Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories

Archives
Archive 1	Archive 2
Archive 3	Archive 4
Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8
Archive 9	Archive 10
Archive 11	Archive 12
Archive 13	Archive 14
Archive 15	Archive 16

Pakistan issue

This quote needs to be reworded and built upon: "There are allegations that individuals within the gay Inter-Services Intelligence may have played an important role in financing the attacks." The so called 'allegations' are actually documented in many mainstream publications as being facts of public record, such as this quote from the Guardian of UK: "Why then is Omar Sheikh not being dealt with when he is already under sentence of death? Astonishingly his appeal to a higher court against the sentence was adjourned in July for the 32nd time and has since been adjourned indefinitely. This is all the more remarkable when this is the same Omar Sheikh who, at the behest of General Mahmood Ahmed, head of the ISI, wired $100,000 to Mohammed Atta, the leading 9/11 hijacker, before the New York attacks, as confirmed by Dennis Lormel, director of FBI's financial crimes unit. Yet neither Ahmed nor Omar appears to have been sought for questioning by the US about 9/11. Indeed, the official 9/11 Commission Report of July 2004 sought to downplay the role of Pakistan with the comment: "To date, the US government has not been able to determine the origin of the money used for the 9/11 attacks. Ultimately the question is of little practical significance" - a statement of breathtaking disingenuousness."[1] This whole article needs to be cleaned up in general, spending too much time on the less valid points of the 'conspiracy' and often completely overlooking the better documented and proven aspects, such as the aforementioned. I just signed up to wikipedia though and don't want to start altering everyones hard work and what not so I thought I'd put up a discussion first to get a brief consensus from those who have spent more time with it than I. Thanks for any input, it is appreciated. --Cdubg (talk) 20:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

First since you are a newbie usually new discussion topics goes to the bottom of the page. Otherwise if you feel you have a reliable source and The Guardian would qualify as such then add it to the article. Also note as you read the article this article has many sub articles. Link to them One I believe Responsibility for 9/11 attacks" goes into detail about alleged foreign involvement. Edkollin (talk) 01:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for sources

After reading the media and ciriticism sections, one could be forgiven for concluding that the US government is the greatest beneficiary of the popularity of 9/11 conspiracy theories. The willingness to entertain fanciful notions and to question anything, no matter how trivial, serve to distract from the more sober questions of incompetence and responsibility that might otherwise be levelled at the administration. Does anyone know of any sources that make such claims? Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 19:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Considering the content, I doubt few reliable sources could be found for such claims. --clpo13_(talk) 20:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I believe Michael Albert of Z Magazine has been outspoken in making this point, and has given other notable commentators a platform to do the same. I will go looking for some sources. (Yeah, I know Z isn't at the pinnacle of our reliable source pyramid, but WP:PARITY has to apply when we're dealing with an article about the 9/11 Truthers.) <eleland/talkedits> 01:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

How can a source be reliable if it makes the claim that the US government was negligent or actively attacking its own citizens? Simply making the claim is enough to become an unreliable source. I may be wrong. Does anyone have a counterexample? In any case, it doesn't seem useful to find reliable sources that make the claim because the evidence leads each person to their own claims and beliefs anyway. The article should be based on evidence rather than claims. Dscotese (talk) 00:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Dancing Mossad agents

There's various sites that claim five Mossad agents were seen dancing in after the collapse, before leaving in a white van. The van was stopped, and found to contain explosives. They were then deported in minor visa charges. The most reliable source I could find is this: http://www.todayscatholicworld.com/mossad-agents-911.htm. A quick look shows that it isn't reliable at all. Has this come up before, and is there any proof that this is bunk (other than a lack of proof) —Preceding unsigned comment added by GeneralStan (talk • contribs) 23:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

This incident definitely did happen. There used to be quite a bit of material on it in this article, however it has all been moved to the article "9/11 advance-knowledge debate". A number of reliable sources are referenced. The whole thing is very suspicious, and unfortunately many people dismiss it as a bogus story. Logicman1966 (talk) 00:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• Related question: do we have the "Dancing Palestinian children hoax" in any of our articles? It appears that cameramen were handing out sweets to Palestinian children in order to obtain footage of "Palestinians who were extatic about the attacks".  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 20:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• They celebrated an attack on their enemy (America funds the Israeli military). Hardly out of the ordinary. FunkMonk (talk) 15:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

This is what is more commonly known as "arab propaganda". The celebrations were real, and a major embarassment to the Palestinians, who felt (rightly) that by celebrating the west would see them as a bunch of terrorists. Titanium Dragon (talk) 19:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The Mossad incident is real. There were no explosives though; this is yet more arab propaganda. There were box cutters, which aroused suspicion. To be entirely fair, though, it wasn't as if the US government, Mossad, and many intelligence agencies worldwide didn't know that something bad was planned. Titanium Dragon (talk) 19:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Passports

