Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories

Lying to the 9/11 Commission

I've removed this[1] from the article for the following two reasons:

• First, it's a WP:BLP violation. We shouldn't be using the term 'lying' in Wikipedia's voice. Yes, I know that the person who wrote the Toronto Globe and Mail article used those words. But we shouldn't do that here. Yes, it can probably be rephrased and possibly fixed, but there's a second issue which makes the BLP concerns moot.
• I haven't read the book but after reading the cited source, Farmer's thesis doesn't seem to have anything to do with conspiracy theories at all. Yes, there's an offhand reference to conspiracy theories towards the end of the cited source. But if you look at that carefully, the Toronto Globe and Mail article is disagreeing with Farmer saying that he goes too far, and compares his Farmer's methodology with the conspiracy theorist's methodology. Big difference. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I put it back. I don't see how it's a BLP violation or how it's in Wikipedias voice when it specifically attributes what is said to the source. I do agree though, that the cited source should be Farmers book and not an article about it. I think this is notable and, ironically, could be the one section of this article that isn't completely nutjob. (No offense intended to the nutjobs...:) Mystylplx (talk) 03:50, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

• Can we please follow WP:BRD? It was boldly added it and I reverted it. We should discuss it on the talk page before adding back to the article.
• It's a WP:BLP violation because we are accusing a living person of lying. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material. Please do not do this again.
• Second, neither Farmer's book nor the cited news article seem to have anything to do with 9/11 conspiracy theories. We seemed to have found a source about Farmer's book which compared Farmer's methodology to that the methodology of a conspiracy theorist (which one they do not say) and seem to have concluded that it has something to with 9/11 conspiracy theories. The news article also compare's Farmer's methodology to Columbo. But that doesn't mean Farmer's book is about Columbo. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

See What bold, reverse, diuscuss, is NOT.. Also this. And third, Farmers book ( at least the parts quoted) most certainly are about 911 conspiracy theories. It's not the standard fare for 911 conspiracy theories, crazy nuts with whacko theories, but it's a conspiracy theory in that he more than strongly suggests that Bush lied. And the source is not some nobody but was senior council to the 911 Commission--that's notable! AND a WP:RS if there ever was one. This is a no-brainer. This article is about 911 Conspiracy Theories and this may be the one and only one that has some real credibility to it. The BLP argument is nonsensical--read WP:BLP. It's sourced to a reliable (very reliable) source and is characterized as his words, not Wikipedias. And it CLEARLY deserves space in an article about 911 conspiracy theories. It's not even a close call. Mystylplx (talk) 05:54, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Essentially this was added by one editor. Reverted by you. Then re-reverted by me. This isn't even really covered by WP:BRD. But the BLP claim is nonsensical. BLP doesn't say we can't publish any information that might be controversial period--it says we don't publish it unless there's a reliable source. And again--Senior Council to the 911 Commission John Farmer, Jr.. Mystylplx (talk) 06:06, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

OK. By no stretch of the imagination is this a BLP violation. That's completely imaginary and irrational. It's not even a close call. See wp:blp for more info. ::::::According to that policy it must adhere to :

Neutral point of view (NPOV)

Verifiability (V)

No original research (NOR)

This certainly fits that criteria. So I'm wondering what's going on here. There's no way, shape, or form, in which this violates BLP. That's pure fiction. Yet it's been reverted twice as a BLP violation.... What's the real story? I'm certainly no 911 truther or POV pusher, so clue me in? What's the deal? Mystylplx (talk) 06:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, it is a clear WP:BLP violation. It accuses a living person of lying. Unless there is actually a relevant court ruling to that effect, (see Bill Clinton), it's controversial. That, therefore, requires a reliable source. Farmer, himself, and his source, are not reliable for that purpose; it has to be from a reliable publisher. I see no evidence of that, here, although it might be the case. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to bed soon, but I wanted to try to answer at least one of your questions before I do. Now that I know what angle this is coming from, there are two forms of CT:

• LIHOP ("Let it happen on purpose") – That key individuals within the government had foreknowledge and let them happen anymay
• MIHOP ("Make/Made it happen on purpose") - That key individuals within the government planned the attacks and collaborated with, or framed, al-Qaeda in carrying them out.

