Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories

Prior Knowledge

Norad did testings where a plane gets hijacked and flies into the world trade center. Then didn't Bush admin receive info that a plane might be used as a weapon,then Condi Rice says no one knew someone would use a plane has a weapon. Isn't that guarenteed cover up? some sources: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aaf6NuKRHE remember for a cover-up conspiracy to be true any part of it has to be true not all of it. If any part is different from the official story in any way intentionaly then that is a cover up/conspiracy. --24.94.251.190 (talk) 09:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Mostly false, but, even if true, Bush apparently wasn't told the whole truth about a lot of things. Besides, we have a whole article about alleged prior knowledge. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Everyone knows what really happened... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.25.152 (talk) 09:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's the USA Today story on it. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-04-18-norad_x.htm

You can read more about it at September 11 attacks advance-knowledge debate. Ghostofnemo (talk) 19:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Minor point about lead

Re the sentence "NIST stated that it did not perform any test for the residue of explosive compounds of any kind in the debris." No doubt the conspiracy mongers have latched onto this fact claimed well you haven't proved us wrong, but any sane person knows they didn't test for this because we already have a rather convincing explanation for the collapse. Does that sentence really need to be there?--Misarxist 13:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, if there is reliably sourced info that the conspiracy theorists are regularly using that in support of their theories. Edkollin (talk) 20:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

By that logic, the argument that we already have a convincing explanation for the collapse should be added to the article to counter the reasoning by conspiracy theorists, as the former argument is probably often used by sane people. 81.204.124.148 (talk) 22:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

This subject has been split into two articles - the official version and the conspiracy theories. This article is intended to present the conspiracy theories. The NIST admits it ran no tests (see the link). Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that this point should be moved to the body rather than stay in the lede. Soxwon (talk) 06:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. If you pull out Ghost's edit, then pull out the previous paragraph as well. I hereby replace the material edited out by Soxwon. Jusdafax 08:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The material was pulled out b/c it glorified one specific branch of 9/11 Truth. There are many, many strains to it and to single out one in the lede is WP:UNDUE. A more general statement about several or a majority of the groups would be more in line with what should be in the lede IMO. Soxwon (talk) 14:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The preceding paragraph cites NIST, Popular Mechanics, and "the civil engineering establishment" as being in support of (or accepting) the mainstream explanation for the collapse of the Twin Towers. In this instance, it appears appropriate that a body of similarly qualified professionals be presented as counterpoint to the assertion. Statements made by non-technical groups on this particular issue are of lesser relevance here. I agree with Jusdafax, that if this paragraph must go, then the preceding paragraph (citing NIST, PM, and "the civil engineering establishment") should also be removed, in the interest of maintaining balance and NPOV. Wildbear (talk) 21:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

That's absurd, the second paragraph shows the opposing viewpoint to the first. You are asking for a rebuttal to a rebuttal, hardly NPOV. The first paragraph lays out what is believed and who believes it (you can get more specific if you wish, but as I said, I feel there are too many strands to select one or two) and the second provides those who do not believe. Soxwon (talk) 23:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Point taken. I have made a small modification to the lead paragraph; hopefully that will suffice as a compromise. Wildbear (talk) 02:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Architects for 9/11 Truth Again

Their theory arguably is fringe but as a political movement they are getting notable. Columns on the 9/11 truth movement or CT's make mention of them and the local media run their meeting announcements. Yes there are other groups doing the same thing but they hardly get mentions. As for the edit that was there I agree it was WP:UNDUE. Just a sentence that they claim so many signatures and are petitioning Congress to reopen the investigation should suffice. Edkollin (talk) 21:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Again, I don't see how pushing one group is in line with WP:DUE. They are not the only major group, I would say that this should be reflected. Soxwon (talk) 21:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

To say that most of the civil engineering establishment supports the official explanation in the lead-in of the article, but not to point out that more than 1,000 architects and engineers have called for a new investigation that looks into the possible use of explosives, in an article that is about 9/11 conspiracy theories, is clearly not neutral point of view! Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

