favourable balance of “credible evidence”.

  1. The 3 WTC towers were all brought down by controlled demolition, and whatever the Pentagon was hit by, it was not a jet airliner.
  2. All three WTC towers were brought down by office fires resulting from two of them being hit by two hijacked jet airliners.

Supporting evidence for theory 1

  1. Contrary to normal procedures, the WTC debris was cleared away and destroyed before it could be analysed.
  2. No major steel frames building had ever entirely collapsed due to fire prior to 9/11.
  3. The sounds of many explosions were recorded before the WTC buildings collapsed, as well as while they were collapsing, and there were 100s of independent witness reports of explosions taking place - while NIST is on record saying that it did not even test for the obvious possibility that explosives may have been used.
  4. The US had plans for the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq (not to mention Libya and Syria) years before 9/11 and a US politician is on record stating that the US government “needs a new Perl Harbour”.
  5. Extensive yet unaccounted for works took place in WTC buildings 1 and 2, for days on end, in the weeks immediately preceding 9/11.
  6. Large streams of molten steel were filmed pouring from the twin towers before they collapsed.
  7. Film of WTC 1 and 2 collapsing shows clearly that they did not simply collapse at all, but instead each floor exploded, throwing huge beams considerable distances in all directions.
  8. WTC 7 fell, just after a loud explosion was heard and a policeman was recorded telling people to stand back because it was about to be “taken down”, into its own footprint and in near free-fall, which are all signatures of controlled demolition.
  9. The hold in the Pentagon wall was not big enough to admit a jet airliner.
  10. No traces of its aircraft engines were found in or around the Pentagon.
  11. The only jet engine remains found in the street near the WTC did not belong to the type of jet that allegedly hit the buildings.
  12. The chance that any hijacked jet airliner could make it to the centre of New York, or to the Pentagon, without being intercepted by fighter planes or missiles, is vanishingly small.
  13. Several of the Saudi hijackers who were alleged to have been in the planes which crashed into WTC 1 and 2 have been seen alive since.

Supporting evidence for theory 2

  1. The US government says theory 2, put forward only by the US government, is the only correct theory.
  2. NIST, the US government appointed investigating authority, agrees.
  3. The passport from one of the supposed hijackers was found undamaged in the street.

In summary, to claim that there is “no credible evidence” for theory 1 is absurd, while to claim that theory 2 has any credible supporting evidence whatsoever, is a very bad joke.

Secondly, concerning my changing “Support for the movement is negligible from professionals in relevant fields, such as civil and aerospace engineering.” to “Apart from groups like The Lawyers Petition for 9/11 Grand Jury, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Pilots for 9/11 Truth and Firefighters for 9/11 Truth and Unity, support for the movement is negligible from professionals in relevant fields”.

It is incorrect to say that any of the four above mentioned organisations are either negligible or irrelevant. The only valid criticism which could be said of my change here is that my list of four relevant organisations is by no means complete.

Andrewcameronmorris (talk) 15:13, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Talkpages are for discussion of article improvement, not for posting or promoting the conspiracy theory. Reliable sources describe adherents of these conspiracy theories as conspiracy theorists, which is a subset of "people." Wikipedia goes by reliable mainstream sources and calls fringe theories what they are according to those sources. Please read WP:FRINGE. Acroterion (talk) 15:22, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
It IS correct to say the support for these theories is negligible within the relevant fields. Of the groups listed, only one has any structural engineers.....and their number within that group is (according to Richard Gage's on-line petition, at least the last time I looked at it) a grand total of about 30 or so. That's a tiny minority in the structural engineering community. Gage himself is a architect, not a engineer.Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:08, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Comment moved from article to talk page

When you type in "truther" or "truth movement" in wiki it gives you "9/11 Truth movement". In my interactions with a few truthers those terms should be used more broadly to reflect the many conspiracy theories and beliefs the movement and people who believe in it have, and possibly make "9/11 Truth movement" a subsection but by no means the main subject associated with truthers and truth movement. Seems to me what is also missing are more specifics for each claim made by truthers, in order for everyone to pursue fact-based analysis and decide for themselves. Truthers often use pieces of information and connect them in ways that to me seem questionable, yet there is no method in wiki I know of that captures and articulates the details necessary to prove or debunk claims so that truth can be made known and false claims can be dispelled. Posted by Worldwide2 at 11:40, July 12, 2012

Bias

"Support for the movement is negligible from professionals in relevant fields, such as civil and aerospace engineering."

This statement is completely false. It shows how biased this 'article" is. AE for 9/11 truth is not negligible, it is more reliable than NIST on this matter.