We seem to inventing a third category of CT that the government tried to cover up its incompetence after the fact. This is not a conspiracy theory. Legitimate criticism of the US governemt regarding 9/11 doesn't belong in this article. It should go in some other article. In my absense, it appears that somehow the article shifted focus to include any criticism - whether conspiracy theory or not. I see that there's now a section for "Non LIHOP/MIHOP". I doubt if such a thing even exists. It should probably be deleted. Going to bed now. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 08:04, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

@Arthur Rubin With all due respect I think you're just making stuff up. I've read and re-read wp:blp and I see nothing in there about requiring a court order. Farmer is certainly a reliable source.

@A Quest For Knowledge, I see what you're saying and you might have a point, but I do think a conspiracy to cover up incompetence is still a 911 conspiracy--it's just not the standard whacko conspiracy theory that one normally thinks of when using the phrase "911 conspiracy theory." Mystylplx (talk) 16:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Mystylplx: There's a world of difference between wacko conspiracy theories and real conspiracies. Watergate was a real conspiracy. Aliens landing at Roswell is not. We shouldn't lump the two together. I'm not saying that Farmer can't be included somewhere in Wikipedia, but this isn't the right article. This article is only about the crazy stuff. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:13, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

That's where I disagree, or at least I don't think it's necessary that this article be "only about the crazy stuff." This is similar to your LIHOP-- just without claiming that it was "on purpose." The section could even be expanded a bit with this from CBS news and plenty of other sources that go into what the Bush administration knew and what was (and was not) done about it. It seems to me this article is the appropriate place for stuff like that as I doubt it's feasible to start a new article titled Non-whacko 9/11 conspiracy theories. Mystylplx (talk) 18:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems like the place to mention it would be Criticism of the 9/11 Commission. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

It isn't criticism of the 911 commission... Mystylplx (talk) 18:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

But I do see September 11 attacks advance-knowledge debate where it would be appropriate. Mystylplx (talk) 18:52, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not clear to me based on the news article who exactly is making the accusation of lying. The author of the book is John Farmer. The author of The Globe and Mail news story is Peter Hart. We can obviously tell that Hart uses that word. But just because Hart used it, doesn't necessary mean Farmer did. Does anyone have access to the book? Does Farmer actually use this word? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

"almost entirely and, inexplicably, untrue.” is in quotes. That usually means it's a direct quote. If the word "lie" is the stumbling block it could be rewritten without that word. Mystylplx (talk) 19:26, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, although Farmer is an expert, we cannot use his word to support a controversial statement about a living person. On the other hand, if The Globe and Mail is considered a WP:RS, and it quotes Farmer, we can use it to support that Farmer said it was a lie. I'm not sure that "Farmer wrote that the Bush Administration statements were false." is sufficiently distinct from gossip that it's usable, but we must make it clear that that is all we are saying. We could remove the "Farmer wrote" clause only if Riverhead Books is a reliable publisher, regardless of any individual reliability Farmer might have. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:21, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm really confused on where you're coming from on this. First of all "if The Globe and Mail is considered a WP:RS"??? It's the New York Times of Canada. Second, I don't think anyone wants to remove the "Farmer wrote" clause. The whole section is on what he wrote. Mystylplx (talk) 20:44, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the word 'lie' is a huge stumbling block. We don't call people liars. A direct quote is better. But it still doesn't have anything to do with this article. If it helps, think of conspiracy theories as sort of like urban legends. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:17, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

There's already this, this, and this, none of which are really whacko. And Conspiracy theories needn't be urban legends--there have been lots of conspiracy theories that turned out to be true. See The Dreyfus Affair and MKULTRA as two examples. Just because the allegations in this case come from a credible source doesn't mean it's not a conspiracy theory. The idea that the Bush administration was... disingenuous? about the events leading up to 911 seems to me to fit well on this page. Mystylplx (talk) 23:07, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like we need a citation to a reliable source that says this is a conspiracy theory. Tom Harrison ^Talk 11:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

What's the difference between a cover-up and a conspiracy? If the Bush administration is trying to conceal information from the public, that's a cover-up. Conducting a cover-up is a conspiracy to mislead the public. Ghostofnemo (talk) 17:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

