Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories

This is not a forum for general discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories. Any such messages will be deleted.

Random unreliable sources

Why are editors to restoring content sourced to random blogs of non-professionals, and other unreliable sources? Q6 at the top of this page is being ignored. Such as:

• Gordon Farrer, a tech editors blog
• Charlie Brooks's (comedian) blog
• Charlie Skelton's blog
• Paul Zarembka's book THE HIDDEN HISTORY OF 9-11-2001:
• 911truth.org
• 911review.com

Talk about ignoring Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Fringe theories.--Theamazo (talk) 20:20, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

That (Gordon Farrer) is an editor of the Sydney Morning Herald. It is a RS. It falls into WP:NEWSBLOG. Describing it as a blog subject to removal is entirely inappropriate. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:25, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

The second is not Charlie Brooks it is Charlie Brooker. Brooker is a columnist for the Guardian newspaper. Since the section is in "Media reaction" it is entirely correct for a columnist's reaction to be included. Guardian is generally regarded as RS. It is not a blog. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:31, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

It's a Theguardian.com#Comment_is_free opinion piece. Opinion pieces are not published as part of the main print, so less of a 'media reaction', more of a personal 'journalist reaction'. Again, how Brooker's views on conspiracy theorists mindsets is relevant or reliable here evades me.--Theamazo (talk) 20:41, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it is opinion, but it is not Random unreliable sources. It is, in fact, properly sourced as Brooker's opinion to a RS (The Guardian). If you believe the Guardian is not RS for the ref you have the option of taking it to WP:RSN. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I do not understand why Zarembka's book is listed here. It is a collection of scholarly articles written by the members of Scholars for 911 Truth. Regardless of one's opinion about the 911 Truth Movement & the unofficial conspiracy theories, if a Wikipedia article on 9/11 conspiracy theories wants to cite the best academics/intellectuals who question the official 911 Commission Report, then Zarembka's book is a legitimate source. In full disclosure, I helped proofread that book -- that collection of essays by the leading intellectuals within the 911 Truth movement -- before its publication. However, I am not a member of the 911 Truth Movement.RushRhees (talk) 08:20, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

No problem with including this info, so long as it's made clear that this is merely the claims being levied by conspiracy theorists, and not serious arguments that have made it through a legitimate peer-review process. JoelWhy?(talk) 13:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Zarembka is fine as a source for what truthers think (although secondary sources are prefered). It is not, however, "a collection of scholarly articles". It is just a collection of truther writings. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 23:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

9/11 Truth Movement "intellectuals" is an oxymoron.--MONGO 11:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Non-Topical Grammatical and Typo Errors

Footnote #193 lists Chip Berlet as, "Senior Analyst at Senior Research Associates, in Summerville, Massachusetts." That is incorrect. At the time of that interview on Democracy Now!, Berlet was Senior Analyst at Political Research Associates in Somerville, Massachusetts. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_Research_Associates http://www.politicalresearch.org/2009/09/26/pra-senior-analyst-chip-berlet-offers-insight-in-arcs-investigation-into-post-election-racial-politics/ RushRhees (talk) 07:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done--MONGO 11:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The third paragraph is a bit light

Currently the third paragraph of the lede reads:

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the technology magazine Popular Mechanics have investigated and rejected the claims made by 9/11 conspiracy theories. The civil engineering community accepts that the impacts of jet aircraft at high speeds in combination with subsequent fires, not controlled demolition, led to the collapse of the Twin Towers. This also was the conclusion of the 9/11 Commission, chaired by Governor Thomas Kean.

This gives the reader the false impression that it is only the NIST and Popular Mechanics that have investigated the events of 9/11; that only the "civil engineering community accepts" the findings of the NIST (i.e., the "official version") as rubber stamped by the 9/11 Commission. In reality the widely-accepted mainstream account is based on a huge amount of evidence, none of which supports any of the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11.

The institute found "no corroborating evidence" for theories that the towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted in advance. – pg. 104.