Please stop spreading misinformation.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Clip on username (talk • contribs) 17:06, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Richard Gage's group is indeed negligible as far as the structural engineering profession goes. He has (approximately) 30 structural engineers that have signed his petition. In a profession of tens of thousands, that's about as negligible as it gets.Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:29, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
There are about 450,000 licensed engineers and about 105,000 licensed architects in the United States. Compared to that, a claim of 3000 licensed AE911 adherents represents the edge of a fringe. See WP:FRINGE. Acroterion (talk) 22:23, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
And really it is important to point out that a lot of the people that sign that petition are not engineers at all. And many more are in irrelevant disciplines (like electrical and so on).Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Article name

Why POV "truthers", not "deniers"? I know, RS... But what about e.g. hypothetical self-declared "Armenian Genocide truthers" who may claim the tragedy to have been an "inside Armenian+Russian job"? Would we still call them by that name? Zezen (talk) 12:36, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I am not as sure as you are that "truthers" is not ion fact mocking. But you are right, it should not be truth moment.Slatersteven (talk) 12:45, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I would go for "9/11 denialism", as per AIDS denialism then. Zezen (talk) 12:48, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

It's an interesting proposition, there'd be WP:COMMONNAME to consider (what is the name used by most sources?) and also, "9/11 truthers" don't deny that the attack occurred (versus for instance holocaust denialism, another example), but they reject mainstream explanations in favor of conspiracy theories. —PaleoNeonate – 21:38, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Adding: this just made me think of "9/11 conspiracy theories" as another option, but it's already another article. —PaleoNeonate – 21:39, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

RT involvement

It seems to me there should be some mention of this or similar topics: RUSSIAN TV CHANNEL PUSHES 'PATRIOT' CONSPIRACY THEORIES.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:34, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

"conspiracy theorists" vs "people"

An IP is insisting on changing the long-standing first line of the lead from "Adherents of the 9/11 Truth movement are conspiracy theorists who... " to "Adherents of the 9/11 Truth movement are people who..." See [9] for example.

I don't see a problem with the original version. Event the short description of this article uses "conspiracy theorists" Meters (talk) 04:15, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

USE OF 'CONSPIRACY THEORIST'

Apologies for posting to the wrong page. I'm learning the ropes.

The problem with 'conspiracy theorist', it that it is neither objective nor neutral.

The official story of September 11 (see Wikipedia 'September 11 attacks') is, by Wikipedia’s own definition and most dictionaries, no less a conspiracy theory than competing theories which have been investigated.

'Conspiracy theory' is unfortunately frequently used as rhetoric in an attempt to dismiss information without evaluating it.

Each hypothesis should be evaluated/discussed based on the available evidence. A theory should not be simply dismissed as 'conspiracy theory' because it is does not fit with pre-existing views. You may argue that dismissal is not inherent in the expression, but that is frequently the intent or implication. The expression is simply too loaded to be used in an encyclopedia.

185.198.242.49 (talk) 04:26, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Important Update

I strongly urge all contributors, editors and administrators to view the recent video of New York fire commissioner Christopher Goia before supporting further generalisations about ‘conspiracy theorists’ or the 9/11 truth movement. Link below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLW0_wCYyqY

Dr Realidad (talk) 04:02, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Why we are dubious, he is not a fire commissioner of New York he is a "a commissioner of the Franklin Square and Munson Fire District", a volunteer fire department. Here by the way is the response from the actual fire department [[10]]. As to what a fire commissioner is [[11]].Slatersteven (talk) 08:24, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

3000+ Architects and Engineers are not "negligible"

Regarding the sentence in the 2nd paragraph, alleging there is "negligible" support for a new investigation of 9/11 among architects and civil engineers: "Negligible" is a subjective opinion unsuitable for Wikipedia. 3000+ architects and engineers is not negligible. David Dunbar & Brad Reagan, the cited authors of the antiquated 2006 (a lot has changed in 13 years) article are not architects nor structural engineers, and unqualified to opine on what architects and structural engineers think. AE911Truth.org consists of over 3000 architects and structural engineers think, and are qualified to opine on this matter. 67.55.221.9 (talk) 20:22, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

The point is that is very little support. 3000 is a tiny number compared to the total number of engineers and architects. I don't know if the cited source actually used the term "negligible". If not I'm fine with changing it to anything reasonable that editors can reach consensus on. Is there a different term you would accept? "Very little"? "Few"? "Tiny amount"? "Inconsequential"?
It is not appropriate to simply remove a long-standing section of the lead because you dislike one word. And why did you also remove the references from the preceding sentence [12]? Meters (talk) 21:14, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Of the 3000 signees of Richard Gage's petition, only about 30 of them (the last time I looked) are structural engineers. That's about as negligible as it gets. Many more are in irrelevant fields (such as electrical) and some are not engineers at all. So yes, negligible. And it's also questionable if any of his signees (what few there are) really are who they say they are. Their verification methods are not exactly a full background check.Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:20, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Physicists are not "negligible" either:
Since 2014, not a single Ph.D. in Physics has been willing to defend the official story in the Annual 9/11 Physics Debate, even for an honorarium. 911Debate.org 73.39.34.233 (talk) 20:31, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