For those who can do ratios and know a basic estimate of the number of architects and engineers in the world, yes it is. However, as the current opening stands, I am satisfied.Soxwon (talk) 03:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that the number of all architects and engineers in the world is a valid reference point. We might ask just as well: how many architects and engineers have publicly expressed their personal support for the account of events offered by the U.S. government and its institutions such as NIST?  Cs32en Talk to me  01:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

No, b/c there has been no active effort to seek them out as there has been for A&E for truth. The fact that such a small percentage have joined show's how much of a fringe movement it is. Soxwon (talk) 04:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

[1] I don't know why this was added to the article given that we've discussed this several times and every time it was rejected. I have reverted this addition. Please do not add this back into the article until first achieving consensus on the talk page. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Completely deleting factual, well-sourced, relevant material from the article, along with all the supporting references, is not an acceptable solution. Please see WP:PRESERVE. Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with GhostofNemo. My view: deleting this is censorship. The sourced material belongs in this article. Jusdafax 04:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It is relevant and sourced, however there are many similar groups. There is no reason to give this one group WP:UNDUE weight by including it in the intro.--Terrillja _talk 05:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

What the removed material in the lede, placed by Ghostofnemo, does do in the lede is give balance, in my opinion. Wouldn't WP:UNDUE apply to Popular Mechanics being mentioned in the lede? And why then, is there no "rebuttal" concluding the lede of the article for September 11 attacks? I would continue to advocate that the current final paragraph in the lede be removed, or balanced with Ghost's addition. Otherwise, as I see it, concluding the article's lede with the current paragraph gives the distinct impression of spin. Jusdafax 09:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

No, Popular Mechanics is a reliable source, is independent of the subject and represents the mainstream view point. AETruth is an advocacy group promoting fringe theories. They're not at all the same or on equal levels. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

This is from Arbcom: 'Removal of sourced edits made in a neutral narrative is disruptive' 8) It is disruptive to remove statements that are sourced reliably, written in a neutral narrative, and pertain to the subject at hand. Passed 5 to 0 at 05:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar#Removal_of_sourced_edits_made_in_a_neutral_narrative_is_disruptive Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

WikiLawyering isn't going to help your case. Your edit is giving undue weight to a fringe theory and is therefore not neutral. In any case, we've discussed this several times already and I don't think anyone's changed their minds from last time. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It might also be interesting to note how many of those thousand are architects and how many are engineers? My impression from going through the list at the site is more architects. And since there are all kinds of engineers, how many of the engineers have expertise in this subject matter? Does anyone know of a RS that has tabulated that information? Mystylplx (talk) 13:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The signatories and their credentials were all given in the last reference to the deleted material. It's here: http://www.ae911truth.org/signpetition.php Ghostofnemo (talk) 17:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Since A Quest For Knowledge seems to be saying he or she is not willing to discuss this any further, and since this has been heavily debated for months now, and since we seem unable to agree on this, I suggest we submit this point for WP:Mediation. Ghostofnemo (talk) 18:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I said nothing of the kind. If you want editors to change their opinion, then you should provide some new evidence or new argument. You haven't done this. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

"In any case, we've discussed this several times already and I don't think anyone's changed their minds from last time." Ghostofnemo (talk) 18:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no "new evidence". We're deadlocked. Time for another approach. How about mediation? Ghostofnemo (talk) 19:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Please read all my posts in their entirety. Consensus can change but that usually requires one of three things at happen 1) new argument no one's considered before, 2) new evidence that hasn't been examine before or 3) editors change their minds. Based on the discussion so far, none of these 3 conditions have happened. I don't believe we are deadlocked. We've simply reached a consensus which you don't like. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, several editors have supported inclusion, so there is no consensus on this point. Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

For reference, here is a diff of the deletion: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories&diff=400614077&oldid=400592539 Ghostofnemo (talk) 08:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

"Several" is about 3 not banned from this topic? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

On the advice of another editor, I've posted this issue at the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#9.2F11_conspiracy_theories Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

More forum shopping? WP:TEND and WP:DEADHORSE.--Terrillja _talk 02:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

