Talk:September 11 attacks

Template:FAOL Template:V0.5 An event mentioned in this article is a September 11 selected anniversary.

---

Implications of NPOV for the article

9/11 conspiracies have no basis in fact, which is why they are largely excluded from articles such as this one. The only fact associated with the "Truth" Movement is the fact that it exists. Any extensive inclusion into this article is giving undue weight to the CTers. Pablo Talk | Contributions 08:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, basically I could say the same about the official story, but that's not my point. My point is that the 911-article totally lacks a neutral point of view and the information necessary for the readers to form their own opinion.--Geir 10:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

If you want to have this stuff inserted into the article, find me well-respected structural engineers and well-respected demolitions experts that support the "Truth Movement." That will be quite a task, as those people don't exist. Pablo Talk | Contributions 10:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it won't fit in your pre-securing definition of "well-respected", but you may want to have a look at these: [5] [6] SalvNaut 07:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

This article is about historical facts, not viewpoints. NPOV does not mean balancing reality with fantasy. Now, many people are very emotional about the topic (a reflection of people, not the subject matter), and there are viewpoints that are hard to separate from the historical narrative, and of course the article, like every article in Wikipedia, could probably be better. But some people holding a view does not make it encyclopedic - some people are simply (and demonstrably) wrong. Peter Grey 16:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

"NPOV does not mean balancing reality with fantasy." Well said. --Haemo 21:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Terrible (lack of) response by Air Force, completely irrational behavior of the president and special forces protecting him, confusion of traffic controllers somehow causing the sophisticated scrambling system to fail, surveillance of the terrorists that failed to stop them ("Able Danger"), very poorly explained (if at all) collapse of WTC1&2, to this day not explained collapse of WTC 7 - this is not fantasy. SalvNaut 07:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

And your evidence is...? Physical, please. Show me who and when 280 stories of office tower were wired for controlled demolition. As for the lack of response, do you think they keep fighter jets at combat-ready status 24/7? Failure to stop does not mean they were involved, so that's out. Traffic controllers got confused? So? What does that have to do with the price of tea in china? It is very much fantasy, because for all your words, you can't back a single one up with a concrete fact. --Golbez 10:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't speaking about conspiracy theories but these facts exactly - a major defence failure, and a failure in investigating the case properly. This could be documented in this article.

Then why did you bring up the "poorly explained" collapses? C'mon, don't change your story halfway through. --Golbez 22:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't. They are poorly explained and few non-conspiracy theories exist as well as conspiracy ones.[7][8] [9] NIST report is based on circular reasoning and disproves itself with few real-world experiments that were made. Most important computer simulations were not released to public domain.[10] If you are aware of any good explanation of the WTC 7 collapse, preferably a one that does not include phrases "low probability of occurrence" or "working hypothesis", please give me a link. SalvNaut 22:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Before supplying a set of links as source, consider the fact that someone is probably going to check them. Cherepanov's article is about the progress of the collapse after it had started - it's only concerned with how, not why, a level of detail not addressed in this article, and basically only makes the unremarkable observation that the speed of sound in steel is faster than free fall acceleration over the distances in question. Results of the (identical) Google searches support the conventional storyline or consider the fires in isolation from the structural damage of the aircraft impacts, and the request for correction only states opinions on administrative procedures. Peter Grey 00:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

This is great that you've checked them. I don't know why are you attacking my position. My point was clearly to show that although there are few theories those are contesting theories (Cherepanov vs Bazant, Torero vs NIST, and petition to NIST) and WTC exact collapse cause and mechanism is far from scientific consensus. Cherepanov makes the observation: The collapse in the regime of progressive failure is shown to occur at an acceleration, which is several times less than the gravitational acceleration and, hence, this theory contradicts to the observed free fall. and he proposes different theory to explain it than Bazant. One of them has to be wrong. There was a discussion about this under Talk:Collapse of WTC and I think you've taken part in it. There were attempts to add this information about engineers dissent once to Collapse of WTC article but this sparkled latest argument between Mongo and Thomas Basboll.

Petition to NIST questions scientific soundness of the NIST report. I can't see how could you interpret that as "opinions in administrative procedures". Bad science is no science. SalvNaut 09:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Then, since you've begun an argument: the "preparation" because neither me, nor you (i suppose) have prepared something like this. The technology to remotely detonate is there. There was "unprecedented" major power outage during the weekend before 9/11 (witness interview), and strange constructions occurring in the towers before.[11] Yes, they do keep some fighter jets ready 24/7. There were standard FAA intercept procedures for hijacked aircraft before 9/11. Between September 2000 and June 2001 the US military launched fighter aircraft on 67 occasions to chase suspicious aircraft (AP, August 13 2002).[12] Strange coincidence that "war games" were conducted on 9/11 that involved planes being flown away, radar blips inserted. Controllers got confused - exactly: so what? NORAD has their own ability to track planes even with their transponders turned off (coast track). Amazingly, controllers' confusion was enough to disturb the whole air security chain and allow a plane to fly for 40min and struck Pentagon. This itself might not prove a conspiracy, but it shows very incompetence, and this could be documented. Then, there is more to it. I wonder if you can back up every of your beliefs regarding that day. SalvNaut 12:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, traffic controllers were confused. Fighters were scrambled to intecept Flight 11 about a half-hour after it had already crashed. Pablo Talk | Contributions 20:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The technology to do a lot of things exists, that doesn't say they were used. And by the way - to scramble an aircraft, based on what I know (I could be wrong) takes an hour. How long did it take in this situation? You're right, none of this is either proof nor evidence of a conspiracy, and I have no problem with you mentioning it - but you keep wanting to bundle it with conspiracy stuff. The burden of proof is on you, not me. The facts of that day have never been proven or even shown false; the conspiracy theories of that day have never been proven or even shown true. All you have is vague circumstantial evidence, complete non-sequitors (the 'existence of the technology' must mean it was used, right?), and eyewitness similes. --Golbez 22:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

".right?" No. I do not want to bundle conspiracy stuff here. Only facts, like those gathered in Paul Thompson's 9/11 Complete Timeline. However, for some reason, unknown to me, this common effort of many journalists was decided to be an "unreliable" source. Anyway, further discussion is pointless, without an edit proposed. SalvNaut 23:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Question: How are we as a community to handle:
Topics where one persons facts is another persons fictions, and the other persons facts are the first persons fictions?
As I see it, this is the case here.. --Geir 19:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)09:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Facts versus conspiracy theories

It's important to distinguish actual facts from disinformation and conclusions. Clearly there was a defence failure, at least one official (Condoleeza Rice) is known to have been at least negligent, and Bush and Cheney did obstruct subsequent investigations. The problem is the leap to implicating Little George and/or others in spectacular crimes defying logic, common sense, the evidence, physics, and the alleged motives. Facts may or may not be suitable in the article, hysterical superstition definitely is not. Peter Grey 18:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It's important to distinguish facts from their interpretations. In my post I felt entitled to defend my stance, when attacked. I feel uncomfortable with my post serving here as an example, so I'll move it back on it's place. SalvNaut 21:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for a (slightly) longer paragraph on conspiracy theories

Hi. A discussion elsewhere has raised the possibility that this article could and should have a slightly better summary of the conspiracy theories surrounding the event. I am interested in the possibility of drafting such. Of course, I know how controversial this will be, and so I am putting it up here so we can discuss it. Depending on the reaction I may work on a suggested draft in the section below. Meantime if anyone else feels they can come up with a form of words that will satisfy policy and consensus, please feel free to suggest. --Guinnog 22:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Draft

So, here's my suggested draft, combining what we have with the lead of the CT article:

Main article: 9/11 conspiracy theories

Various conspiracy theories have emerged, as a reaction to the attacks, that question the mainstream account.

The theories typically include suggestions that individuals in (or associated with) the government of the United States knew of the impending attacks and refused to act on that knowledge.

Some conspiracy theorists have claimed that the collapse of the World Trade Center was the result of a controlled demolition. Published reports by structural engineers do not support the controlled demolition hypothesis. U.S. officials, mainstream journalists, and mainstream researchers have concluded that responsibility for the attacks and the resulting destruction rests solely with Al Qaeda.