The article fails to mention the conspiracies fuelled by the passports of the hijackers and the fact that some were found in the rubble by firefighters. We need some facts: who found them? when? where are they now? were any other passports recovered? what are the sources of this passport story? 70.165.168.225 (talk) 08:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources discussing these? --Haemo (talk) 04:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

That could be seen as a bit unfair, Haemo, we have had a three month discussion on Talk:9/11 about this, which is now in archives 37-39 I reckon...  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 20:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to some connection to conspiracy theories, which has never been produced. --Haemo (talk) 21:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

" 'Conspiracy sites' are ... reliable sources for what 'conspiracists' think," which is that the passports were planted. That should be obvious. Not that it proves that they were planted, but it is hard to believe that they got to where they were 'found,' in pristine condition, by any other means. Wowest (talk) 08:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the passport of one of the hijackers from Flight 11 remarkably shot out through all the fiery explosion upon the plane impacting the building and landed, conveniently to be found in spankingly clean condition as 'evidence'.. z0mfg, please, stop, you're killing me^^.Si lapu lapu (talk) 00:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)Si Lapu Lapu

So where is the source for the passport recoveries, and which section should it go in? The "Coverup Allegations" section? Dscotese (talk) 00:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Foreknowledge

It seems during a speech on Thursday, Attorney General Michael Mukasey admitted that the Echelon spy network had provided warnings of the 911 attack 6 months before it happened. Another RS reported that the CIA was tracking the hijackers and were fully aware of their movements right up to 911. As a result of this information Keith Olbermann stated on MSNBC yesterday that the U.S. government was responsible for "malfeasant complicity in the 9/11 attacks." Feel free to track down reliable sources we can use for the article as I suspect we'll need a lot to get this added. Wayne (talk) 07:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

San Francisco Chronicle: Someone from Afghanistan called the USA; we don't really know who from where called whom and said what. Maybe something like 9/11 could be prevented if we could follow calls like that. Please give more money for wiretapping. (Unvoiced hint hint nudge nudge: the call we don't know about could have been related to 9/11! Think of the children!)[2].

How conspiracy theorists read that: Hey, someone knew someone made a telephone call! They did it on purpose! Admission! Smoking gun![3].

Well duh. Weregerbil (talk) 08:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

You got it wrong.. you should have said "how conspiracy debunkers spin it"....an American newspaper selectively reported it.... What are the chances? Mukasey said the call was from an Al Qaeda safe house in Afghanistan to the US. "Maybe something like 9/11 could be prevented if we could follow calls like that". The government did not need a warrant as FISA laws already allowed interception of such calls. In fact the government admitted in 1999 that such calls were routinely intercepted and copied under FISA and in September 2001 German Intelligence stated that calls intercepted by (what they believe was) Echelon were given to them in June 2001 indicating "Middle Eastern terrorists were planning to hijack commercial aircraft to use as weapons to attack important symbols of American and Israeli culture" (it was unknown what symbols or where) and that they acted on them by increasing surveilance of terrorist suspects. The key is "multiple sources" not the one that best fits. Wayne (talk) 07:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Except that Echelon doesn't really exist. It's a myth purpetrated by the CIA in an attempt to demonstrate they're doing something. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Echelon may not exist (which is why it said "believed") but something similar does exist. The national newspaper here had an article on it as Australia does the interceptions for the US. According to Aussie officials "we" have the ability to intercept and record every phone call on the planet and do interecept all from suspected terrorists that use "key" words. Is that not similar to Echelon? Wayne (talk) 07:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

So do you know any reliable sources that discuss Mukasey's "admission"? So far we have him asking for money (not warrants) to make a closer investigation of suspected terrorist chatter.

In a newspaper here a Muslim gentleman of 15 years of age was quoted discussing Fitna: do they want a terrorist attack in Amsterdam or something?. Probably just talking out of his arse, but if something happens you heard it here first: I had foreknowledge! I am teh 1337 Illuminati!

It is not practical to direct unlimited manpower to follow up on every phone call with non-specific threats from half a world away. So we would need a WP:RS which carefully considers foreknowledge vs. vague hints of something that might or might not happen somewhere at some time. Weregerbil (talk) 08:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The difference is that there is a RS (unfortunately citing anon sources within German Intelligence) that claims the call was passed on to them months before 911 as a serious threat. Wayne (talk) 16:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I can give you guys some reliable sources if you want — but they discuss it like this:

Either Mukasey is lying about the 9/11 attacks in order to manipulate Americans into believing that FISA's warrant requirements are what prevented discovery of the 9/11 attacks and caused 3,000 American deaths -- a completely disgusting act by the Attorney General which obviously cannot be ignored. Or, Mukasey has just revealed the most damning fact yet about the Bush's administration's ability and failure to have prevented the attacks -- facts that, until now, were apparently concealed from the 9/11 Commission and the public.