No it is not. The two words do not mean the same thing. A conspiracy requires a minimum of two or more persons. A cover-up can be conducted by one person. Even if a cover-up is conducted by multiple persons, the two words emphasize different things, even if a given act can be both. Nightscream (talk) 17:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Unless Bush is able to conduct the cover-up by himself, it's a conspiracy. Ghostofnemo (talk) 20:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

YouTube video in Pentagon section

The video does not contain a single frame showing a plane. And what are the technical specs of the camera making the recording? How many frames per second? The passing car suggests a pretty low frequency. Why is this video included in this article? Is this video supposed to support 9/11 conspiracy theories? ♆ CUSH ♆ 00:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Which citation is it? Nightscream (talk) 10:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

What is it that you ask? There is only one video. ♆ CUSH ♆ 19:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Susan Lindauer shoot down

Susan Lindauer is asserting a youtube video that she had been told at some point that Flight 93 was shot down and that the pilot who shot it down was / is held in Florida somewhere. I'm planning on looking into her article and am curious if anyone has come across any other statements / theories like this ... or has seen the evidence / names she promises to provide in this video.--Senor Freebie (talk) 07:19, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Susan Lindauer was found incompetent to stand trial twice, and is pretty well known for delusional thinking and other wingnuttiness. I'd take anything she says with a big grain of salt.

"Reichstag fire" motive deleted as POV?

How is this POV? "Parallels have also been drawn between the 9/11 attacks and the Reichstag fire, raising the possibility that the 9/11 attacks were used as an excuse to undermine civil liberties and democracy." Refs: http://www.alternet.org/rights/78182/?page=1 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/07/18/politics/main3069391.shtml http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/2011/12/28/a-tale-of-two-cities-weimar-and-washington/ Here is the diff of the deletion: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories&diff=468806942&oldid=468805399 Ghostofnemo (talk) 19:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

First line of WP:NPOV: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." The Reichstag fire comparison is a common theme in 9/11 conspiracy theories. Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't we need a source connecting this to 9/11 conspiracy theories? Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

NOTE: This is A Quest For Knowledge on a public computer. I'm not logging into a computer that might not be secure.

The content you added has several problems:

1. The Reichstag fire is rarely (if ever) mentioned in secondary reliable sources in connection to this topic. When we give prominence to minor aspects of a topic, it's against undue weight. This might belong in the body, but not the lede. (More about this below.)
2. The lede should summarize the article. If you want to add new content to the article, start at the body and work your way up to the lede.

But even still, we already have a representative example of historical precedents (Operation Northwoods). Do you want to replace Operation Northwoods with the Reichstag fire? I'd rather stick with Operation Northwoods. It seems to be cited more frequently in the literature than the Reichstag fire.

But let's discuss the elephant in the room. You only add material to the article which bolsters the CT's POV. I never see you add material that goes against CTs. This is called tenditious editing and if it continues, I'll look into having you topic-banned. 67.107.55.130 (talk) 20:38, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Since the title of this article is "9/11 conspiracy theories" I think factually representing those theories is appropriate, and that deleting those explanations, and the supporting reliable sources, borders on censorship and vandalism. Ghostofnemo (talk) 10:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

We rarely see this topic discussed AT ALL in the mainstream press, but I did in fact include a CBS News story involving a U.S. Congressman who discussed this exact topic http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/07/18/politics/main3069391.shtml however it was still completely deleted (instead of being moved)! Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

"Since the title of this article is "9/11 conspiracy theories" I think factually representing those theories is appropriate..." Okay; what's the reliable source that the stuff about the Reichstag fire is an element of 9/11 conspiracy theories? Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

All three of the cited references compare the two. Ghostofnemo (talk) 17:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

If you do a web search on "9/11 Reichstag fire" you'll see all kinds of primary source material. Ghostofnemo (talk) 17:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

None of the references cited appear to mention conspiracy theories. No doubt there are primary sources - Peter Dale Scott, and others - that say 9/11 was just like the Reichstag fire. This article is (is supposed to be) about 9/11 conspiracy theories, not about "what really happened" on September 11th. What we need are good reliable secondary sources that say comparisons to the Reichstag fire are an element of 9/11 conspiracy theories. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