Comments - draft conspiracy theories paragraph

Comments? --Guinnog 23:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

1. Looks good to me. I thought that section was too short. --Haemo 23:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
2. Disagree. The article is about a broad, complex subject matter, and from time to time substantially more important topics are suggested as deserving of greater treatment. The treatment of conspiracy folklore is adequate for the level of detail of the main article. Peter Grey 23:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
3. Works for me. Covers the conspiracy theories but hints that they are total crap. I might also add that controlled demolitions experts don't agree with the Contolled Demolition Hypothesis. Pablo Talk | Contributions 00:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
4. Change :"The theories typically include suggestions that individuals in (or associated with) the government of the United States knew of the impending attacks and refused to act on that knowledge. Some conspiracy theorists have claimed that the collapse of the World Trade Center was the result of a controlled demolition. Published reports by structural engineers do not support the controlled demolition hypothesis.[2] U.S. officials, mainstream journalists, and mainstream researchers have concluded that responsibility for the attacks and the resulting destruction rests solely with Al Qaeda.[3]" to "Conspiracy theories surrounding the events suggest that the U.S. Government was involved in some way and that controlled demolition destroyed all or some of the buildings. However, the evidence clearly indicates that the responsibility for the attacks and the resulting destruction rests solely with Al Qaeda[3], and that civil engineers have found no evidence of a controlled demolition.[2]"--MONGO 05:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
5. I like MONGO's version better. It correctly stresses that these conspiracy theories are baseless. Pablo Talk | Contributions 06:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Pablo and Mongo, that is a good idea if you want to stress that your point of view (POV) is the correct one. If you want to attain a neutral point of view (NPOV), I would have choosen other words. --Geir 08:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no objective analysis of facts that leads to anything other than the official version. Pablo Talk | Contributions 08:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I checked your userpage Pablo -it looks like you hava an agenda against alternativ points of view (APOV) on this subjeckt. Right? Geir 10:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

My userpage doesn't say anything about conspiracy theories. The only "agenda" I have is that I like to keep people from inserting cruft into articles. Pablo Talk | Contributions 18:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I miss these links in the conspiracy theories section: The wiki-pages 9/11 Truth Movement and Scholars for 9/11 Truth. Could we have: "Se also.."? Geir 10:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

1. no rewirte that includes details of the various conspiracy theories should be in the article. It is the camels nose in the tent. The paragraph should be about the phenomonenon of conspiracy theories surrounding the event, not the theories themselves. Something like 'A few people continue to believe that the attacks were not carried out by the 19 terrorist murderers hijacking 4 jetliners. Those people are wrong.' only with more references and flowery language. --Tbeatty 09:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much my sentiments overall...I figure once they have an inch, they'll want a mile. If it is mentioned in more detail, it needs to be made pretty clear that the issues have zero basis in facts.--MONGO 09:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand your "camels nose in the tent"-consern. But until the editors here comprehend that the people questioning the mainstream-version are not few, this articel will fail to provide balanced information for the readers. Geir 10:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Then let us hope after reading this article, they'll become better educated.--MONGO 10:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Revised draft

I take Guinnog's citations of his sources as true, though I will verify them later.

Main article: 9/11 conspiracy theories

Various conspiracy theories have emerged, as a reaction to the attacks, that question the mainstream account, which typically include suggestions that individuals in (or associated with) the government of the United States knew of or planned the impending attacks. These theories are not accepted as credible by the military, scientific and political communities, who have determined that responsibility for the attacks and the resulting destruction rests solely with Al Qaeda.

Some conspiracy theorists have claimed that the collapse of the World Trade Center was the result of a controlled demolition. Published reports by structural engineers reject this hypothesis.

Thoughts? Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The only thing about this version is it is alluding to the LIHOP (Let it happen theory)...but some conspiracy theorists believe in that the MIHOP (Make it happen) theory...so I tried to eliminate both and just say that the government was involved according to CTer's. I didn't mention shawdoy figures in association with the government since we are still talking about the governement having foreknowledge or involvement in some way or another as a central believe of the majority of the CTer's...few if any CTer's believe that there wasn't government involvement at some level. I prefer to see no more than what we have since I think once we start adding more about this, then that won't be enough...in time the article will have more and more CT stuff. The daughter articles is the best place to put all but a short intro about that stuff.--MONGO 18:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Review my most recent change, which presents the fact that conspiracy theorists believe in both Let and Made it happen, but actually shortens the paragraph. I would oppose any addition past this "see also" section. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yup...better...maybe simply..."that the government of the United States knew of or planned the attacks."--MONGO 18:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

So far, I think this is the best suggestion, though I'd want to tweak it a little. May I suggest this?

Main article: 9/11 conspiracy theories

Various conspiracy theories have emerged as a reaction to the attacks, typically suggesting that individuals within the government of the United States knew of or planned the impending attacks. Additionally, some conspiracy theorists have claimed that the collapse of the World Trade Center was the result of a controlled demolition. These theories are not accepted as credible by the military, scientific and political communities, who have determined that responsibility for the attacks and the resulting destruction rests solely with Al Qaeda.
--Mbc³⁶² 18:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It's fine, aside from the link to the 9/11 Truth Movement...I see no reason to give THAT group more publicity over other CTer's.--MONGO 19:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize it was a specific group, I thought it was the movement as a whole - I've removed it from my draft.--Mbc³⁶² 19:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The Truth-movment is not a specific group [13] Geir 19:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Too long in my view, but more importantly, solely is a very strong statement that is probably excessive. A lot of conspiracy theory 'logic' is based on the leap from 'someone could have done better' to 'US government 100% responsible'. Plus it seems the meaning is carried out by Al Qaeda operatives, a little different from responsibility. Peter Grey 19:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I think your moving in a good direction for attaing a more NPOV here. Geir 20:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

That is good Mr. Mongo. Qué Chévere! 20:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer my suggested "concluded" in place of "determined", as I think it sounds more scientific, rather than the legalistic sound of "determined", which makes me think of the health warning on tobacco products in the U.S. Overall though, I am very pleased with the progress here, and I thank Hipocrite, both for suggesting this improvement and for implementing a reasonably NPOV and consensus version of it. The article is incrementally improved by the work done. Thanks to all who contributed. --Guinnog 19:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, nice improvements. Though I still miss the link to the 9/11 Truth Movement-article, which is a broad aproach to this phenomenon. And I agree with the "concluded" choice above. Geir 21:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Are journalists part of the political community? Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe. Would you and Tbeatty be able to discuss your changes here, as I think a consensus was reached on the wording of that paragraph? Thanks. --Guinnog 14:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Did that above. Got consensus to change it. --Tbeatty 15:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Really? Where? --Guinnog 19:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I can see the removal of "Additionally, some conspiracy theorists have claimed that the collapse of the World Trade Center was the result of a controlled demolition.", but I am struggling to see the consensus for the removal. --Guinnog 15:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I think my edit reflects the consensus above, which is heavily qualified. I think too that my comment about journalists was not addressed before the change was made to the article. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I've got no problem with Tom's edit, but Tbeatty's is unacceptable in my opinion.--Mbc³⁶² 16:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The only difference was Tom's addition of the U.S. government knowledge. This doesn't take into account conspiracy theories that accuse Israel of carrying out the attacks. Here's the diff [14] --Tbeatty 16:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, but I am well aware of the differences. Your version introduced the section with "Various conspiracy theories have emerged in the aftermath of the attacks. Typically they suggest that various individuals or groups knew of or planned the attacks," which is basically stating the obvious - of course various individuals or groups knew of or planned the attacks, 9/11 didn't happen by accident. That's the problem I have with your edit; you made it so broad that even Al Qaida would fit in the definition.--Mbc³⁶² 17:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

My concern was limiting to U.S. government as there are conspiracy theories involving most western coutries as well as Israel. --Tbeatty 19:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

You have (again) made the opening sentence so broad that not only is it useless, but its logically incorrect. If the official story is that Al Qaida planned and carried out the attacks, every theory that someone else was behind it or allowed it to happen would be a conspiracy theory. Therefore, its pointless to say "various conspiracy theories have emerged as a reaction to the attacks, typically suggesting that individuals outside of the terrorist organization Al Qaeda knew of or planned the attacks." The word "typically" was included originally so that the reader would know that not all CTs involved the US gov. Its illogical to say that the CTs typically involve other groups than Al Qaida, as every CT must involve other groups than Al Qaida. The CT that the US gov. was being the attack was included because it is by far the most prevalent theory; CTs about Israel are far less common, and CTs about other governments are practically nonexistent.--Mbc³⁶² 19:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

In the ME, most of the conspiracy theories center on Israel. There is certainly one of those that was popular here when it was circulated that a numer of jewish people called in sick. No conspiracy theory is any more valid than any other so discounting some or favoring others shouln't happen in this article. Put it in the conspiracy article. --Tbeatty 22:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

You know very little about these particular conspiracy theories, and you speak with such confidence about them - it is not polite, nor it is wise. The story you mention is soo old and was since then debunked mostly by people from the Truth Movemnt. Maybe you should do some research on the topic before? Here, please read this article published in a Jewish magazine - it might give you some introduction. Also take a look at this Muslim-Jewish-Christian organization. And your statement is quite nutty: no conspiracy theory is any more valid than any other - well in very definition the official story is a conspiracy theory. SalvNaut 23:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

We are not going to be a messageboard for the 9/11 Truth Movement. The fact that there are numerous conspiracy theories regarding these events is well established.--MONGO 04:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