That probably speaks more to their opinions of the debate and the conspiracy theories than anything else. The lack of anyone interested in participating in such a "debate" on the side of mainstream science is not evidence of anything useful. I wouldn't waste my time debating at a 9-11 conspiracy theorists' meeting either, any more than I would at a Flat Earth convention. Meters (talk) 21:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Probably. I am a structural engineer myself....and when I have brought this up to my colleagues....they've basically fell out laughing. :)Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:29, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
There are more than a million licensed engineers and architects in the United States. 3000 is negligible, especially when that total represents everybody who's signed up over 18 years, regardless of specific relevant qualifications beyond a basic minimum, regardless of whether they actually know what they're talking about, and regardless of whether they understood the nature of the organization or its assertions. Having a lawyer doesn't automatically mean you'll be acquitted, nor does an MD mean that you'll get the right diagnosis. Architects, engineers and physicists are no different. Acroterion (talk) 01:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia not a mere forum, there is no reason to blanket label anyone who doubts the 9/11 official story as a "conspiracy theorist"

"Adherents of the 9/11 Truth movement are conspiracy theorists", should read "Adherents of the 9/11 Truth movement are those". There is no evidence that every single person who expresses doubt about various aspects of the event is at all related to the people described in the article 'conspiracy theorists', so labelling everyone who does is prejudicing them Archlinux (talk) 08:44, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@Archlinux: The bit about this being a forum is a non sequitur. Wikipedia not being a forum means that it's not a chat room. It doesn't mean that we can't point out conspiracy theorists as such. In fact, our policy on neutral editing says we don't create artificial false balance between mainstream thought and fringe subjects. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:14, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
@Ian.thomson: It is blatantly wrong to claim that every person who doubts any aspect of the event is a conspiracy theorist. This is the same concept of racism, you simply cannot claim that everyone who shares one trait share others.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Archlinux (talk • contribs)
True, which is why we do it when RS do. So is there anyone we call a conspiracy theorist without a source?Slatersteven (talk) 09:56, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
The people who doubt that the WTC collapsed due to being hit by two terrorist-hijacked airplanes have no explanations to offer that aren't ultimately conspiracy theories, even if some of them explicitly avoid saying who is responsible in favor of merely providing a sort of non-sectarian support for more overt conspiracy theorists. To compare calling someone who chooses to believe in a conspiracy theory a conspiracy theorist with being systemically victimized because of birth and ancestry factors beyond one's control is (at best) ignorant. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:10, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Ian WTC 7 was not hit by a plane. NIST concluded it fell due to office fires. Such an incredible conclusion requires incredible proof. Their model has remained classified to this day. If anyone so much as asks to see the model, they risk attracting this repugnant label. It is a smear tactic, nothing more. Archlinux (talk) 15:10, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
There is nothing "incredible" about a fire causing a collapse (contrary to the claims if the Truthers). The fact is: we have RS calling them conspiracy theorists....so that is what we run with.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:17, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Rja13ww33 NIST declined to make the model public on the grounds that such knowledge could be weaponized, this indicates that the mechanism of collapse was incredible enough to warrant remaining classified. If there was nothing incredible about the collapse there would be no reason to classify it. Furthermore, trust in a federal entity, while admirable, is not science. Science relies on public data and peer review. This whole topic would be moot if NIST submitted their findings to a reputable journal for peer review. Archlinux (talk) 05:00, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
They've released enough to show what happened. The trigger was that W33 girder getting forced off it's seat by thermal expansion (IIRC). Because they don't release every detail....that doesn't mean a whole lot. It's impossible to prove exactly what happened anyway.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:00, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
The NIST WTC 7 Report provides no analysis, calculations, or figures explaining how Girder A2001 moved westward past the Column 79 side plate enough for it to walk off of its support at Column 79. The UAF study found that in addition to the Girder being stopped by the side plate, maximum thermal expansion would not have been enough should the side plate have been missing "As shown in the Exhibit D spreadsheet calculating the thermal expansion of beam K3004 at different temperatures, the maximum net thermal expansion of beam K3004 is 5.728 inches, which occurs at 654 °C. It is at this temperature that the marginal increase in shortening due to heat-induced sagging begins to exceed the marginal increase in heat-induced expansion. Beam K3004 thus becomes progressively shorter as it is heated to higher temperatures. Therefore, it was physically impossible for beam K3004 to push Girder A2001 westward at least 6.25 inches, because the furthest beam K3004 could expand was 5.728 inches."[1] The linked reference is the Request for Correction which NIST is currently reviewing. Archlinux (talk) 04:09, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
I've heard this Truther claim a lot over the years.....but never bought it. The first problem arises in claiming there was "shortening due to heat-induced sagging" is [highly] questionable and not backed by any RS I've ever seen. By the way, this linked paper is (IMHO) filled with questionable statements and errors. To start with: the impact calculation is nonsense. They claim the stiffness at the point of impact was 552 lbs/in! It could not have even been built with that stiffness! It would have had deflection issues right off the bat. So that is who we are dealing with here.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://files.wtc7report.org/file/public-download/RFC-to-NIST-WTC7-Report-04-15-20.pdf