The 2005 report of the National Institute of Standards and Technology summed up the matter. Its experts had found no evidence, the report said, "for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives." The authors have seen nothing, in all the verbiage of the skeptical literature, to persuade us otherwise. – pg. 108

There is no reason to doubt that a team of terrorists targeted four airliners on September 11. No reason to doubt that the doomed planes stood at their assigned gates, that passengers boarded, that the aircraft took off, for some time flew their allotted flight paths, were hijacked, and then—except for one that crashed following a brave attempt at resistance by its passengers—crashed into targeted buildings in New York and Washington. There is no good reason to suspect that the collapse of the Twin Towers and nearby buildings, and the resulting deaths, were caused by anything other than the inferno started by the planes' impact. There is no reason, either, to suspect that the damage and death at the Pentagon was caused by anything other than the plane striking the building.

The facts are fulsomely documented in the material available to the public—not just the 9/ 11 Commission Report but the reams of supporting documentation and the reports supplied by other agencies. The thousands of pages include: interviews of airline ground staff on duty that day, interviews with crews' families, flight path studies prepared by the National Transportation Safety Board, Air Traffic Control recordings—transcripts of verbatim exchanges between controllers and pilots—accompanying reports prepared by NTSB specialists, radar data studies, the transcript of the one Cockpit Voice Recorder recovered in usable condition, the two Flight Data Recorders recovered, and interviews and transcripts of staff of the FAA Air Traffic Control Centers involved on the day.

All that material is now available, part of the approximately 300,000 pages released by the National Archives—with national security and privacy-related redactions—since 2009. The authors have read as much of it as was feasible, and it provides no support for the naysayers. – pgs. 117-118.

— Summers, A.; Swan, R. (2011). The Eleventh Day: The Full Story of 9/11 and Osama bin Laden.

Since 9/11 there have been numerous lengthy and painstaking official reports — the 9/11 Commission, congressional investigations and many inquiries by the National Institute of Standards and Technology. None has ever found any evidence of a wider conspiracy.

— "9/11 conspiracy theories: Analysis". BBC News Magazine. 29 August 2011.

Furthermore, there is an alternative explanation for the "thermitic material" the sceptical scientists found in the dust - it is just a type of primer paint. It's calculated 1,200,000 tonnes of building materials were pulverised at the World Trade Center and most minerals are present in the dust (not necessarily in a large quantity). More extensive sampling of the dust has not found any evidence of thermite or explosives, says a report from the US Geological Survey and another from RJ Lee.

— "9/11 conspiracy theories: The theories". BBC News Magazine. 28 August 2011.

The 9/11 Truth Movement invariably describes the mainstream account of 9/11 as the "government version" or "the official version." In fact, the generally accepted account of 9/11 is made up of a multitude of sources: thousands of newspaper, TV, and radio reports produced by journalists from all over the world; investigations conducted by independent organizations and institutions, including the American Society of Civil Engineers, Purdue University, Northwestern University, Columbia University, the National Fire Protection Association, and Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.; eyewitness testimony from literally thousands of people; recordings and transcripts of phone calls, air traffic control transmissions, and other communications; thousands of photographs; thousands of feet of video footage; and, let's not forget the words of Osama bin Laden, who discussed the operation in detail on more than one occasion, including in an audio recording released in May 2006 that said: "I am responsible for assigning the roles of the 19 brothers to conduct these conquests..."

The mainstream view of 9/11 is, in other words, a vast consensus. By presenting it instead as the product of a small coterie of insiders, conspiracists are able to ignore facts they find inconvenient and demonize people with whom they disagree. – pg. 105.

— Dunbar, D.; Reagan, B., eds. (2011). Debunking 9/11 myths why conspiracy theories can't stand up to the facts.

The lede of this article needs to make it clear that this is a WP:FRINGE topic, and that 9/11 conspiracy theories are just that... conspiracy theories. Not because they have been "rejected", but because they have been disproved and debunked by numerous investigations. Investigations that have been conducted by experts employed by government agencies as well as those conducted by independent organizations and institutions. Suggestions? — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 12:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Re: Antisemitism in conspiracy theories

I'd like to bring attention to the 'Antisemitism in conspiracy theories' section of this page and detail why I feel that this section is unnecessary, unrelated, and misleading. This section has little to do with actual 9/11 conspiracy theories themselves and seems to be clearly taking sides and pointing fingers. I would say the majority of people who claim Israel was involved, including the most popular leaders in this though paradigm, believe that only a small percentage of top Israeli officials were involved, and would also abhor the racism known as antisemitism. Not many people point the blame at Jews as a race, they place the blame with the Israeli government, who hold self-admitted Zionist ideologies. Claiming that 9/11 was co-sponsored by Israel has nothing to do with race or Jews as a race. Calling this theory anti-Semitic is incorrect, misleading, and slanderous.