All of the theories have been debunked. Heck, half of the theorists accuse the other theorists of being involved in the conspiracy asa false flag operation. If we are only going to list the non-debunked Conspiracy Theories, we would have no section at all. But the reality is that if you ask the people of the world whose primary source of news is Al Jazeera, they will implicate Israel in the attacks. That conspiracy theory belief is probably held by more total persons than any of the U.S. centric theories. --Tbeatty 06:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not discounting any theory, I'm simply saying what theory seems to be the most prevalent. You have (yet again) changed the opening sentence to one that says basically nothing. You might as well just write "Various conspiracy theories have emerged as a reaction to the attacks." since the rest of the sentence gives no useful information beyond stating the obvious. As far as "Put it in the conspiracy article" goes, I'm not even sure what you mean. Put what in the conspiracy article?--Mbc³⁶² 23:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It was a poor edit, a really silly thing to say, and I still don't see the consensus you said you established for it. --Guinnog 04:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Most prevalent in what sense? There are no experts that hold the views of any conspiracy theories so "most prevalent" is without meaning. There is a whole article that explores the various conspiracy theories. There is no reason to single any of them out. Controlled Demolition isn't any more likely or scientific than energy weapons or alien attack. The theories implicating the U.S. government aren't any more credible than the theories that implicate France or Israel. Therefore the statement in this article should be short and without prejudice. You can explore the U.S. Government theories as well as the controlled demolition theories in the 9/11 conspiracy theories article. That is the appropriate place to explore who holds what beliefs and why. --Tbeatty 06:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Tbeatty, please do not edit the comments of other users. Where was that consensus you said you had established? --Guinnog 16:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks. If you cannot see the consensus, then no answer I provide can help you. --Tbeatty 16:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Tbeatty, you have been asked not to edit the comments of other users, please heed this request. Furthermore, as the comment was directed solely at your edit, not at you personally, it does not constitute a personal attack. If you refuse to show us where the consensus is for your edit, I see no reason why I should let it stand.--Mbc³⁶² 18:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Tbeatty I think, there are lot's of different theories, there's no reason to imply that there is only one group that CT'ers single out...RxS 19:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

A new section

1. What you say they think is true. Proof is the secret paper President Bush read in Texas. The USA Government knew some attacks were on the way soon with airplanes maybe. Is there an article on that paper? It was on Aug 6? Is that paper told about in this article? Qué Chévere! 00:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Dude, this isn't the place for this. We're talking about this section - how does your comment have any relevance to this, at all? --Haemo 01:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

"The theories typically include suggestions that individuals in (or associated with) the government of the United States knew of the impending attacks" [15] "Bin Laden determined to strike in US" They did know. That is why. Qué Chévere! 01:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Please stop making disruptive edits in this section. Pablo Talk | Contributions 01:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Nothing I write is disruptive. You just change one word and the proof is true. The words are bad. " individuals in (or associated with) the government of the United States knew of the impending attacks and forgot to act on that knowledge." He should change that part. Qué Chévere! 02:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to let people know, Que Chevere is Babalooo. --Golbez 01:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I said so. Qué Chévere! 01:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you kindly not do this? It's very disruptive, and doesn't help at all. --Haemo 01:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

What are you writing of? The words are not so good to me Qué Chévere! 02:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay. We are talking about writing a new paragraph for this section. You are talking about unrelated matters, which don't have to do with the paragraph, or how it is written. This is disruptive, since it doesn't add anything to the discussion. Now, do you have anything to say about the paragraph? --Haemo 02:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Some people had some information - that much has been known for a long time independently of conspiracy theory speculation. It takes more than isolated bits of truth slipping out to validate the whole conspiracy theory phenomenon. Note "forgot" is really hard to prove but is included under negligence. Peter Grey 02:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but we're not discussing this, nor are we trying to "discredit" anyone. We're talking about adding a short paragraph to flesh out this section. However, some people appear to have taken this as an invitation to air whatever views they think even remotely relate to this topic. It's not helping, and it's not productive. Please stop, or get back on topic. This isn't an "aside" since we're not arguing about this. I'm not arguing about this, and no one else is - only some people have decided to bring this up. This isn't relevant, and I'm not going to be drawn into this. I also object to refactoring this talk page discussion in this way. --Haemo 02:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is what I think is better. "individuals in (or associated with) the government of the United States knew exactly all the plans of the impending attacks and refused to act on that knowledge in a plot". I write this for "individuals in (or associated with) the government of the United States knew of the impending attacks" is perfectly all true not a conspiracy theory so it should not be written into the conspiracy theory. When it is others can think this "individuals in (or associated with) the government of the United States knew nothing at all of the impending attacks" Qué Chévere! 03:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, this is more relevant - but you're pushing a particular point of view, which should be argued on the linked article, not here. We're just trying to give a brief summary of the other article's lead here - we leave the serious content discussion for the other article's talk page. --Haemo 04:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Please keep this in it's own special section. Thanks. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why you move what I write. They were about Guinnogs words. Qué Chévere! 20:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't understand this either. This is a discussion about the new section - it's not a new section, and we've been able to get back on track here, after a short disagreement. It's just confusing to move it like this. --Haemo 21:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

molten metal

im sure someone somewhere has explained this, it may even be in the article, but im a busy man and dont have time to read it 18 times (every time its changed). what was the explanation for the pools of molten metal that stayed super-hot for days or weeks after the attacks underground? i thought that the steel wouldnt melt in the fires, due to the fact that the burning temperature of the jet fuel/ paper was not hot enough to melt steel, let alone keep it melted and very hot for weeks afterwards...one more thing - the largest support beams, according to some people should not have been wasted all the way to the ground...they should have been still standing, at least partially, from what i understand. 10 bucks says this ends in bloodshed 17:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

If you have questions like this, they probably belong at the reference desk WP:RD. RxS 05:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, we're not really all that good at fielding questions, because that would be really, really time consuming and take away from our editing. But there are resources for it, if you want to ask. --Haemo 06:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

proof

its useless to try and get anything that is not "official" on to wikipedia. if it is not produced by the government, it isnt "official". if we can only get "official" information from the government, how can we ever show an alternative view? one that does not coincide with the governments or directly implicates the government? i dont know how to express this without being blasted with hate mails.....10 bucks says this ends in bloodshed 04:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Because that's why we have a dozen conspiracy pages - because they aren't approved by the government. --Golbez 04:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

We have lots of stuff that isn't official. For instance, 9/11 conspiracy theories is pretty much entirely about non-official theories. Using only official theories kind of defeats the purpose of this encyclopedia. --Haemo 06:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

That was my point. I don't know if you were responding to the original statement, or if you missed my sarcasm. --Golbez 06:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, yes I was replying to the original. --Haemo 07:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Why are you trying to convince us? Find notable scientists and engineers that have published these alternative theories in peer reviewed journals. --Tbeatty 06:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me add on to Tbeatty's comments. Find a structural engineer. There are plenty of misguided electrical engineers and such that attempt to pass themselves off as experts who believe in conspiracy theories. Pablo Talk | Contributions 07:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

There are at least a few structural engineers that have doubts [16]. Yes there are many "misguided" PhD's, like Swiss structural engineer, who concluded that the building WTC 7 was with great probability demolished. Here is interesting few words about structural engineers involved in the collapse analysis. That's not to say that a publication by a structural engineer wouldn't be a breakthrough. SalvNaut 12:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I should have been more clear. I meant find a structural engineer who has provided a reliable source, such as a peer-reviewed journal article. Pablo Talk | Contributions 20:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

ok, guys.. i dont understand...your giving me references to this stuff (thanks), but none of it is in the article. if you found it, why is it up to me to put it on there? or you dont consider this good enough or what? i dunnah, man this place is pretty f*cked up 10 bucks says this ends in bloodshed 16:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

None of those are reliable sources, and the scientists have all failed to publish in peer-reviewed journals because their beliefs don't hold up against scientific rigor. These types of theories that are largely discredited by experts are detailed in 9/11 conspiracy theories and Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center--Dcooper 16:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

They aren't in this article because they don't belong to it. They're in the many other articles specifically on the conspiracy theories. --Golbez 19:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

when you say that these theories are largely discredited by experts....which experts? government experts? how long will this circle-jerk go on for? your becoming redundant; popular mechanics etc. are a part of almost every theory, tools of the government...i quit 10 bucks says this ends in bloodshed 01:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess if you consider all experts you disagree with to me tools of the government, then you'll never be happy with this, or probably any other, article on this topic. --Haemo 05:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's see, in this section alone you have said it's "useless to try", you expect us to "blast you with mails", you call this place "pretty f*cked up", and you now call it a "circle-jerk". It seems you're just in this to insult Wikipedia and its editors; is that all? --Golbez 20:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh don't be so harsh. This place is to be seen by many as pretty f****d up, still it is one of the best places on the Internet. If I understand, 10 bucks is making a point, in his language (which happens not to be used on Wikipedia, and that's good), that many before him were making. That this article does not reflect true feelings of quite significant amount of people, and not only common people but also journalists, scholars, some politicians. There are many journalist sources from which balancing phrases could be taken. There is a book by Bob Woodward "State of Denial" in which there is clearly shown that Bush administration ignored (at least) many highest level warnings about 9/11 coming, there is a Complete 9/11 Timeline by Paul Thompson, there are many articles in smaller newspapers.

I would actually propose an edit but I am quite busy recently, and I see what is happening when a cosmetic change to Conspiracy Theories section is proposed, I just don't feel it's worth the time.