"negligible"

I'd appreciate the use of the talk page if my edit is going to be reverted without a meaningful edit summary. Can the lede's claim that "Support for the movement is negligible from professionals in relevant fields, such as civil and aerospace engineering" be supported with a direct quotation from the book (rather than an 11-page range and a vague "et passim")? Or, even better, supported with a source published in the last decade and preferably written after the founding of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth? Can it, at bare minimum, be expanded upon and added to an appropriate part of the article body so that the lede summarizes the article? And to boot, if support for alternative theories among scientists and engineers is "negligible," then certainly the article I just linked fails notability criteria too, and should be proposed for deletion? Evan (talk|contribs) 09:53, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@Evanh2008: Do you have any professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that demonstrate that the A&E truthers are taken seriously or regarded as significant within the engineering community? I don't mean their own proclamations, either.
Also, you don't seem to understand what notability is. There's multiple RSs independent of the A&E truthers reporting on them, which is why they're considered notable. It has nothing to do with the number of members. Speaking of numbers, in 2017 there were an estimated 2,516,780 architects and engineers in the US. A&E truthers claim to have 3,244 professionals. So, that's about a tenth of a percent or one in a thousand. And that's if we naively assume that all the people who signed the A&E petition are indeed American professionals. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
You need to read the archives, this is not a new discussion. For the sake of convenience I'll quote from a response I made in 2016:
A proportion of any profession includes people with fringe points of view. AE911 is a fringe group in the A/E community. It's been repudiated by the AIA [13] (there are three pages) and represents less than 1% of licensed architects and engineers, none of them with any specialist knowledge beyond the basic credentials required by their professions. The Architect article specifically mentions Popular Mechanics in case you doubt its continuing relevance. You may also find this from Slate [14] interesting. There are about 105,000 licensed architects and several many times as many engineers in the United States. The "movement" is more like a cottage business and hasn't grown or changed in the past decade. This has been discussed before and is covered by WP:FRINGE.
AE911 has been recycling the same "3000 licensed profesionals" number since they first appeared, and we don't know after more than a decade how many are still convinced that a cabal orchestrated a controlled demolition with four airplane hijackings, how many are embarrassed that they signed up when they just wanted to know a little more about the circumstances, or whether anybody in the past decade has joined, or whether they've moved on to QAnon. There is no activity independent of AE911 in engineering and architectural professions. This is not a thing in these professional communities. Acroterion (talk) 12:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. As a structural engineer myself, I can tell you this is so far out there it hardly ever comes up. It came up on Eng-Tips.com once and pretty much everyone laughed at this theory. As far as AE911's 3000 "professionals" go....I'll remind everyone (once again) that only 30 or so out of this group are structural engineers (at least the last time I looked). Many people who signed that petition are in irrelevant disciplines. (Some aren't engineers at all.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:46, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Nothing to add to the remarks above, and the extensive discussions in the archives. Reliable sources say AE911 represents a fringe view. This has been talked through at length; nothing's changed. Tom Harrison Talk 10:48, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
I didn't dispute that these are fringe views—they clearly are. I question whether "negligible" and "fringe" are even remotely similar in meaning in this case and whether "negligible" is an accurate term. The OED defines "negligible" as "able to be neglected or disregarded; unworthy of notice or regard; ... so small or insignificant as not to be worth considering"—but the article does "notice," "regard," and "consider" those with these views. There is an entire subsection about the professionals with the views that the lede describes as "negligible." That's a contradiction on its face and it has nothing to do with notability guidelines. If the article means that architects and structural engineers largely discount the claims of groups like AE911, then we should say that. That's both a more forceful (and specific) claim and a more easily provable one.
In any event, however it is worded, the "negligible" sentence needs to come out of the lede and into the body as it does not currently summarize anything stated in the body (and at first glance appears to contradict it). Evan (talk|contribs) 19:23, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
What does the provided source say? Your analysis based on a dictionary is irrelevant. Regarding summary yes probably a "level of acceptance" section is warranted in the article. In this case adding content to the body makes more sense than trimming the info from the lede in my opinion. VQuakr (talk) 19:30, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
First, please read policy before you link it at me. Citing a dictionary is by definition not original research:

The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. (emphasis mine)