Further, starting the section titled, 'Israel', with "A conspiracy theory documented by the Anti-Defamation League, Thom Burnett and others," adds a bit more blatant bias into the article. It would make more sense, as is done in the Saudi Arabia section below, to lead the Israel section with the names of the people who have proposed the most popular and influential theories claiming Israel was involved. One particular person I am aware of is Ryan Dawson, and he has produced some YouTube videos documenting his theories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jumpingjunipers (talk • contribs) 00:06, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that section is problematic. It's not about a conspiracy theory, but about a particular group's response to a conspiracy theory. And yes, it does point fingers. We might as well include a section saying that HiLo48 thinks that another group's theory is just nutty. It IS off topic. Should probably be deleted. HiLo48 (talk) 00:16, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

So, how do you propose to soft-pedal the strongly anti-Semitic nature of much of the 2001-2003 conspiracy theories, which proposed that Jews avoided the WTC that day, and that Jews were behind the events of the day? While there were those who claimed that Israel was behind the attacks, the more prevalent canard was that "Jews did it," something we occasionally see to this day in 9/11-related vandalism on WP. After 2003 the emphasis in the West shifted to the Bush administration, with an occasional corollary of Israeli involvement. It has remained fixed on Jews as a whole in the Middle East. That is not to say that the section can't be improved and that opinions can't be appropriately attributed, but to claim that the conspiracy theories were limited to "Israeli officials" is not what happened. Acroterion (talk) 00:25, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you saying that there are more anti-semitic theories that should be documented in the article? HiLo48 (talk) 00:32, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Having just looked it over: yes. There was was the "missing Jews" theory that was floated in the immediate aftermath, and a knee-jerk Jews/Israel response in some circles. I'll have to do a little looking around. As I noted, the events of the 2003 Iraq War shifted views to some extent, and perhaps increased a focus among CTs on Israel specifically. Acroterion (talk) 00:42, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Fine. Add more anti-semitic theories, so long as you can find high quality reliable sources and gain consensus for them. But that's actually off-topic. This discussion is about whether we include a response to a conspiracy theory. That the particular theory that's been responded to happens to be an anti-Israeli government one doesn't justify adding that response. HiLo48 (talk) 00:51, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, this is about a proposal to scale back or remove the "'Antisemitism in conspiracy theories'", according to the OP. As I stated, I'm fine with greater consistency in attribution. I'm not fine with its removal or an attempt to play down the anti-Semitic character of some CTs. Acroterion (talk) 00:55, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that there's any real doubt that conspiracy theories claiming that four thousand Jews stayed home on 9/11 or those involving "international bankers" are anti-Semitic. What exactly is the problem here? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:09, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is, the claims of antisemitism are not a 9/11 conspiracy theory in itself. It is about a particular groups response to a conspiracy theory, and that response happens to be an opinion which is misleading and at time outright fallacious. --Jumpingjunipers (talk) 01:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Several 9/11 CTs have been labelled by reliable sources as being anti-Semitic...all we do is report what the reliable sources say.--MONGO 01:50, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

A belief as to whether these theories are racist is a separate issue. These claims of antisemitism are not a theory regarding 9/11 and don't belong on a page dedicated to 9/11 theories. And your "reliable source" is an extremely bias source who is making unfounded claims. Jumpingjunipers (talk) 02:31, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Please show us those sources. HiLo48 (talk) 02:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

A note: the ADL is not a "biased source" for discussions of conspiracy theories concerning Jews, any more than the NAACP is a biased source concerning African-Americans, provided one is careful about attribution and avoidance of using Wikipedia's voice. As for 9/11 and Jews or Israel, a CBS discussion here [1], Slate [2], the NYT [3]. This is based on a quick check: there is quite a bit out there, but it takes some winnowing to sort out reliable sources from the Internet noise. Acroterion (talk) 02:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• how many do you want--MONGO 02:45, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