By the way, how about using this article as a source to the conspiracy theories section: 22% Believe Bush Knew About 9/11 Attacks in Advance. SalvNaut 23:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you mean [....and not only (a minority of) common people but also (a tiny minority of) journalists, (a tiny minority of) scholars, some (a tiny minority of) politicians]. RxS 05:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Article still an embarrasment to wikipedia

Contrary to all wikipedia precdents, wikipedia rules and basic logic, the word 'terrorist' still appears in the lead-in. Given that the term has no universally agreed upon definition, its nothing more than an insult. You may as well be calling al qaeda "pooh pooh heads".

Furthermore, the official story is given almost universal coverage whilst alternative theories are deliberately sidelined. It doesn't matter who is right or wrong from the perspective of wikipedia - in fact determining such would be original research. The fact is that very significant minority (and in some countries, a majority) consider the official explaination to be wrong. Despite the opinions of the US conservatives camping on this article, these views deserve more than a paragraphs recognition.

Drop your opinions. Look at other articles related to 'terrorism' and I think you will understand how horrificly slanted this article is. Damburger 13:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

They don't just have a paragraph (and are not deliberately sidelined), they have whole articles devoted to them. And re: US conservatives, you couldn't be any more wrong. I for one am quite liberal and view the Bush administration with comtempt. But unlike other POV pushers that want to push crap into these articles, I (and others) resist attempts by those with thinly veiled political agendas that try to dilute articles with nonsense. And the word terrorist is used by media outlets all over the world...RxS 15:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

To the original statement, please read WP:SOAP. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 16:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many media outlets call it a terrorist attack - the word is simply too ill-defined to be used in the lead-in. How is removing contentious language from the lead-in, using wikipedia as a soapbox? I am simply arguing for removing the opinionated language and letting the facts speak for themselves. You are the one advocating a position by labelling the attacks 'terrorist'.

Regarding the 'conspiracy theories' - the term is meaningless in the context because the official story is also a conspiracy theory, as are all the explainations for this event. So the only meaning of that label is to try and dismiss such theories.

Damburger 17:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I actually quite agree with the removal of "terrorist" into just "attacks" however the problem is that you are here to promote a viewpoint not to try and make the article more encyclopedic. If you want to promote a view, please consider doing so on other websites. Again, please read WP:SOAP. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 17:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not here to promote a political agenda. I'm here to promote a little objectivity and sanity that is sadly lacking in most of the people editing this article. Damburger 17:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It is clear from your original statement that you want to promote an "inside job" theory. That is all fine and good, however Wikipedia talk pages are to discuss content with regards to their respective articles not to promote views. Please refrain from doing so if you wish for your opinions to be taken seriously with regards to the article. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 17:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you did not assume things about my intentions. Your reaction is typical of the problem around here - anybody asking for an objective treatment of the incident is seen as pushing an alternative theory, or supporting terrorism somehow. Damburger 17:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad we agree that the hijackers were enagaged in acts of terrorism.--MONGO 19:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Damburger's claim that we objectively analyze the "incident." However, an objective analysis of the facts leads to only one conclusion--the so-called "official version." Pablo Talk | Contributions 10:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Please don't engage in personal attacks on other editors. --Haemo 02:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Sadly Amusing

This must be some form of black humor, as I can't believe so many people are so convinced that 9/11 was anything except for what is presented in this article. If it wasn't so horibly morbid, it could pass as halarious. I'm going to assume this will be deleted, but I just HAD to mention something after spending so much of my time reading these theories. Hate makes the heart grow fonder... Tarage 08:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, you'll find that the official Wikipedia position is four-square on the side of the nuttier conspiracy theorists: when I tried to revert CT'er vandalism to this page, the Admins sided with the CT'ers and banned me from editing for a good deal of time. It is apparently OFFICIAL Wikipedia doctrine and policy that the conspiracy theorists are correct no matter what claims they make, period. Sad indeed. Carthago delenda est 02:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, you revert-warred to get a valid (in terms of 'about improving the article', not in terms of 'correct') entry on a talk page. It had nothing to do with the validity of the theory. --Golbez 02:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how this is so amusing and ludicrous. Perhaps if there was evidence that was clear and could 100% tell anyone in the world that it wasn't an inside job then yes it would be. But there are "conspiracy theories" out there because the "facts" published by this government are the biggest joke that I have ever seen. They claim that the towers fell due to extreme fires and structural damage, yet never before in this history of the world has a STEEL BUILDING been collapsed by way of fire. Never. The 9/11 report say the same thing about WTC7, when in fact that building only had minimal damge from fire and debris and was taken down by controlled demolitions in the same manor as the towers. Furthermore, if the government isn't lying, then why was anyone important to the WTC called and told not to go to work that day?

minor format edit reqd.

i noticed that the box "Attacks by al-Qaeda" is on the right hand side (near top of the page). Can someone move to the bottom of the page, as is the usual norm. Else, i can also do the same unless some has an objection for the same. Kalyan 14:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Can we talk about bias, again?

We should talk about bias at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias open tasks#September 11, 2001 attacks. I read through NPOV and bias in Wikipedia and I really think the article of "September 11, 2001 attacks" violates the rule or guideline of Wikipedia.--Shoons 05:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

How, exactly, do you feel it does that? --Haemo 05:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

He says that because we don't mention the falsehood that the hijackers are still alive, it's a biased article. In which case, he's correct - we're biased against incorrect statements. But I don't think the CSB project really considers that a problem. --Golbez 05:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the systemic bias against lies is really hurting Wikipedia. Pablo Talk | Contributions 05:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

When we discuss about bias here, many people do not seem to understand NPOV of Wikipedia. We should straight this thing up at different place to hear different opinions instead of discussing among the same regular people.Not only about hijacker. There are many of them. --Shoons 05:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Just because you have an opinion that the hijackers are alive doesn't make it true. No, we do not have to report on your different opinion. If you have specific complaints, please say them; but saying "this article is biased" with a woefully poor example really isn't going to help anything. --Golbez 05:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, the link was broken when I first replied. The first line: It is not about the conspiracy theory is not systematically biased. Why? Because we have 9/11 conspiracy theories, which also specifically addresses the (false) example he makes there. --Haemo

"Theory" part can go to 9/11 conspiracy theories but facts should be described here.--Shoons 05:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Right, and the fact is, they died. So ... again, please explain your complaint. The theory article handles this quite expertly because it is a theory that they lived, and the facts are they did not - therefore, it belongs in the theory article. This article is about facts; that one is about dealing with the hypotheses and theories that are not factual. --Golbez 05:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and the facts all point to the conclusion that all the hijackers died rather unpleasantly on 9/11. --Haemo 05:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

"The hijackers were supposed to die. However 7 hijackers were found and are still alive according to Hijack 'suspects' alive and wellBBC News and Father insists alleged leader is still alive."

NPOV should allow discribing these facts.--Shoons 06:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The theory article includes the fact that BBC reported this - and the fact that the BBC was wrong in its assertion. Are you actually reading what we write? Have you looked at the arguments against any of the hijackers being alive? (like the fact that they flew planes into things) As for Atta's father, that's dealt with on the Mohamed Atta article rather well - was he telling the truth? who knows. But the evidence shows Mohamed Atta walked on to a plane in Boston on that Tuesday morning, and that's more evidence than Papa Atta is supplying. --Golbez 06:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Did you check the date on that BBC article? Guess what? A lot of things have been learned since 9-23-01. Those people have the same names as the hijackers, but they are not the same people. Atta's father presents no evidence to conclude that his son is still alive. Pablo Talk | Contributions 06:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias open tasks#September 11, 2001 attacks--Shoons 14:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

WTC7 Collapse?