The basic meaning of words is vital to Wikipedia's ability to fulfill it's mission of... being an encyclopedia. There are accepted definitions of words that must be observed if the project is to be of any use to anyone.
To answer your question, the word "negligible" does not appear in any e-text I can find of Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts. The et passim citation isn't helpful, but I'll read the cited range from the preface again and propose a new wording. Evan (talk|contribs) 19:44, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Mmkay, good luck getting consensus using your synthesis from a dictionary as the basis. VQuakr (talk) 20:18, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
By your definition, every dispute over wording that refers to a language that exists outside of Wikipedia (that is, all of them) would be synthesis. That's not a useful or actionable definition, and it's totally unsupported by policy. Evan (talk|contribs) 20:56, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
No your argument, that we can't use the term "negligible" to describe the amount of support for any fringe theory covered by Wikipedia due to said coverage within Wikipedia, is novel. I find the argument silly and disagree, but am happy to yield to the consensus if I end up being the only editor with that reaction. VQuakr (talk) 21:29, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
You argument (essentially) amounts to semantics. What other word(s) could we use? "Tiny minority" perhaps? The fact is, after nearly 20 years, virtually all the voiced support for these views amounts to a minuscule number within the relevant profession. Not sure how else to put it.Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:25, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

"mainstream accounts"

Hey! Do we have any alternate wordings we could use for "mainstream account"? While technically correct in the broadest sense, this term seemingly gives credibility to there being a legitimate secondary account of 9/11. The idea of "mainstream" in the domain of conspiracy theories is always critical, which is a bit of a NPOV violation. How do we feel about "general consensus" or something: Adherents of the 9/11 Truth movement are conspiracy theorists who dispute the general consensus of the September 11 attacks of 2001. This would also match similar terminology used at Climate change denial. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 10:42, 26 August 2020 (UTC) Slatersteven

I see no issue with the wording.Slatersteven (talk) 10:43, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
With changing it to "general consensus" or with "mainstream account"? ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 10:43, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
With how we word it now.Slatersteven (talk) 10:46, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Do you have any issues with using "general consensus"? At the very least, it creates terminology consistency with Climate change denial. If you don't have any major qualms, I think it's better to be overly safe and consistent than risk using weasel words that inappropriately support a fringe conspiracy theory. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 10:49, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Not fussed either way.Slatersteven (talk) 10:51, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Changed! :) ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 10:56, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Addition of WTC 7 Study by The University of Alaska Fairbanks

Dr J. Leroy Hulsey and colleagues conducted a study concerning the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7.

"The principal conclusion of our study is that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST and private engineering firms that studied the collapse. The secondary conclusion of our study is that the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building."

http://ine.uaf.edu/wtc7

I think this study deserves a mention in the article since it directly contradicts NIST's findings. Archlinux (talk) 08:51, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@Archlinux: A source backed by a conspiracy theorist group falls under our standards for fringe sources, not our standards for reliable sourcing. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:16, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
@Ian.thomson: Who else would fund such a study except those who are in doubt about NIST's model? Furthermore, how can a study ever be done on WTC 7 that would fit wikipedias standards since it would be funded by people questioning the NIST conclusion and hence be considered unreliable.
The NIST model was never released publicly nor peer reviewed so what model can we use to verify the collapse for ourselves? As Carl Sagan said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, yet where is the proof? The scientific method relies on data being published not kept closed source.
I disagree with your statement that this is a conspiracy, it is entirely possible that NIST made a mistake on their computer model of WTC 7, the fact that they have refused to make their models public means it is impossible to verify. This by definition is not sound science.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Archlinux (talk • contribs)
Well one way would be for it to be published in a Peer reviewed journal, that is how real science tend to operate.Slatersteven (talk) 09:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
If the NIST was wrong and the building did not collapse due simply to being hit by two terrorist-hijacked airplanes, then how did it collapse? Controlled explosions? Faulty construction (including wiring and gas pipes) that coincidentally started collapsing just before the planes hit? What? And what would this entail? That the government, or some insurance company, or bankers, or whoever besides Al-Qaeda sought to benefit from the towers' destruction.
Just saying "we don't believe in conspiracy theories, we just can't be sure the NIST was wrong" is like Intelligent Design advocates claiming that they're not trying to push Young earth creationism in schools, they just want an alternative to evolution to be taught. What's that alternative really? Or it's like alt-right saying they're not white supremacists, they just worry about the effects miscegenation and immigration will have on white cultures and want white people to have their own nation. Topping off a cup of bullshit with some water doesn't water it down enough to make something besides a cup of bullshit. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:19, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Ian.thomson WTC 7 was not hit by an airliner yet collapsed at free fall. A FOIA request was made to NIST to release their model of the collapse which was denied on the grounds that it may "jeopardize public safety". Given that the scientific method is to verify, not trust, a public study into the collapse with open source modelling and data is entirely justified. Archlinux (talk) 14:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
@Archlinux: WTC7 was hit by WTC Tower One, and did not collapse at free fall. Adding one more person to advocate this nonsense regardless of their title won't make it any more true. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 20:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
We can sit here and debate failure mechanisms 'till the cows come home and it's not going to change anything: you need to get a RS or a RS treatment of this if you want to include it.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:32, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
From Wikipedia "Source material must have been published, the definition of which for our purposes is "made available to the public in some form".[7] Unpublished materials are not considered reliable. Use sources that directly support the material presented in an article and are appropriate to the claims made. The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. The best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source." The NIST WTC 7 report does not fit this criteria since the data is closed source, was never published in a journal nor peer reviewed. Archlinux (talk) 04:12, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
We cannot conceal the results of a official government investigation (with or without "peer review"). That's hiding the ball.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
This was not peer reviewed and it was commissioned by truthers. It is not a reliable source. We could mention it if there are reliable sources that discuss the report. VQuakr (talk) 15:19, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
It is in the peer review process right now. Archlinux (talk) 15:24, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Who by?Slatersteven (talk) 17:22, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Lets see a reputable journal (like ASCE's Structural or Engineering Mechanics) take it on and then we'll talk.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:20, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I think we can expose the fact that the truthers have been trying to make it seem like it is peer reviewed. Sadly, I've seen far too many mainstream news reports on this making it seem like it's legitimate, while minimizing or even dismissing the hidden hand of A&E911Truth. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 20:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Official narrative vs. general consensus