You're missing the point. Claims of antisemitism are not a 9/11 theory and do not belong on a page strictly dedicated to 9/11 theories. Jumpingjunipers (talk) 03:01, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I think trying to attribute motives to the conspiracists is still a bad idea, and involves too much OR. We cannot know for sure what motivates nutters. Some hate George W Bush. Some hate Jews. Some hate Muslims. Some hate the government, no matter what brand it is. Some hate the USA. Some just don't trust anybody. But still all nutters. (Even though I might agree with some of those sentiments re governments, etc).) We describe who they are and what they say. The readers can decide what their motives might be and how nutty they are. HiLo48 (talk) 02:51, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

That's a very strange approach to the subject. Motivations are integral to these theories, otherwise they're just pointless pontificating on means of destruction. Anti-Semitism is at the core of at least some of these theories, as is anti-Bush administration in some other cases, or broader anti-government views, or general paranoia, or a technical fascination with constructing scenarios. In the Middle East anti-Semitism is the central feature, as the sources clearly show. I'm not aware of specific attribution of specific means to specific ideologies, nor does the article make such a linkage. There is no OR in noting anti-Semitism as one of several potential motivations. I am against cleansing the article of inconveniently objectionable motivations. Acroterion (talk) 11:40, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Your last sentence is offensive. I object to all attempts to attribute motivations. That should have been obvious from my post. HiLo48 (talk) 11:55, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

The last line was a comment on the main discussion and the OP's last post, not a response to HiLo48: the OP specifically targeted anti-Semitism and nothing else. See the section header. However, specifically to your comments, I don't understand how you can suggest that well-sourced discussions of motivations for these beliefs should be ignored entirely, leaving the article solely to a discussion of the mechanics, for lack of a better term, of these apparently unmotivated conspiracy theories. Acroterion (talk) 15:09, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Just curious if anyone has addressed my original complaint yet? Claims of antisemitism are not a 9/11 conspiracy theory and do not belong on a page dedicated to 9/11 conspiracies. Maybe I missed it.Jumpingjunipers (talk) 16:39, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

The entire discussion above addresses your proposal. Selective removal of anti-Semitic motivations for the conspiracy theories, which are amply documented in reliable sources, are not appropriate. Acroterion (talk) 16:42, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

My point, which is still not being addressed, is that claims of antisemitism are commentary regarding one of the conspiracy theories -- an opinion. They are not an actual conspiracy theory or part of a conspiracy theory and do not belong on a page dedicated to 9/11 conspiracy theories themselves.Jumpingjunipers (talk) 17:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism is at the root of many the 9/11 conspiracy theories, not just one. The core conspiracy theory is that Jews as part of the "Protocol" set up the attacks so the USA would be coerced to go to war against Muslims. Sub theories such as Jews getting text messages to avoid the WTC that day, stay at home, call in sick all play into a preposterous "Jews Did it" anti-Semitic meme. We can find a plethora of references and even vastly expand on this neonazi anti-Semitic theme if you wish, but we're not going to remove a very basic overview about what is actually a broad aspect of the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11.--MONGO 17:21, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

First of all, that's your opinion, and apparently ADL's opinion -- neither are backed by fact. I could successfully argue that majority of 9/11 conspiracy theories regarding Israel have nothing to do with hatred of Jews, and if you claim that the root of many 9/11 theories is anti-Semitism, I expect that to be backed by fact. Shall we go that route? It's odd that this only focuses on the small minority of theories, some of which are in fact anti-Semitic, but ignores the fact that the majority Israel theories are not anti-Semitic. Simply believing that Israel played a roll in 9/11, or that 4,000 Jews somehow had foreknowledge, is not antisemitic. Secondly, and my main point: this is a page dedicated to strictly outlining the conspiracies themselves. Not a page to include opinions on the theories or to editorialize particular conspiracy theories. The page isn't called "9/11 conspiracy theories and what other people think about them." It's for the objective non-bias reporting of the theories themselves, and instead of laying out the facts of what the theories are regarding Israel, you have chosen to inject the opinion of the ADL. Can you acknowledge that?Jumpingjunipers (talk) 20:06, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