This article hangs on every word from government sources regarding 9/11 and fails to mention any information that contradicts those sources, no matter how reliable. For example, the case that WTC7 was brought down in a controlled demolition is supported by video evidence that is widely available on the internet and comes from major news sources. Now, why should the mere suggestion that one building was brought down by a deliberate act be threatening to the integrity of the article? How is the uncertainty regarding the collapse of WTC7 not relevant to this article? Oneismany 18:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

There are no reliable sources that refute the known facts.--MONGO 19:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The articles belong to conspiracy theory are branched out to individual articles such as 7 World Trade Center. We should fix those articles first. To fix this problem properly, we should approach it from NPOV. That's why I'm trying to discuss at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias open tasks#September 11, 2001 attacks. Otherwise they would not listen to you. I think we should approach from the central authority.--Shoons 20:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I see a "problem" that needs to be fixed. Pablo Talk | Contributions 21:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is stoned to death. SalvNaut 21:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you have anything serious to add, because that's not a very civil comment. --Haemo 22:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

If the one-eyed man was trying to insert garbage into encyclopedia articles, then he probably deserved it. Pablo Talk | Contributions 23:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

"There are no reliable sources that refute the known facts." Ahh, very illuminating. And what are the known facts? Wikipedia policy is bases on verifiability, not truth. There is widespread video evidence (see http://www.wtc7.net) that WTC7 was brought down in a controlled demolition. The official sources are not more or less verifiable than other sources. The hypothesis that WTC7 was brought down in a fire is disputable and the building's collapse can be accounted for by more than one hypothesis. Therefore it garners mention in this article. Dismissing it as "conspiracy theory" is no argument at all and only calls into question the intentions of those who do so. Oneismany 23:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but these sources are minor, disputed, and not popular. Including them on this page would constitute undue weight. We do, however, give them an entire page at Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center. --Haemo 23:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Define "minor." The official story is also disputed. Since when is popularity a criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia? Anyway at last count 36% of US citizens believe the US government is partly to blame for the attacks and 85% doubt the official story, which makes it pretty popular. Oneismany 00:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Minor - as in, not supported by very many credible experts; widely disputed by credible experts; a fringe theory, not widely supported, and in a great deal of dispute. Furthermore, 85% of people doubting a given theory does not automatically give credence to any given alternative. Some people believe that Hitler escaped from Germany, to live in Argentina. However, this is a minor, or fringe theory - it is not widely supported, and should probably not be mentioned on Hitler, but maybe of Death of Hitler. --Haemo

"For example, the case that WTC7 was brought down in a controlled demolition is supported by video evidence that is widely available on the internet and comes from major news sources." So is the case that it was brought down because a tower fell on it. The difference is, my version is backed up by other facts - namely, a tower fell on it. Your version requires that 70 to 280 floors of office tower were somehow covertly wired for professional destruction. Why do you people keep trying? Can't you go troll another encyclopedia or something? The fact that Wikipedia is editable doesn't give you people the right to constantly attempt to shove this drivel down our throats. Sometimes, a cigar is nineteen Arabs in airplanes. Nothing more, nothing less. --Golbez 01:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

WTC7 was across the street from the towers and there was no known significant damage to it besides random fires. The official story is that fires burned it down, not that a tower fell on it. Video shows it falling vertically into its footprint. It fell six hours after the twin towers and the official story is that the towers pancaked vertically, so which tower are you referring to that fell on WTC7? Oneismany 01:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

That's simply untrue. Anyone who does more than 10 seconds of research (this does not include conspiracy theorists, evidently) knows that there were huge gouges in the side of WTC7. The collapse of the Twin Towers did a ton of damage to WTC7. Pablo Talk | Contributions 01:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

NIST reports there were huge gouges from the fall of the twin towers, but the FEMA contends that diesel in the basement contributed to fires that brought WTC7 down. Either way, the building falls vertically in 6.5 seconds in every video of the collapse and it happened 6 hours after the twin towers imploded. No building "fell on it," as described above, and even if that is a reference to the structural damage, the building held together after that damage. Then it descended vertically rather than toppling over as might be expected if a huge chunk of it was gouged out. In any case the cause is unknown and the fact that the cause is unknown deserves mention in this article because it is relevant to the subject. Oneismany 01:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually there's also video and photographs of large gouges. Like how you cite video and photographic evidence to say there weren't any. It doesn't deserve any more mention in this article as it already has. --Golbez 01:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The gouges do not show up in the videos. In any case whether there were huge gouges or not that does not begin to explain why the building would fall 6 hours after the damage or why it would collapse vertically, without crashing into nearby buildings. I do not know why the building collapsed and I am not positing any theory. I am only pointing out that the observation has been made by more than one verifiable source that the manner of the collapse resembles a controlled demolition, and the lack of an adequate explanation is relevant to the subject of this article. Oneismany 02:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at this video. The collapse starts at :05 and ends at :19. So that's about 14 seconds. I agree that saying the building fell on it might be a bit misleading though. Pablo Talk | Contributions 01:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The video shows part of the rooftop descending at 00:05 which is probably the penthouse. Then the rest of the building collapses from 00:12 to 00:19. Whether you count 14 seconds or 6.5 seconds the collapse does not resemble a building toppling over due to gouges at its base or pancaking due to fire damage. I am not positing any theory as to why this happened. I am just saying that the vertical descent of the building 6 hours after any alleged damage that might have contributed to its collapse requires more than cursory scrutiny and it might support more than one hypothesis for its fall. Controlled demolition is one hypothesis that might account for its fall and multiple verifiable sources have offered this hypothesis. The strange manner of its destruction and lack of adequate explanation are relevant to this article and deserve to be mentioned. Oneismany 02:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you're verging on WP:SOAP now. RxS 02:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. I invite you to study the evidence for yourself and come to your own conclusions. If this article were NPOV, it would do the same. Oneismany 03:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

If editors were to study evidence (primary sources) and write their conclusions, Wikipedia would be a secondary source, such as a journal or commentary. As Wikipedia is a tertiary source—an encyclopedia—we can only look at secondary sources, and other tertiary sources, to decide what goes into an article. And the policy on Wikipedia is to only use reputable sources, such as peer-reviewed academic journals or other publications at a comparable level of reputation. It is not appropriate to discuss studying evidence on this talk page; please try to restrict the discussion to citation of reputable secondary and tertiary sources. --dreish~talk 18:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

How is the story that 19 hijackers crashed planes into some of the the buildings destroyed on September 11 more or less verifiable than the video recordings of the event that are widely available on the internet and elsewhere, or witness testimony that explosions were going on inside the buildings? Nowhere does this article make any mention of suggestions that there may be more than one point of view about nature of the destruction on that day, which makes it ridiculously POV. Not even a simple "According to official reports" will be tolerated on this page, which calls into question the intention of those who revert such a simple attempt at NPOV. I do not want to hear that alternative hypotheses of the event are "conspiracy theories," because the story of the 19 hijackers is also a conspiracy theory. Who besides government and government-sponsored sources sticks so closely to the official record of events? Wikipedia is not a mouthpiece for the US government, therefore alternate sources of information that are also verifiable should also be included. Oneismany 00:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the 19 hijackers conspired to hijack those airliners and crash them into buildings does not mean that a belief in that version is a conspiracy theory. Pablo Talk | Contributions 00:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Huh? It's a theory about a conspiracy, which makes it a conspiracy theory. Oneismany 00:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

A conspiracy theory implies some sort of secretive, behind-the-scenes plot. Al-Qaeda hasn't been secretive in claiming that they hijacked those planes. Pablo Talk | Contributions 00:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-US media sources such as Al-Jazeera have reported that Osama bin Laden denied he was involved in the attacks. Anyway however it was done it was secretive and behind the scenes even if it were the 19 hijackers because nobody else knew about it before it happened, which makes it a conspiracy. Hence it is a theory about a conspiracy, no less a conspiracy theory than the theory that the government was involved somehow, or that space aliens or garden gnomes were involved somehow. There is no evidence that I am aware of that space aliens or garden gnomes were involved. However, there is evidence that the US government was involved, or at least incompetent, such as the NORAD defense failure. Furthermore the evidence that 19 hijackers were responsible comes primarily from a single source, the US government. Oneismany 00:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

That's because, as has been repeatedly discussed on this talk page, the controlled demolition hypothesis is a fringe theory. It is not supported by very many credible sources, and is in fact roundly contradicted by many other credible sources. In the narrative of the event, it constitutes a very minor hypothesis, and to give it any significant mention on this page would constitute undue weight. There is already an entire article on this subject at Controlled demolition hypothesis, and a section is 9/11 conspiracy theories - which is where consensus has determined it belongs. Adding a {{neutrality}} tag to this article is totally unwarranted, given that consensus has repeatedly supported the current articles revision about conspiracy theories. --Haemo 00:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Referring to one conspiracy theory as preferred and not mentioning other conspiracy theories is POV. What about being a theory about a conspiracy or not being a theory about a conspiracy makes a theory more or less verifiable? Oneismany 00:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

This is not the case. This is not a verifiability issue, and if you seriously believe that the whole and heart of neutral point of view is whether or not you can verify a viewpoint exists, you have a serious misunderstanding. The controlled demolition hypothesis is not widely supported by credible experts. It constitutes a fringe conspiracy theory, and you have not advanced any evidence that it is anything but that. --Haemo 00:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

How are experts more or less credible than video evidence from major news sources? Oneismany 00:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