German Protestors Marked 9/11 by Denouncing "Inside Job," "Reichstag Fire" "The '9/11 = the Reichstag fire' equation has long been a preferred trope of Germany’s homegrown brand of 'trutherism'". There are more than 100,000 sources claiming the link is significant. This WP article is about the conspiracy theories and care should be taken not to limit it to what the mainstream media choose to publish. Wayne (talk) 21:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

"We rarely see this topic discussed AT ALL in the mainstream press" Exactly! You're giving more weight to something that is rarely mentioned in secondary reliable sources. This is the very definition of WP:UNDUE. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

This article is not 911 conspiracy theories in the mainstream media. Do we delete the incontinence article because the mainstream media rarely discusses the topic? You are cherry picking WP:UNDUE. Quote: "In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space." UNDUE is a guideline intended to avoid giving undue weight to a belief, not to avoid acknowledging the existence of that belief. Wayne (talk) 02:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Nobody is saying that this article should be deleted. Nobody is saying these conspiracy theories don't exist. 9/11 conspiracy theories are already covered in-depth in this article. Here's the thing: WP:NPOV applies to all articles, even articles on fringe theories. Yes, we should explain the fringe viewpoint, but we also need to explain the majority viewpoint. One of the problems with Ghostofnemo's edits is that they only present the fringe viewpoint. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of "new Pearl Harbor" line

If you think this belongs somewhere else (not with the line discussing possible motives in the opening paragraph) then why not move it where you think it belongs instead of completely deleting it from the article? Diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories&diff=469103181&oldid=469102671 Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

If it belongs anywhere, it's in the motives section. And, lo and behold, there it is! SK (talk) 11:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize that "Pax Americana" was Latin for "new Pearl Harbor". Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

A better heading for that section might be "Neoconservatives and global hegemony" or something like that. Ghostofnemo (talk)

Looks like a good delete. Our job here is to try to present a neutral article. The change only contains the CT's POV. There appears to be no attempt to explain any other POV but the CT's. That's not what neutrality is at all. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Lede no longer explains majority viewpoint

I just noticed that the lede is terribly unbalanced. It no longer explains the majority viewpoint. I checked with previous versions:

• Febuary 2011
• March 2010
• November 13, 2009

And all three contained a short, 2 sentence paragraph containing the mainstream viewpoint. Does anyone know who or why this was deleted? Was there even a discussion? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

This was awhile ago but what I remember is the lede was ballooning and another editor said in their edit summary something along lines of this has gotten out of control. So I changed it with the goal of making it much more concise and focused. Don't remember any big discussion or anybody reverting my changes off hand.

This is a 9/11 CT's article not a mainstream viewpoint article. The lede's goal should be to describe what 9/11 CT's are and briefly explain them. The "mainstream" POV is not ignored, it is described in part of the very first sentence and the very first section both describes and explains the mainstream POV. In the same vain why is 1/2 of the first paragraph about polls? If it has to be in the lede it should be a short sentence but I don't see the need for it at all as they are a reaction to the CT's not the theories themselves. While not absolutely necessary it is probably ok that motives are there because they are the alleged cause for the alleged chain of events, but again just one sentence saying proponents cite various motives is all that is needed. Edkollin (talk) 00:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Not to bog down in semantics, but this is a mainstream-viewpoint article - that's the only kind of article we have. It describes (should describe) the mainstream view about 9/11 conspiracy theories by presenting what the reliable secondary sources say about 9/11 conspiracy theories. To do that well, we have to say briefly what happened on September 11. To the extent that this article has developed as a pov fork of September 11 attacks, it needs to be corrected. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

@Edkollin: There was no discussion probably because nobody noticed the change. I know that I didn't notice it until a couple days ago. All articles are mainstream articles. Yes, because this is an article about 9/11 conspiracy theories, we should explain what those theories are, but we still should do it from the perspective of the mainstream viewpoint. As for the polls, I agree that it doesn't belong in the lede. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Lede before reorganization