Soapboxing unrelated to article improvement
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I've already thanked Slatersteven for reverting to "general consensus" in preference to the intolerably absurd "general and proven consensus" at the beginning of the article (I had changed to "official narrative"); but I repeat my thanks to him again here, where I'm appearing mainly due to his edit-summary invitation, "OK let[']s take it to talk, if you think it[']s 'offical' rather than true." I don't believe my thinking something's being official rather than true is necessarily sufficient reason to begin a discussion on a talk page, and I suggest why not below. I do think the standard 9/11 story is official rather than true, and I will say so having been prompted; but I don't care to argue about it.

Generally, I got tired of talking about 9/11 long ago. My feeling was that I was always dealing either with paid agents or fools, and there was no sense in trying to deal with either since you never got anywhere whether the other person was incorrigibly lying or irremediably deluded.

Specifically, in relation to Wikipedia, I've grown wary of talk-page invitations, which have grown to look like simple pretexts for keeping an article in the state desired while the current dissident is sidelined. What one usually runs into in the cases concerned, at least in my recent experience, is two things.

The first is the stated requirement for consensus, which you're supposed to get before making any substantive change to an article. I think consensus is totally and absolutely fine and in principle I'm all for it, but in Wikipedia practice there always seems to be a dominating talk-page clique (whose members are always backed up by at least one administrator wielding a big stick) that's going to keep insisting on whatever the untruth is no matter what; so you're basically just wasting your time if you try to go up against it. If finance is possibly involved (and we all know that some editors are paid, and that not all of those who are necessarily disclose this), whatever monied interest who desires a certain narrative to dominate can simply engage as many trolls as necessary to keep things going the way it wants. If that's the way things stand (I'm not saying it necessarily is), then you're never going to beat this and you might as well give up at the outset. Such dismay may explain why dissenters never seem to get any support: their supporters have already left. Or, a supporter's message of support is deleted; or, they get a series of "Our servers are currently under maintenance" alerts (I got another one just now), their post simply doesn't go through, and they've lost it if they didn't copy it to their clipboard before trying to send it (I now copy habitually).

The second relates to the reliable sources (RS), likewise nameable purportedly reliable sources (PRS). There is no argument, however logical or true, that can't be trumped by a flat reassertion of the PRS, as if these sources were always infallible and all others always rated derision and being ignored. Any source not conforming to the PRS is automatically unreliable by definition. "Pooh pooh, that is trash, we only take CNN here."

All of this is tiresome. One feels that the persons or agencies promoting the dubious narrative think they can fool people (and consider themselves clever and superior by so doing). Lamentably, they can. But nobody is paying me to take part in this operation, and it isn't that my kid won't be able to go to Exeter or whatever if I don't say the right thing. Nor am I convinced that anything goes to get old Joe and Kamala in there, or whatever – i.e., I don't have a political ideology inducing me to misrepresent the truth if it serves my interest. I do care how many people are taken in by propaganda and how many aren't, but I doubt that I'm able to influence this much and I don't really care to try. So you can pretty much have this article any way you want it, guys. I only flare up when it gets really ridiculous, such as with the official narrative's having become a "proven consensus" here. It isn't a consensus at all (do PRS actually assert this?), and 9/11 truth isn't fringe. But I'll try not to waste my time arguing that on a talk page. –Roy McCoy (talk) 18:10, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I stopped at "paid agents and fools", any argument based upon that premise is flawed.Slatersteven (talk) 18:16, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Slatersteven: So you invite me to a talk page, but only read what I say if you agree with it. Fine, that's your prerogative, and as I said I really don't care to argue on this. Nor do I regret having taken the time to compose a comment even if you don't read it. One wonders, however, about your dismissal of my purported premise. Are you saying there aren't paid agents and fools professing belief in the official story? –Roy McCoy (talk) 18:41, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

General consensus > mainstream account

I thanked Slatersteven for reverting to "general consensus" rather than to "general and proven consensus", but I had doubts about "general consensus" itself. I was unaware of such a consensus and doubted that it existed. Having been made aware that arguments are to be made in accordance with approved sources, I knew that I couldn't simply express my aversion to the doubted expression, nor could I change it without consensus. Looking at the lead paragraph, I noticed the eight references lined up at its end and was interested enough to consult them. Unsurprisingly to me, none of them contained the word "consensus" even once, meaning that the use of neither "consensus" nor "general consensus" was supported by the sources. I was, however, met with an unexpected surprise. I had found that none of the sources mentioned a consensus, but this didn't seem particularly strong or meaningful and I decided not to post on it. Since I had the tabs open in a browser window, however, I decided to read the articles to see what they had to say. The surprise was that they all indicated that there wasn't a general consensus.