This is really weird, why are the same discounted arguments being presented as having weight again and again? WP:UNDUE does not mean what you think it means - certainly not if you think that mentioning AE falls afoul of it for the lack of other groups being mentioned. un☯mi 03:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't seem to find last discussion we had where the mentioning AE is undue if we don't mention other groups is undue came up, can anyone point me to it? un☯mi 03:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Here it is. The RFC never got closed properly, nonetheless, I think it is clear that we either need to include it or open a new RfC where we invite the previous participants to settle the matter. un☯mi 04:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it may be productive to try the RFC again, assuming ALL parties can calmly, rationally make their points once and not devolve into madness. It's an RFC - make your point once, not the usual response to everyone that goes against your view! Ravensfire (talk) 16:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

We've been around and around over this for months. I suggest we see what happens at the noticeboard. If there is no resolution there, I suggest we request mediation as the next step (although personally I think arbitration is needed, but that would be skipping a step). Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

It was suggested during the discussion at the Fringe Theories Noticeboard that the information be moved from the lead of the article to an appropriate location in the article, so I've moved it back into the "World Trade Center collapse" section. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

In response to this deletion http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories&diff=405170520&oldid=405158745 , and since this issue was not definitively resolved at the Fringe Theories Notice board here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_23#9.2F11_conspiracy_theories I've requested assistance at the Neutral point of view Noticeboard here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#9.2F11_conspiracy_theories_-_deletion_of_referenced.2C_neutral_material Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Forum shopping again because you didn't the the result you wanted! What a surprise! The "not resolved" is no consensus, aka leave it out. Move on.--Terrillja _talk 20:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The RfC was never closed, as the archives show, at the time it was left there was a numerical majority arguing for inclusion. un☯mi 11:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Accepted account vs. 9/11 Commission account subheading

I think "9/11 Commission account" is much more neutral and precise than "Accepted account". Accepted by who? By everyone? Ghostofnemo (talk) 18:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Accepted by the vast majority of reliable sources. The 9/11 Commission Report is just one of thousands all saying the same thing: 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists in Al Qaeda. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The account given goes into much more detail than that, however. Ghostofnemo (talk) 18:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what that means, but Quest is right, the accepted account is accepted by many more than just the commission. To use the word official is to ignore that fact. RxS (talk) 18:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

{EC}Of course. The report is 600 pages and this is a summary. In any case, I don't think that "Accepted account" is neutral as it implies that it might not be accurate. We don't have an "accepted account" of the electron, do we? There is no serious dispute regarding 9/11. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Pleas see this discussion. Accepted is more neutral than, for instance, official and mainstream. While I would agree that dropping the adjective altogether would be nice, we have to acknowledge that Truthers exist. Soxwon (talk) 18:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, the account given in this article talks about al Queda and the hijackers, but then later in that section we have stuff about Popular Mechanics and the NIST. I think the 9/11 Commission is the only body that pulled all this information together. I don't think Popular Mechanics, for example, researched how the hijackers got into the U.S., how many were involved, and who coordinated the attacks. But you're presenting all these various sources as one, unified "accepted account", and also implying that everyone accepts it and that everyone agrees completely on every point. So, one, you are merging various types of accounts (some about the hijackers, some about the building collapse, some about prior knowledge), and two, not everyone accepts this account. Both Rice and Bush said no one could have possibly foreseen terrorists flying jets into buildings, but we know now that this scenario was indeed foreseen by both NORAD and the FBI. Where does this fall in your "accepted account"? Which version do we accept, the Bush administrations or what the journalists have reported? Ghostofnemo (talk) 18:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

No, what we're saying is that, despite what Truthers think, the majority of the world agrees on almost every major point and that most of what you pick at are minor details. Soxwon (talk) 18:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Dude, it's a summary. We don't and can't go into every little detail in this article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying you have to go into every detail, I'm saying "Accepted account" is not a good subheading because it is neither accurate nor neutral. The poll numbers don't indicate that the overwhelming majority of the public accepts it. If you don't like "9/11 Commission account", how about "mainstream account"? Ghostofnemo (talk) 18:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