You mean, how are experts on demolition, video analysis, and structural engineering less credible than interpretation of video recording? Let me put it this way - you look at a video recording of the collapse, and see a demolition. Experts look at the footage and see something different. Video footage is not prima facie evidence for anything - it has to be analyszed and interpreted. Experts have reviewed this footage, and come to conclusions which do not support controlled demolition. --Haemo 00:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Experts who are not editors on Wikipedia are not part of consensus on Wikipedia. It is up to Wikipedia editors to reach a consensus among themselves about the available verifiable sources. Some third-party published analyses agree with the official theory and some do not. Some of these sources are only very recently published. Multiple witnesses testify that there were explosions inside the buildings. Multiple news sources reported on the day of the event that the collapse of WTC7 resembled a controlled demolition. The NIST is considering controlled demolition as one hypothesis of the collapse of WTC7. None of this is significant enough or relevant enough to garner a brief mention in this article? Oneismany 01:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they reported that it resembled a controlled demolition. That does not mean it was a controlled demolition. But that's besides the point. Are news reporters experts? Did they publish anything? No, they're not experts and they haven't published anything. Also, explosions and bombs are not the same thing. There were huge fuel tanks in WTC7, and numerous sources have reported those as the cause of many of the explosions. There is a consensus of Wikipedia editors who don't want conspiracy kookiness in the articles. Just because you don't like that doesn't mean that there is no consensus, and it also doesn't mean that you can just slap a neutrality tag on the article. Wikipedia is not the place to insert baseless conspiracy theory propaganda. Pablo Talk | Contributions 01:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that Wikipedia is not the place to insert baseless conspiracy theory propaganda, which is why we should carefully qualify all of the information from official sources. The available verifiable information about the destruction on that day supports more than one hypothesis, and one conspiracy theory is not more or less neutral than another conspiracy theory. A neutral point of view would carefully consider every possibility that is supported by evidence. Some of the official theory is not supported by any evidence besides the word of the US government. So, to be neutral this article should identify the source of the information and not prefer the official theory. Oneismany 01:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

This is totally not true - the overwhelming majority of credible experts have judged that the evidence supports the so-called "official" account of the events. A small minority of people, very few (if any) of whom are credible, endorse a different account. Neutral point of view does not enjoin us to treat these two accounts as having equal merit - in fact, it specifically tells us not to. The controlled demolition hypothesis is mentioned on 9/11 conspiracy theories and controlled demolition hypothesis - which is where it should be. To include it on this page in fact violates neutrality, and give it undue weight. --Haemo 03:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Truth is not the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia, verifiability is. The official account contains much that is not verifiable, for example, the identities of the hijackers and their activities prior to the attacks. For some of this information, the only source we have to rely on is the word of the US government or affiliated parties. To be neutral, the information presented in this page should carefully identify the source of the information. On the other hand there is also verifiable information that is not included in the official account or only mentioned briefly, such as the collapse of World Trade Center 7. Imagine if Wikipedia presented the Reichstag fire with only the information that the Nazis gave the German people in order to manipulate them. If Wikipedia existed in 1933 then unfortunately I imagine the Reichstag Fire article would look very much like this article on the September 11 attacks, at least until the Nazis were out of power. But we have the benefit of history and so we should know better than to take our government at its word. Oneismany 04:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) Of course truth is not - otherwise we wouldn't have pages about 9/11 conspiracy theories or controlled demolition hypothesis. Again, you misunderstand the arguement - you think, that because it's verifiable that some people believe in the controlled demolition hypothesis, and that they base this belief on video footage, that it should be included in the article. This violates neutral point of view. As I will explained, again, that the overwhelming view of experts, both inside, and outside the US government is that the evidence does not support a controlled demolition. A fringe minority believe that it does. As neutral point of view enjoins us, we should not give these two claims equal merit - to do so constitutes undue weight.

You seem to hold the opinion that any view which can be verified to exist, should be included in order to meet neutral point of view. This is definitively not the case. Furthermore, you seem to believe that anyone who agrees with the general interpretation of the "official" account is somehow "government-related" or sponsored. This is also not the case. Your assertions have no merit - and if you would simply just read the archived talk pages, you would see that they have been dealt with again, and again. This is exceedinly tiresome to retread once again. --Haemo 04:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Let it be noted that the NPOV tag is removed prior to a consensus being reached. I will not turn this dispute into a revert war. Oneismany 00:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The NPOV tag is not to be added without some serious understanding of the concensus reached on this page. It's apparent from your comments, that you do not understand what neutral point of view means, not have you read the archives of this page to understand that this has been discussed, and concensus reached. Literally all of your comments have been previously addressed. --Haemo 00:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Which part of "representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources)" means sticking to government sources or government-sponsored sources that are challenged by video evidence from major news sources? Oneismany 00:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

No one has done this. Experts, both inside and outside the government have examined the evidence - including the footage in question - and come to the conclusion that the controlled demolition hypothesis is not supported by evidence. --Haemo 00:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

While there may be many points of view, not all are meanigful or carry the same weight (or any for that matter). Most experts in their field give credence to roughly the official version and most are not government and government-sponsored sources. RxS 00:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Know what I love about all this? The second someone dissagrees with these theories, they are automatically labled government or government-suponcored. It can't be just some sane person saying "Uh... that theory is stupid. We have so many bits of evidence backing up one idea(I use the term lightly), that it is as close to fact as we are going to get. Stop whining.".--Tarage 11:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

You started the edit war. Pablo Talk | Contributions 00:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Jumper estimates

• This article says that "An estimated 200 people jumped to their deaths from the burning towers" while The Falling Man claims over 250. --Cravendekere 21:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but 200 is an estimate of 250?--Tarage 11:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The number on this page is sourced; the number on The Falling Man is unsourced. I'd stay with 200 people. Pablo Talk | Contributions 04:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

--Tarage 16:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The title of this artcle

I'm sure this article has gone through many naming discussions, but wouldn't WP:COMMONNAME suggest this article be titled "September 11 attacks." I've never seen it referred to with the year, or at least very rarely, and I don't think any of the references do either. This article uses it only once in the article (in the intro). September 11 attacks appears a bit more often and is most likely the more common name. ~ UBeR 03:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I reckon, that specifying 2001 precludes any other attack on September 11. --Haemo 04:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any others. ~ UBeR 20:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia is a hybrid of many styles and naming conventions. There doesn't seem to be a perfect name that suits everyone. Peter Grey 03:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

After all it is not even "attacks", we should change it to "crimes" or "accidents" at least.--Shoons 04:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

uhm... accidents? Those poor folks didn't mean to fly their airliners into the towers? What? --Golbez 06:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry I was wrong. It should be "Case", "Occurrence" or "event" at least, shouldn’t it? At least, "attacks" is not appropriate for the event or because the title of this article states "attacks", this article can be like this and can have bias. Then it would make sence. --Shoons 14:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

How is it not an attack? A recognized militant group used weapons to cause dammage to, at the very least, buildings and people. That sounds like very definition as defined by Wikipedia: "Attack is a word meaning to strike out at an opponent, among other definitions." Unless this is a backdoor way of trying to premote yet another conspiricy theory, which I'm betting it is...--Tarage 16:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You are right! From POV of so called "conspiricy theory", they were not attacks. "Attack"="to strike out at an opponent...". If it was internal job, it was not "attack"(, though "heart attack" does not have any opponet). Anyway what I am saying is this article can be with bias because the title tells so. It concludes that my arguments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias open tasks#September 11, 2001 attacks does not make sense because of this title, thus it can have bias, first of all.--Shoons 16:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this article has a strong bias towards the consensus amongst relevant and reputable sources, while giving fair room to far fetched theories to be known thus giving them the chance of being investigated and substantiated to become at some point in the future the new consensus. If you wish these theories to have the main room here, take them and work on until they reach consensus amongst relevant and reputable sources. Then come back and you will be welcome (and in the process you will probably earn a Pulitzer prize).--Igor21 17:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Anyway we should make another article with title of "September 11, 2001 crimes". I just want to have articles dedicated to facts, not to fiction or to theories.--Shoons 18:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Which is exactly what you would be doing by renaming it to crimes. Regardless of you who believe was behind it, they're still attacks. ~ UBeR 05:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! "they're still attacks" made me clear. This page should not have bias, then. This article shows only one side and it is against Wikipedia guideline.--Shoons 13:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it shows any side. To not show any side, the article would just have to present the facts as they're stated by reliable sources in a neutral manner. We obviously shouldn't give the attacking any sympathy. Likewise, we should not give the attacked side any sympathy. Value judgments should be made by the reader, not the writer. ~ UBeR 21:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

UBeR, I did not mean to disturb your initial question. Now I am making a comment regarding "I'm not aware of any others. " There is 1973 Chilean coup d'état. I heard that, in Latin America, it is know as 9/11 attacks by CIA of USA. It was even worse terrorism.

Moved from WP:CSB talk page

September 11, 2001 attacks

It is not about the conspiracy theory. The articles of September 11, 2001 attacks is highly against NPOV. Most of articles ignore the facts, statements or scientific proofs and are by only one side.
1.For instance, many hijackers are found and alive but not mentioned at all. Again, I am not talking about theories. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shoons (talk • contribs) 17:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC). Sorry! I forgot to sign. So is this right place to discuss about this issue? Since I am new here, I just want to make sure how I am supposed to do.--Shoons 17:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You can discuss it on the article's talk page, which you've never edited before now. --Golbez 05:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Plus, It is not about the conspiracy theory because we have 9/11 conspiracy theories, which also specifically addresses the example you give above. --Haemo

"Theory" parts can go to 9/11 conspiracy theories but facts should be described at September 11, 2001 attacks. From point of view of NPOV, I think it is violating the guideline or rule of Wikipedia.--Shoons 05:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have an incorrect view of NPOV; please tell me how including falsehoods in an article makes it less biased. --Golbez 05:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

"The hijackers were supposed to die. However 7 hijackers were found and are still alive according to Hijack 'suspects' alive and wellBBC News and Father insists alleged leader is still alive."