It is pretty clear that many of the conspiracy theories involve anti-Semitism and even if it were not true, the fact that significant observers, such as the ADL, say so means that weight requires us to include them. If anything it is understated since conspiratorial thinking and anti-Semitism are so closely connected. TFD (talk) 20:16, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You're certainly entitled to your own personal opinions, however, that's not how we write articles on Wikipedia. Instead, we write articles based on what WP:reliable sources say about a topic. Reliable sources have described the anti-Semitic nature of some of these conspiracy theories; therefore so should we as well. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:22, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

And again, we're back to the point that no one wants to acknowledge: this specific page is strictly about the 9/11 conspiracy theories, not opinions regarding perceived racism of those theories. Correct? Jumpingjunipers (talk) 20:28, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

No, that's not correct. Reliable sources have described some of these conspiracy theories as anti-Semitic. We report what reliable sources say about a topic. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

You're telling me that this page isn't strictly dedicated to the actual conspiracy theories themselves?Jumpingjunipers (talk) 20:38, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

"Weight" says we should include analysis of these theories provided it is reliably sourced. TFD (talk) 20:40, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

In that case, at the very least, these comments by the ADL should be placed under the criticism section of the wiki.Jumpingjunipers (talk) 20:53, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Policy says we shouldn't have a criticism section either. Let's get some things clear. Blaming the Israeli government is not being anti-Semitic, any more than blaming George W Bush is being anti-all Americans. We must not single out Jewish people as a special target of these nonsense theories. That's not the purpose of this article. It's about ALL the conspiracy theories. Unless you hunt down broader targets for all the theories, it ≃would be completely biased to just mention anti-semitism. And please don't say "it's sourced" again. Being sourced is essential for something to be included here, but it is never sufficient.

(edit conflict) I don't see how the claim that 4000 Jews did not report to work at the Towers cannot be considered anti-Semitic. The claim that Israel is involved is not necessarily technically anti-Semetic, although, if reliable sources state that it is, we should include that. It is not just "opinion"; we should state both what is said about the theories and what is behind them, to the extent found in reliable sources. This does not need to be in a separate criticism section; each theory should be followed by mainstream refutations as well as scholarly comments as to the "reasoning" behind it. (Note grammar: "each" is singular, so takes "it" as pronoun.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:06, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

According to the ADL website, antisemitism is "The belief or behavior hostile toward Jews just because they are Jewish." Simply believing that 4000 Jews didn't report to work is not considered anti-Semitic because holding a conspiratorial belief does not automatically imply the hatred of all Jews. But the ADL will try to imply that simply believing something about the state of Israel, or about 4,000 Jews, equates hatred, which it doesn't. It's a pretty clear logic fail if you ask me, and I would say that the ADL is not the most reliable source on this matter, considering they basically claim anyone who doesn't side with Israel is an anti-Semite. Jumpingjunipers (talk) 22:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Criticism sections should not be used. Although Mossad and Israel have engaged in conspiracies is arguable, the idea that they could pull this off without detection, would require a degree of ability and power that it would mean they are controlling the world. And the idea that they knew who all the Jews were, contacted them, and none of them said anything, implies a massive Jewish conspiracy. TFD (talk) 21:26, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Claims of antisemitism are a blatant criticism of the theory. Why should all other criticisms be placed in the criticism section except for the ADL one? How does that make sense? If this wiki is going to have a criticism section, the ADL claim belongs there. If you don't believe there should be a criticism section at all, then remove it and disperse all the criticisms to their rightful place throughout the article. Jumpingjunipers (talk) 21:51, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

<outdent>Claims of anti-Semitism (which are based in fact) are fundamental to the subject. It is not a "criticism" to the basis of the CTs to describe their origins as, in some cases, anti-Semitism. It is a plain statement of fact. Why do you think this may be omitted? Acroterion (talk) 21:59, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Claims of anti-Semitism are not fundamental to the subject. HiLo48 (talk) 22:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Really? It is the mother of all motivations in many Middle Eastern circles. The CT community in the West has made a considerable effort to distance itself from the anti-Semitic voices that promoted the "Jews did it" theory in the 2001-2003 time frame. Acroterion (talk) 22:13, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Believing that Jews did it is not antisemitic. Jumpingjunipers (talk) 22:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