1. New York Times

It would even seem the Truthers are not alone in believing the whole truth has not come out. A poll released last month by Zogby International found that 42 percent of all Americans believe the 9/11 Commission "concealed or refused to investigate critical evidence" in the attacks. This is in addition to the Zogby poll two years ago that found that 49 percent of New York City residents agreed with the idea that some leaders "knew in advance" that the attacks were planned and failed to act.

2. BBC

Opinion polls in the US have picked up widespread doubts among the American people. A New York Times/CBS News poll in 2006 found that 53% of those questioned thought the Bush administration was hiding something. Another US poll found a third of those questioned thought government officials either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or allowed them to happen.

(This article speaks of "official bodies", the "official explanation", and, in a comment, of the "official story". This suggests that the phrase I proposed, "official narrative", is more supported by the sources than "general consensus", but as I clarify below I am not arguing for that.)

3. Financial Times

Last winter, “Investigate 9/11” banners seemed to be popping up all over the place. Bill Clinton was heckled by “truthers” in Denver while campaigning for his wife. Truthers picketed the Academy Awards in LA – despite this year’s winner of the best actress Oscar, Marion Cotillard, reportedly being one of them. But then, she’s French. Literature lovers in that country pushed Thierry Meyssan’s L’Effroyable imposture (The Appalling Fraud) – which asserts that 9/11 was a government plot to justify invading Iraq and Afghanistan and increase military spending – to the top of the bestseller list in 2002. Country music star Willie Nelson is assuredly not French, but a week or so before the Oscars he described as naive the notion that the “implosion” of the Twin Towers was caused by crashing jets. Meanwhile the European Parliament screened the Italian documentary Zero, in which Gore Vidal, Italian playwright Dario Fo, and Italian MEP Giulietto Chiesa blame the US government, not al-Qaeda, for 9/11. The following month, Japanese MP Yukihisa Fujita raised his own doubts about the official story at a seminar in Sydney. A busy season for the “9/11 Truth” movement. [...] There is some evidence that the truthers are swaying the rest of us. A New York Times/CBS News poll in 2006 revealed that only 16 per cent of Americans polled believed the Bush administration was telling the truth about 9/11. More than half thought it was “hiding something”. This is not the same as believing the government actually launched the attacks, but a Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll the same year found that more than a third of those questioned suspected that federal officials assisted in the attacks or took no action to stop them so that the US could go to war.

4. Washington Post

There are few more startling measures of American distrust of leaders than the widespread belief that the Bush administration had a hand in the attacks of Sept. 11 in order to spark an invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. A recent Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll of 1,010 Americans found that 36 percent suspect the U.S. government promoted the attacks or intentionally sat on its hands.

5. Los Angeles Times

Polls show that many Americans distrust the government on the subject of Sept. 11. A Zogby International poll taken in May found that 42% believed the government concealed evidence that contradicts official accounts. A Scripps Howard-Ohio University poll taken in August found that 36% believed it “very likely” or “somewhat likely” that federal officials allowed the attacks to occur because “they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East.”

6. Daily Telegraph

Thanks to the power of the web and live broadcasts on television, the conspiracy theories surrounding the events of 9/11 - when terrorists attacked the World Trade Centre in New York and the Pentagon in Washington - have surpassed those of Roswell and JFK in traction. Despite repeated claims by al-Qaeda that it planned, organised and orchestrated the attacks, several official and unofficial investigations into the collapse of the Twin Towers which concluded that structural failure was responsible and footage of the events themselves, the conspiracy theories continue to grow in strength. A large group of people – collectively called the 9/11 Truth Movement – cite evidence that an airliner did not hit the Pentagon and that the World Trade Centre could not have been brought down by airliner impacts and burning aviation fuel alone.

7. Financial Post

As radical as Gage's theory may sound to readers, it's surprisingly popular. The "9/11 Truth Movement," as it is now commonly called, has millions of adherents across the world. Many believe that the World Trade Center was destroyed on Sept. 11 through controlled demolition set in motion by officials within America's own government and military. In a 2006 Scripps Howard poll of 1,010 U.S. citizens, 36% of respondents said it was "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that the U.S. government was in on the 9/11 plot. According to another poll conducted in Canada, 39% of respondents said they either disagree, or are unsure, that Al Qaeda was responsible for 9/11. Even architects and engineers who've never heard of Richard Gage will concede they aren't quite sure why WTC7, a fairly typical tube-frame structure located about a football field away from WTC1, would be struck down by localized fires and random debris.