NPOV should allow discribing these facts.--Shoons 06:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC) "all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. "--Shoons 06:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Can we discuss this on the talk page of the article please, instead of you pasting the same things in two locations? And who exactly are you quoting? (answer there) --Golbez 06:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

We should talk about this issue here instead of the article. You have already discussed about this bias issue there. I need opinions by neutral people who know about NPOV very well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shoons (talk • contribs) 06:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

Okey dokey - but one should point out, as it is made on 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Mohammed Atta that these claims are not supported. In fact, the BBC later retracted that story. NPOV does not oblige anyone to present points of view which are extremely fringe, and not supported by evidence. --Haemo 06:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Now we are talking. Thanks. I can not find your sentence "NPOV does not ... evidence". Help me to find it.--Shoons 06:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It exists in what he wrote. He wasn't quoting anything. Are you just attempting to troll here? You have been completely unwilling to actually respond to anything we say, and seem to have a deliberately incorrect notion as to what NPOV means. --Golbez 06:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, his user page says he's Japanese, so benefit of a doubt. And, yes, I wasn't quoting anything there - I was just explaining what neutral point of view means, and what it doesn't mean. --Haemo 07:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Please quote. I am trying to make a real Wikipedia article. If you think the article is NPOV, convince me. I cannot find any articles about BBC declined Hijackers were found. Could you tell me where I can find it, please? --Shoons 07:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is the link, plain as day. --Golbez 07:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I have found Organizers of the September 11, 2001 attacks#Claims of stolen identity. Sorry I did not know it is mentioned here. The case is closed for me about this issue. So this is what I want. Isn't it fair and square? People at the Japanese Wikipedia are trying to conceal or they just do not know anything and many facts are missing. I need your help. Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shoons (talk • contribs) 13:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

2. Video or Audio tape of Osama bin Ladin can be fake

• IDIAP Research Institute (December 2002). IDIAP analysis of the latest bin Laden tape--Shoons 13:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

A lot of things can be fake, this being one of them; in fact, some people even think the footage of planes hitting the towers was faked. However, since Osama later made other, undispited (so far as I know) tapes that claim responsibility, the truthiness of the December 2001 tape is ultimately irrelevant with regard to responsibility for the attacks. It's handled in the article Videos of Osama bin Laden, though not very well. --Golbez 14:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help! So can we upgrade "The authenticity of the tape has been questioned." and add citation of IDIAP? If this first step works out, I do not need to stay here. I can go back and talk at the article of "9/11". --Shoons 15:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

3.Intelligence failure

• In late August 2001, when aggressive presidential action might have changed the course of U.S. history, CIA Director George Tenet made a special trip to Crawford, Texas, to get George W. Bush to focus on an imminent threat of a spectacular al-Qaeda attack only to have the conversation descend into meaningless small talk.[17] Similar to president Bush' reaction has been described in Woodward's book State of Denial when Condoleezza Rice in July 2001 dismissed high-alert warning of incoming attacks from CIA directors.
• CIA Director George Tenet and J. Cofer Black met with then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice on July 10, 2001 to warn her about an imminent Al Qaeda attack and were disappointed Rice wasn't alarmed enough by the warning, although Rice's friend Philip D. Zelikow (also executive director of the 9/11 Commission) also says in the book that the warning wasn't specific enough to enable the government to take a specific action to counter it (pages 49-52 of "State of Denial" by Bob Woodward).
• Able Danger: CIA conducted surveillance program which included observation of several key hijackers including Mohhamed Atta.
• I'm not proposing this video as a source (though it is compiled mainly from news sources), but this might give an idea of what I think we should deal with.

My question is: shouldn't at least an overview of those issues, if not the issues themselves, be presented in the main article? SalvNaut 22:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Please just search and see in what context words "foreknowledge" and "intelligence" only do occur in the article. Is that NPOV? SalvNaut 22:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

There is an entire article., Responsibility for the September 11, 2001 attacks here, which is to address those issues. --Haemo 22:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't find this, or any related, information there but my question is shouldn't at least an overview of those issues be given in the main article.SalvNaut 22:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Why? This is a question of responsibility for the attacks - and any argument which could be made that government action was too slow, or inadequate, is extremely distant from the proximate cause of a handful of terrorists. If you're going to apportion blame for the attacks, suggestions of government inaction - which are roundly denied by many - would play such a small part that giving them any mention on the page about the attacks would constitute undue weight. --Haemo 22:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, why are we discussing this here? Does this have anything to do with systematic bias - because I haven't seen anyone argue that. Why is this not being discussed on the talk pages of the articles in question? --Haemo 22:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, it has. But I must admit that I bring this up here because, firstly, there is an opportunity, secondly, because of lack of belief in discussing on the talk page. I might be prejudiced, I'd like to hope that this is only it. SalvNaut 22:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

What? I don't understand - the talk page appears to be full of discussion, and I have discussed there too. My question is, why is this a systematic bias issue, rather than just an attempt to move discussion away from a page where interested editors can participate in it? --Haemo 22:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

How is the story that 19 hijackers crashed planes into some of the the buildings destroyed on September 11 more or less verifiable than the video recordings of the event that are widely available on the internet and elsewhere, or witness testimony that explosions were going on inside the buildings? Nowhere does the September 11, 2001 attacks article make any mention of suggestions that there may be more than one point of view about nature of the destruction on that day, which makes it ridiculously POV. Not even a simple "According to official reports" will be tolerated on that page, which calls into question the intention of those who revert such a simple attempt at NPOV. I do not want to hear that alternative hypotheses of the event are "conspiracy theories," because the story of the 19 hijackers is also a conspiracy theory. Who besides government and government-sponsored sources sticks so closely to the official record of events? Wikipedia is not a mouthpiece for the US government, therefore alternate sources of information that are also verifiable should also be included. Oneismany 00:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

There is an entire article devoted to fringe theories about what happened, and a section in the article. The underlying narrative of the events is not seriously questioned by many credible sources, government-based or otherwise. --Haemo 00:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

"tiny-minority"

While I was away from home, this place has been very wild. Mr. Oneismany, calm down, please. Many people have been fighting like this for many years. I feel the same way as you do. But Wikipedia does not work that way at this point. We have to approach different way. I am asking them to show facts at least. Theories can be described at 9/11 conspiracy theory at this point. We should add facts gradually and let's build up right articles. Mr. Haemo, I am still waiting for the quote regarding "NPOV does not oblige anyone to present points of view which are extremely fringe, and not supported by evidence." --Shoons 03:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're asking - as I said, that's an interpretation of neutral point of view - specifically, undue weight. ---07:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

That's your interpretation. I need a citation. Thta's the Wikipedia way. That's what makes Wikipedia reliable source for other people. I still do not know if the statement is NPOV or not. It can be merely your opinion. --Shoons 12:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm being charitable, because your English isn't your first language - but it is totally acceptable to paraphrase policy in such a way. If you want a quote that says essentially the same thing - here's a quote from undue weight.

Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all.

Do you understand how that says essentially the same thing I said above? --Haemo 21:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! Now let's talk about "tiny-minority". How do you define "tiny-minority" or "minority"

• Is half of New York "tiny-minority"?

http://www.zogby.com/search/ReadNews.dbm?ID=855

• Is 1/3 of American "tiny-minority"?
• Do you think 6,000,000 people is "tiny-minority"?

http://www.scrippsnews.com/911poll --Shoons 16:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Neither of these surveys support your assertion - these surveys do not point out what they believe happened. The article does mention that some people believe the US government was involved in the attacks, which is totally in line with neutral point of view. --Haemo 20:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I am just asking you the/your definition of "tiny-minority". I just showed you some examples. --Shoons 01:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

surveys required?

Since you are saying "Neither of these surveys support your assertion", I am asking the next question. Do we need to have surveys for every single item to determine "tiny-minority"?--Shoons 01:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

No? I honestly don't even know what you're looking for here. This is totally confused, and I don't understand what's going on here. --Haemo 01:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I am just trying to clarify what you are talking about. Because you are accusing us as "tiny-minority", I bet you have some good proofs that show us we are "tiny-minority". Please answer the question above regarding "tiny-minority", too. I need your/the definition of "tiny-minority".

I'm not accusing you of anything - and "definition" has nothing to do with it. Wikipedia's guidelines are not written in code - it's plain English. The onus is not on me to provide some kind of evidence of unpopularity here - I don't even know how one would do such a thing - especially since I'm not even sure what you're advocating to be included. --Haemo 03:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I just want to understand what is your definition of the words that you are telling us, because other people disagree with you, too. I just want to play fair by Wikipedia's guideline.