"On the morning of September 11, 2001, al-Qaeda crashed United Airlines Flight 175 and American Airlines Flight 11 into the twin towers of the World Trade Center, and crashed American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon. The impact and resulting fires caused the collapse of the Twin Towers and the destruction and damage of other buildings in the World Trade Center complex. The Pentagon was severely damaged by the impact of the airliner and the resulting fire. The hijackers also crashed a fourth plane into a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania after the passengers and flight crew attempted to regain control of the aircraft.[1][2] Published reports and articles by the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the magazine Popular Mechanics, and the mainstream media accept that the impacts of jet aircraft at high speeds in combination with subsequent fires, rather than controlled demolition, led to the collapse of the Twin Towers.[3][4] Zdeněk Bažant and Mathieu Verdure, writing in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics, propose that collapse can be triggered if the total internal energy loss during the crushing of one story exceeds the kinetic energy impacted to that story.[5]

The 9/11 Commission Report disclosed prior warnings of varying detail of planned attacks against the United States by al-Qaeda. The report said that the government ignored these warnings due to a lack of communication between various law enforcement and intelligence personnel. For the lack of inter-agency communication, the report cited bureaucratic inertia and laws passed in the 1970s to prevent abuses that caused scandals during that era. The report faulted the Clinton and the Bush administrations with “failure of imagination”. Most members of the Democratic and the Republican parties applauded the commission's work.[6]

Proponents of various 9/11 conspiracy theories, which are, according to the director of the Anti-Defamation League’s civil rights division, Deborah Lauter, in many cases antisemitic,[7][8] offer versions of the events that differ from what is described above. Conspiracy theorists say this is because of inconsistencies in the official conclusions or some evidence that was overlooked.[9][10][11] Researchers say motives for constructing conspiracy theories include the desire for financial gain, scapegoating, and a psychological need for a satisfying explanation.[12]

The most prominent conspiracy theory is that the collapse of the World Trade Center and 7 World Trade Center were the result of a controlled demolition rather than structural weakening due to fire.[13][14] Another prominent belief is that the Pentagon was hit by a missile launched by elements from inside the U.S. government[15][16] or that a commercial airliner was allowed to do so via an effective standdown of the American military.[17][18] Motives cited by conspiracy theorists include justifying the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and geostrategic interests in the Mideast, including pipeline plans launched in the early 1990s by Unocal and other oil companies.[19]

Polls worldwide show substantial minorities believe Al Queda was not responsible for the attacks and a slight majority of Americans find fault with the 9/11 commission and U.S governments investigations of the attack[20] [10][21]"

An editor made a change noting in his edit summary that "this is unbelievable". I agreed because the first half was just describing the "mainstream" version 9/11 attacks and repeating what was in the mainstream section. I also felt having an agenda organization in the lede describing the theories as in many cases anti Semitic made the lede not neutral. When I was done the lede looked similar to now without the last paragraph that was just added. So in my POV it was a radical change and the last thing that I expected is that my changes would not be noticed.

I agree it is a mainstream article that why I think too much time weight is given to motives and polls.

Tentative Proposal/rough draft sans citing and links.

"9/11 conspiracy theories are theories that disagree with the widely accepted account that the September 11 attacks were perpetrated solely by al-Qaeda using hijacked planes as missiles creating fires that weakened the structures of the Twin Towers and World Trade Center 7 causing their collapse.

The most prominent conspiracy theory is that the World Trade Center buildings collapse was caused at least in part by controlled demolitions. Other prominent theories state that the Pentagon was hit by a missile launched by elements from inside the U.S. government instead of a hijacked plane or that the American military stood down.

Proponents of the conspiracy theories believe there have been inconsistencies in the official conclusions and that evidence were overlooked. Justifying subsequent military action and profit are among the various alleged motives cited for the alleged conspiracies. Scientific, government and media critics of the theories have stated that the theories are scientifically invalid and proponents have been affected by conspiracism.

This answers the consensus for a mainstream point of view (I believe it is a bit more mainstream POV then what exists) while keeping the who for the detail sections. It is a rough draft and thus inelegant.Edkollin (talk) 00:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

ZDF Online Poll

Under the History section, the results of a "ZDF online poll" are included. The results of this poll should should be removed. An online poll is a completely unscientific poll you can find on virtually any website. Per the article, ZDF ran a "documentary" advocating that 9/11 was an inside job, and then had a poll asking people if they though 9/11 was an inside job. The results of this poll were hardly shocking (and, again, completely unscientific.) JoelWhy (talk) 14:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed Edkollin (talk) 02:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I concur. Toa Nidhiki05 02:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)