8. Montreal Gazette

[A presentation] will demonstrate "the real reasons why the 9/11 truth movement continues to grow worldwide".

The word "official" recurs at several other points in these articles than those mentioned in relation to the BBC article, and I would still go for "official narrative". I noticed when looking at the article history, however, that "mainstream account" was the expression used for the longest time, changed by ItsPugle only in August of last year and then without actual consensus. The only person who replied to his proposal was Slatersteven, who saw no issue with the then-current wording and did not actually approve the change. ("Not fussed either way.") "Official", though supported by the sources, suggests that the story/narrative is only official, while "mainstream" includes the mainstream public and not just the mainstream media. It thus seems more neutral, between "official narrative" on the one hand and "general consensus" (?) on the other – so I propose returning to "mainstream account". "General consensus" in any event needs to be changed, as it is not only not supported by the sources but is contradicted by them. –Roy McCoy (talk) 04:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

You may be right, and it needs to be "expert consensus".Slatersteven (talk) 11:31, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. Terms such as "Official" and "mainstream" are terms 9/11 conspiracy theorists use. We are an encyclopedia. We do not say that "official account", "official narrative" or "expert concensus" that the world is round. We simply say, "The world is round". We can and should plainly state facts as facts. There is no need to qualify facts to placate proponents of ridiculous conspiracy theories. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:37, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
That said, I think it's fine to use "official" or "mainstream" when quoting someone and maybe if referring to the 9/11 Commission Report which is an official report. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:08, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
"Expert consensus" would make sense to me. On the Climate Change Denial page, we use that kind of language. It avoids having to deal with the nonsense the average person believes.Rja13ww33 (talk) 13:50, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Other stuff exists. Climate Change Denial has gained neither WP:FA or even WP:GA status. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:38, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
In the Flat Earth article (which is a GA) the language in the lead is Despite the scientific fact of Earth's sphericity... "Expert/scientific consensus" isn't too far from that IMHO.Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Huhnow?? "Fact" is a clearly stronger wording than "XX consensus". VQuakr (talk) 21:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Clearly....but we are saving ourselves some time with this. As a structural engineer I can tell you that while there is a overwhelming consensus, the exact mechanics (and details) of the collapses have been a frequent point of Journal articles (i.e. in ASCE's Structural Journal and so on) over the years. Calling it "scientific fact" with that going on in the background gives the Truthers some wiggle room. So, to me it would make sense to just call it "Expert/scientific consensus" and we will be covered in that regard as well as just who has reached the consensus.Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "Official narrative" should not be used in this case. It refers to the view of events endorsed by the state, as opposed to that endorsed by reliable sources. For example, in Turkey "official narrative" refers to Armenian Genocide denial which is promoted by the state as an "official narrative", even though it is against the international academic consensus. (t · c) buidhe 18:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 12 January 2021

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 discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved (closed by non-admin page mover) BegbertBiggs (talk) 15:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


9/11 Truth movement → 9/11 truth movement – The 9/11 truth movement is not a single organisation. Therefore, the word is not a proper noun and should not be capitalised. 122.60.65.44 (talk) 04:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Support per nom. --GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 07:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Dicklyon (talk) 03:49, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Leaning oppose. It's not a single organization; that's why "movement" isn't capitalised. The "Truth" part, however, functions as proper noun, referring specifically to the conspiracy theory, rather than actual truth. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:53, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Lean Support I am sympathetic to Paul's argument, but I checked and it is not consistently capitalized in reliable sources, so it should not be capitalized on Wikipedia either, per MOS:CAPS. (t · c) buidhe 18:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Rreagan007 (talk) 20:21, 19 January 2021 (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.

"Discredited" CT

In the lead now it is calling this a "discredited conspiracy theory". Isn't it enough to call it a CT without going this far? This seems to violate NPOV. (And those of you who have posted on this talk page know I am the last person that would endorse such a theory.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:25, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Seems a valid objection why do we call something (which by definition is unproven, to put it mildly) discredited?Slatersteven (talk) 18:44, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I added the discredited tag in order to reflect the fact that the 9/11 truther conspiracy has been discredited through a variety of sources, and so that it could better match the wording for other discredited conspiracy theories such as QAnon's page, which states "QAnon[a] (/ˌkjuːəˈnɒn/), or simply Q, is a disproven and discredited American far-right conspiracy theory..."

Skeptics paragraph

The way the skeptics paragraph is worded at the end of the opponents section is rather bizarre. It’s vague about who exactly these skeptics are and seems kind of WP:UNDUE, might be better to name specific people that are cited. Paragon Deku (talk) 01:16, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:9/11_truth_movement/Archive_5&oldid=1176805496"