From the article: "More than a third of the American public suspects that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East." Ghostofnemo (talk) 18:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The accepted account section is a summary which doesn't include most of what you are talking about. It's very short and mentions nothing about any foreknowledge, Rice or Bush, etc. It simply says the terrorists flew the planes into the buildings and the buildings fell down a couple hours later, which is well accepted by almost everyone. People may disagree on other details, but that's for another section. Mystylplx (talk) 19:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that you're cutting the story back to the lowest common denominator, hoping that at some point almost everyone agrees on the most basic elements, and then implying that that consensus extends to very detailed "official" account laid out by the 9/11 Commission which lays the whole event out from start to finish. And further implying that anyone who disagrees is wacky. This could be viewed as intellectually dishonest and it's not neutral point of view. Ghostofnemo (talk) 19:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Not sure where you're coming up with some of that, but perhaps the 911 commission part could be in it's own section. Mystylplx (talk) 19:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

While there will no perfect or maybe even good word, accepted is about as bad as you can get. It manages to be both vague and misleading. Even if one person disagrees the claim is inaccurate. I hope the article could either goes back to mainstream or we can come up with a better word. "Consensus" view or explanation would be my "alternate" to "mainstream". Edkollin (talk) 23:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

We could move the text to the start of the History section, and delete the subheading. It is out of chronological order presented after the history of the conspiracy theories, and it would help provide context for that discussion if moved. Nothing in that section looks like it would really be out of place if moved, and we would of course retain the {{see}} link to the main article on the account. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

You are correct about Chronological Order but I would switch things even more.

Lead

Overview

Overview

Within the context of 9/11 conspiracy theories, the terms 'mainstream account,' 'official account' and 'official conspiracy theory' all refer conclusions reached by:

• Reliable Source

• Reliable Source

They have concluded that

9/11 was a result of Al Queda

US had no warning

Criticism of the above conclusions have fallen into three main areas

MIHOP (This should be first as most of the article and the real world 9/11 CT deals with these)

LIHOP

Incompetence/Non-Conspiratorial

History

Edkollin (talk) 22:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I did the main merge and a little cleanup (combined diff). Go ahead and fix it further and try your change in presentation. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I would like a bit more of a consensus before doing that type of overhaul Edkollin (talk) 20:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Confusing Sentence

One sentence in the World Trade Center collapse section reads "The collapse of Tower 7 home at the time to branch offices of the Central Intelligence Agency, the Secret Service and the Mayor Giuliani administration’s emergency operations center…" I have no idea what this means. Was the sentence written incorrectly? If someone knows what the author intended to say, then please correct it, or if I'm just misreading it, then please inform me. Jlampkins (talk) 03:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I reworded it and added the exact quote from the NY Times article to the citation. What is being said is that because the building had these high profile offices numerous 9/11 conspiracy theorists are saying it was an inviting location for a false flag operation. If one does not grasp this "connection" made by 9/11 CT's then one does not grasp the mind set of the 9/11 truth movement. Edkollin (talk) 01:46, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I can find no mention of the Ventura,Silverstein,FOX NEWS,Shapiro incident not to long ago. According to this story Silverstein called his insurance company to see if it was okay to pull the building ( as in cause it to collapse). FOX (Shapiro)supposedly had this on - easy to check I hope. Ventura's role in this I didn't totally catch - but it seemed that it was inadvertently mentioned to him. Interesting info - on lots of websites - if true they must havs had the explosive guys on 24 hour call. Even then that would be really fast work - 30 minutes or so. This conspiracy theory isn't on any of your 26 archives. Of course most of the theories don't get on the article some say.159.105.80.220 (talk) 16:15, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The "pull' quote is covered in the World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories article although it doesn't go into much detail, such as how conspiracy theorists have misinterpretted this quote or how "pull" is not a term used in real controlled demolitions. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The IP editor is referring to this article, in which Shapiro makes the following statement: "Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall." Wildbear (talk) 19:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Total deletion of Building 7 section

The "Building 7" section of the "World Trade Center collapse" section was entirely deleted by another editor. Here is the diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories&diff=405338255&oldid=405322366 There is no way you can justify COMPLETELY DELETING an entire section, with supporting references, about the Building 7 collapse. This is a KEY element of many 9/11 conspiracy theories. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)