It can be said with even more certainty that believing that the Israeli government did it is definitely not anti-semitic. HiLo48 (talk) 22:39, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

It is and more importantly the literature on 9/11 says so. Because it is implicit that in order to carry out and cover up the attacks, the Jews would have to control the U.S. government, all congressmen and senators and the media, as well as all the mainstream political parties and governments throughout the world. Or do you not think that is anti-Semitism? TFD (talk) 22:50, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

No, it's not. And what you said is actually not implicit whatsoever. Conspiracies can be carried out, and are often carried out, without controlling an entire government, media and world governments. Not many people believe that in order to carry out and cover up 9/11, "the Jews would have to control the U.S. government, all congressmen and senators and the media, as well as all the mainstream political parties and governments throughout the world." To say that is an implicit part is an outright falsehood. Even if by some chance it was implicit, it's still not antisemitic in itself. According to the ADL website, antisemitism is "The belief or behavior hostile toward Jews just because they are Jewish." Simply believing that Israel did 9/11, or that Jews run the world, is not considered anti-Semitic because holding a conspiratorial belief does not automatically imply the hatred of all Jews simply because they are Jews. For something to be antisemitic, it has to be proven that the person or people who believe it believe so simply because of the ethnicity of the involved groups. If you read the source document at the heart of these claims, the ADL has not proven this, and their claims of antisemitism are largely unfounded. Jumpingjunipers (talk) 23:05, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

You are arguing that the generally accepted understanding of anti-Semtism is wrong, and the most respected authorities that track anti-Semitism, such as the ADL, do not know what they are talking about. You are certainly entitled to believe that but it is not a valid argument here because "no original research" says we cannot make up our own definitions. Anti-Semitic people do not have to believe they are anti-Semitic. Lots of them believe they are not. Anyway, the theory Mossad was behind the attacks raises the question why no mainstream observers - U.S. intelligence, the Congress, foreign governments, the media, academics - all were persuaded they had nothing to do with it. And not only do mainstream publishers reject the Mossad theory, they will not even publish articles supporting it. The only possible reason is that they are part of or dupes of a Mossad cover-up conspiracy. TFD (talk) 23:40, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

We're not making up definitions here. I'm going by the ADL's own definition as referenced above. Did you miss the part where I said, "According to the ADL website, antisemitism is "The belief or behavior hostile toward Jews just because they are Jewish." ?? Again, going by the ADL definition, simply believing that Israel did 9/11, or that Jews run the world, is not considered anti-Semitic because holding a conspiratorial belief does not automatically imply the hatred of all Jews simply because they are Jews. Adhering to the ADL's definition, for something to be antisemitic, it has to be proven that the person or people who believe it believe so simply because of the ethnicity of the involved groups. The cited ADL study does not prove such things. This is an issue that I would like to escalate if possible. Jumpingjunipers (talk) 00:07, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I have yet to see you provide a single reliable source that demonstrates that anti-Semitism was not a broad underpinning of a number of the 9/11 CTs. All you mention is some guy who has a YouTube clip! We can add more cites to substanitate the claims if you like...hell I can write numerous paragraphs on the neonazi, anti-Semitic basis for the moronic conspiracy theories. We can go that route if you like.--MONGO 00:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Sources aren't needed because the content isn't needed. HiLo48 (talk) 00:47, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories differ from ordinary disputes over historical facts, and need to be described differently. In conspiracy theories, it is important to mention who promotes them, why they believe them, and how they tie in to their broader understanding of the world, i.e., the view that the world is controlled by evil forces, which is a variation of earlier Jewish conspiracy theories. TFD (talk) 14:55, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

"Semitic" does not mean "Jewish", therefore at most conspiracy theories placing Jewish people at the center of problems (which I believe none actually do, rather they put that on a specific group of Jewish people) are anti-jew and not anti-semitic. 92.40.250.85 (talk) 23:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

"Semitic" does not mean "Jewish"; however, "antisemitic" does mean anti-Jew. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:31, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2014

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

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

References

What is the purpose of this page?