If the guideline says you are right, there is no argue here.--Shoons 11:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

fringe theories

How do you know a theory is fringe or not? Since you do not show unpopularity. Obviously many people are trying to add the facts and you keep denying. I'd like to know the/your defeinition of "fringe theory". How do we know if it is fringe or not when you do not provide any evidence of unpopularity. --Shoons 11:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Fringe - as in, not widely supported by experts on the subject. It's not a trick phrase or something. --Haemo 20:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

So called "9/11 conspiracy theory" is widely supported by experts on the subject.--Shoons 00:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

No, they're not? I don't know what else to tell you. What you are saying is not the case, and you have no evidence to support it. This has been explained repeatedly on the talk page for 9/11, yet you insist dragging it on our there. --Haemo 01:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You do not have any evidence to support either because you already have mentioned above that you will not provide it. If you do, show us. --Shoons 03:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You seriously don't understand the problem with asking me to show you that something doesn't exist, do you? --Haemo 04:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Why do you say "something doesn't exist"? If something doesn't exist, no argue before or now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shoons (talk • contribs) 14:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

You're asking me to advance evidence that a given theory is not popular. I.e. that the popularity of a given theory does not exist. --Haemo 22:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It is impossible to explain about twin tower collapse with pancake theory. So are you talking about pancake theory?--Shoons 02:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea how this even constitutes a reply to my last statement. No? --Haemo 02:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry I skipped the logic. I am not saying the popularity of a given theory does not exist. I am just saying pancake theory can exist but we consider it is one of the theory. So are the other thories. It is impossible to explain about twin tower collapse with pancake theory. But is panckae theory fringe thory?--Shoons 02:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

If your "pancakce theory" is the mainstream account, then no. --Haemo 03:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Another theory can be shown because you can not show that another theory is fringe. But I do not think 1/3 of American is fringe.--Shoons 04:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

This is not true, and I pointed out why above. Your numbers do not say what you think they say. --Haemo 07:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

For example, in Japan 0.8% of population is Christian. I say it is fringe. But we mention these small tiny cult groups. So should we eliminate them according to your logic?--Shoons 01:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

We mention it in Japan and Demographics of Japan, not Asia. --Haemo 02:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I am just telling you an example. Religion in Japan tells about Christian. 0.8% of Japanese is Christian so we should delete them. Is it what you are saying?--Shoons 03:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

science vs. pseudoscience

according to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Common objections and clarifications

• Giving "equal validity"

I find the optimism about science vs. pseudoscience to be baseless. History has shown that pseudoscience can beat out facts, as those who rely on pseudoscience use lies, slander, innuendo and numerical majorities of followers to force their views on anyone they can. If this project gives equal validity to those who literally claim that the Earth is flat, or those who claim that the Holocaust never occurred, the result is that it will (inadvertently) legitimize and help promote that which only can be termed evil.

I would like to know how you understand this.--Shoons 11:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean? That's just a statement of someone's belief - I don't hold that belief. --Haemo 20:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

As you know, this statemetn came from the guideline. What I am saying is that science is what so called "9/11 conspracy theory" is and pseudoscience is what US government or related people are saying. That's how I see regarding this statement. So I wonder how you see this statement.--Shoons 00:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

No, that statement is a question posed as a frequently asked question. It is then answered below. In fact, considering that it's explicitly explained as a mistaken impression, your endorsement of the argument implies that you don't really understand neutral point of view. --Haemo 01:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I do not understand. That's why I am asking. Please explain. When you say neutral point of view, please quote so that I know what you are exactly talking about. And which part is wrong with science:pseudoscience=sphear earth:flat earth=so called "9/11 conspiracy theory":"government theory"? --Shoons 03:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Read the section that follows what you quoted above. --Haemo 04:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#There's no such thing as objectivity states "we should characterize disputes rather than engage in them." Please read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete, too!--Shoons 15:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

That's not the section which follows it:

Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them as encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory; from describing the strong moral repugnance that many people feel toward some morally repugnant views; and so forth. --Haemo 22:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The following statement is

Writing for the "enemy" I'm not convinced by what you say about "writing for the enemy." I don't want to write for the enemy. Most of them rely on stating as fact many things which are demonstrably false. Are you saying that, to be neutral in writing an article, I must lie, in order to represent the view I disagree with?

the answer is "It's important to note that this level of objectivity is rather new to most people, and disputes over the proper terms may simply depend on the balance of points of view."

It still does not say what you are talking about. I am sorry but I can not find what you are talking about. --Shoons 02:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

That's not the statement which follows your original quote. I don't know if you're being intentionally obtuse, but I am frankly getting very tired of this. --Haemo 02:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this statement is the following statement of Giving "equal validity". Or am I seeing a wrong quote? If you just copy the statement and show me, it would be quicker. I simply can not find what you are talking about.--Shoons 02:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You didn't quote the entire of "giving equal validity". You quoted the incorrect presumption, and not the answer to it! Furthermore, you agreed with that that incorrect presumption. --Haemo 03:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes I did. I did not chagne any words at all. I just added "blockquote". It is correct presumption. relation between flat earth and government theory is correct.--Shoons 04:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, let's walk through this, because you appear to have a great deal of problems with this topic.

YOU QUOTED THIS:I find the optimism about science vs. pseudoscience to be baseless. History has shown that pseudoscience can beat out facts, as those who rely on pseudoscience use lies, slander, innuendo and numerical majorities of followers to force their views on anyone they can. If this project gives equal validity to those who literally claim that the Earth is flat, or those who claim that the Holocaust never occurred, the result is that it will (inadvertently) legitimize and help promote that which only can be termed evil.

I said to post the next section of text, which is this: Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them as encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory; from describing the strong moral repugnance that many people feel toward some morally repugnant views; and so forth.

The thing you posted is a frequent objection to WP:NPOV. What I posted is the response to the objection. Do you understand now? You "agree" with the objection - and haven't read the clarification for some reason. You also are attempting to read in some vacuous analogy into the objection, which not only doesn't fit, but also doesn't matter, since the objection is incorrect in the first place. Does this make sense to you now? --Haemo 07:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Now I see. Thanks. But does it mean that you can eliminate the another opinion? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shoons (talk • contribs) 11:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

It depends on the context. --Haemo 21:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

structural failure

I see you do not see what I see. Let's talk about this.

• "Three buildings in the World Trade Center Complex collapsed due to structural failure on the day of the attack. "

I think this is pseudoscience. All three building collapsed to its footprint. What a coincident! If so, could you explain more detail and could you describe articles that showing somebody sued the building engineer or builders, etc? If you explain with controlled demolition theory, it would make sense. I thought those building were called "indestructible building" when they had a fire on February 13, 1975 and a bombing on February 26, 1993. Since we do have both Collapse of the World Trade Center and Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center, can you mention at the main article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shoons (talk • contribs) 13:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

That's super. However, as Collapse of the World Trade Center will show you, this view is not widely held by experts. We, as editors, are not here to make judgment calls about what did, or did not happen. As the section above notes, even if we believe something to be "pseudoscience" we are enjoined to report about it nonetheless. --Haemo 21:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

When the logic widely held is pseudoscience, what would you do with it?--Shoons 01:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Follow neutral point of view? --Haemo 02:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Then why don't you follow it?--Shoons 03:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I am - you're the one who is trying to give undue weight to a fringe theory. This has been discussed ad nauseum on the talk page for 9/11, but you refuse to accept that, or even read the archived discussion. Instead, you've decided to bring it to this page, with no clear justification for why it is a "systematic bias" issue, and have proceeded to essentially interrogate me over this. Use the talk page if you have anything more to say, because I'm done here. --Haemo 04:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The last question

Thank you for your answers. I guess Systemic bias was useless and this place's discuss regarding NPOV will not go anywhere. I just give up for now. I have a question. This is not about bias. Can you solve this? I am just curios.

• $\int _{0}^{t}gtdt=417\,$

g=9.8

What is t? --Shoons 03:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

This board really isn't for that, so you know. Try the reference desk. --Haemo 05:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

That's what I expected. This is a very easy basic calculation. If you can answer the question above right away, then here is no argument. I am sorry I forgot to tell you about constant value g=9.8.--Shoons 10:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

For those who don't know, gravity is constant acceleration, not constant velocity. Peter Grey 11:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. That's good point but I was just asking as general math calculation not as physics so it really did not matter. --Shoons 12:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Like you said, this was a pretty easy calculation (t is about 9.23). I know you're trying to make the point that the towers fell at free fall speed, but this is the most easily debunked argument of all CT arguments. If the towers fell at free fall speed, then why did the debris fall much more quickly? Pablo Talk | Contributions 16:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

the debris, which somehow fell OUT, didnt have millions of tons building sitting below it, slightly hindering its freefall, you moron. if the explosives were detoneated just a bit faster, it would have all fallen at exactly the same time. if the building had "pancaked" it would have gone much slower, due to the fact that each subsequent floor would have to be smashed by the floors above. majority of the concrete was found in powdered form. this does not happen when the floors fall one on top of the other. the debris did not fall that much more quickly; it barely hit the ground before the whole building was completely leveled. watch it again. the debris is in complete freefall. the building hardly falls behind the pace of the debris. this is elementary shit here guys. and your case is gettin weaker by the day. it is only a matter of time. 142.165.95.83 17:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)