I'm just curious as to the point, or purpose of this page. It seems, as I read it, that this page only serves one purpose, to completely flame any 9/11 alternate theories (I refuse to use the word "conspiracy", as the 9/11 NIST commission is just as big a "conspiracy" as any theory that tries to shed light on what really happened to 1, 2, and 7 WTCs) that don't agree with the official NIST/FEMA theory. It would be appreciated if this article was reformed to actually have a base as to claims made, instead of offering theories, then having them shot down, and or discredited. My point being, it seems like this Wikipedia page is monitored and/or edited only those who agree with the FEMA/NIST theory.

Another note after reading archived talk pages for this Wikipedia page, it seems that (as I stated above) the only people who edit this page seems to agree with the "official" NIST theory.

"There's no reason to mince words, here. It's not the "widely accepted" theory of what happened. It's what actually happened. (And, obviously, we have mounds of sources to support such a statement.)" JoelWhy?(talk) 19:19, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

If that is true (the mounds of evidence claim), then why does everything about the subject seem to defy logics? No, I'm not saying use logic as a source (as it would be here-say, and unreliable), but where is the evidence backing the claim that these two Boeing 767s completely destroyed the WTC? A great point in case is that the fire that raged in WTCs 1 and 2 burned, yes it did weaken the steel. What about floors 10 - 60? Those floors were completely untouched (on both buildings) and yet those whole thing came down in it's own footprint, as if the whole structure was weakened. Where is the proof that this would actually happen (on both a logic and scientific scale)? Not to mention the fact that before 9/11, a whole skyscraper coming down due to fire was unheard of, as it was afterwards, because it never seemed to happen again. It just seems like even though the NIST theory claims to be the official events of what happened, both metaphysically, and scientifically, certain facts were obviously omitted or overlooked that makes the whole thing completely discreditable.

-Yours truly,

70.90.174.173 (talk) 23:33, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

See the FAQ at the top of the page. VQuakr (talk) 01:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I read it, and I still don't understand how Wikipedia can stand by evidence that is only claimed to be scientifically sound (thanks for answering my question yourself, and not directing me towards a preloaded Q&A.) The evidence surrounding the official 9/11 theory is just as controversial any other alternate theory. How can 90 stories collapse in the matter of ten seconds, with all those floors trusses, and beams, etc. The fire did weakened the steel on the floors that were the most heavily damaged, but after all those floors gave way, it collapsed on to steel that was unaffected by the flames and therefore structurally sound, and also still had fire retardant on it (as the fire retardant in the impact zones was blown off). So even with the weight of the collapsing section of the tower falling on to it, the floors below the 70th floor on each tower were 100% structurally sound. The center columns of both buildings were completely in towers. 100% structurally sound and yet the seems to be as weak as the floors damaged by the impacts of the planes. This clearly goes against logic.

My point stands that the page for 9/11 alternate theories needs to reformed, so it's not a complete slam page to every theory that discredits, or disagrees with the "official" NIST theory.

http://911review.org/WTC/images/_1540044_world_trade_structure300.gif

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/10/08/over-2200-architects-engineers-crush-the-official-911-commission-report/

70.90.174.173 (talk) 23:50, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum. Go away. HiLo48 (talk) 00:14, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Nice, how professional. Now I can't even trust what Wikipedia says. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.90.174.173 (talk) 20:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

These are all your personal opinions. Wikipedia does not operate on the opinions of its users. Neither mine, nor yours. They're all equally invalid. We operate via the views of reliable sources and scholarly opinion. 9-11 controlled demolition theorists have not had a single paper published in an actual scientific journal. Instead, what they have done is create their own low quality fringe journals to purplish their material. They are a fringe minority and should be treated as such. That you disagree with this is immaterial. You'll need reliable sources to support your claims.

For the relevant Wikipedia policies see:

• WP:FRINGE

• WP:UNDUE
• WP:NOR

For Wikipedia policies on sources see:

• WP:HISTRS (history reliable sources)
• WP:RELIABLE (reliable sources in general)
• WP:SCIRS (reliable sources for natural science)

--Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:03, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

However, Wikipedia continues to argue for a claim that makes no sense on a logical level. Thus is why I'll never believe anything that Wikipedia offers.

Thanks, for nothing. 70.90.174.173 (talk) 22:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0Q5eZhCPuc