The article then continues, citing the apparent falsity of the comment given replies to it from other governmental source:

That's polite Beltway talk for saying that nothing like what Mukasey described actually happened. Does anyone on TV other than Keith Olbermann care that the Attorney General of the United States just invented a critical episode about 9/11 that never actually happened -- tearing up as he did it -- in order to scare Americans into supporting the administration's desired elimination of spying restrictions and blame FISA supporters for the 9/11 attacks?

Scandalous, yes. Connected to 9/11 conspiracy theories? Well, we'll have to wait and see. Right now, it looks like this is just an opportunistic fear-mongering lie from the Attorney General to try and rally support for a failing initiative. --Haemo (talk) 18:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit Comment

I reverted an edit Haemo made and in the comment i said he had made a dishonest edit. The reasons for my assumption were that he changed "mathematician" to "biologist", the source to the study was replaced with one giving Dewdney's conspiracy beliefs which are irrelevant considering the study is not disputed and a quote from the report by Dewdney was replaced with another from a magazine that made him sound like a crackpot. These changes appeared to me to be an attempt to discredit his study. The edit comment I made is out of character for me and has bothered me all day. I apologise for not assuming good faith and having had time to think I now assume he was not thinking clearly for some reason or was mistaken. Thx Wayne (talk) 16:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

But it looks like a mistake. The source that was previously used never states that he was a mathematician — whereas the source I added in this revision is a reliable source which states he is a "biology professor". Also, the quote I added as the same, but continued to give context for his beliefs — previously, it stated that the chance of successful connections "can only be described as infinitesimal". My revision put it in the correct context, which is "cellphone calls made by passengers were highly unlikely to impossible. Flight UA93 was not in the air when most of the alleged calls were made. The calls themselves were all faked." This section is directly about "claims relating to the cell phone calls" and Dewdney's argument is not just that it would have been impossible to make the calls — he further argues that this indicates that the calls were faked. If you think his views make him a "crackpot", then so be it, but that's no reason to remove them from the article — if his opinion about the possibility of calls is important enough to mention, that surely his conclusion drawn from opinion is just as important. You can't have it both ways here. --Haemo (talk) 18:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

PS thanks for the apology :) --Haemo (talk) 18:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

OooH. We just had TWO edit conflicts.

I meant to comment on that. Haemo could have been honestly reporting a dishonest article while assuming that only reporters who agree with his POV are honest. On the other hand, supporters of the Official Conspiracy Theory seem to have a morbid fear of any other possible explanations. The footage of the Twin Towers in the aftermath of the attacks was traumatizing, regardless of the exact chain of events, and a lot of people did a lot of things to vent their anger, such as clipping American flags (made in China) to their bumpers and speeding up and down various main drags. That could give rise to a lot of cognitive dissonance. I picked up a few flags that had been run over and saved them for a formal flag retirement event at the American Legion.Wowest (talk) 18:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Haemo is, of course correct that having a "reliable source" is more important than getting the fact right, according to wikipolicy. Still, BLP rules should apply, if we can find a reliable source that says that A.K. Dewdney is whatever he actually is. Wowest (talk) 18:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, AD is (or was) a mathematics columnist for Scientific American. If he's a biology professor, that may explain the (to me) obvious errors in some of his columns. Again, although I think his views are nonsense, we must include them if reported by a WP:RS in the conspiracy movement. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

So, is he a mathematician or not? He's definitely a biology professor. Also, what of including more complete views of his? It seems contrary to policy to selectively quote what someone believes about the phone calls because we think it "makes him sound like a crackpot". If no one objects, I'm going to restore that revision, leaving in mathematician with a "fact" tag. --Haemo (talk) 19:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Upon some study, he shows up in the Mathematics Genealogy Database. I think we can include both then? --Haemo (talk) 19:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

"Biology professor and writer on mathematics" seems to sum him up, based on the info presented. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 20:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Er, no. He seems to be a professor of computer science at the University of Western Ontario. -- But he has other interests. Look here:

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/faculty/akd/akd.html

Wowest (talk) 23:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I am so confused. Is he a biology professor or not? Maybe he once was, and now isn't? Let's just say "professor and mathematician" and be done with it? --Haemo (talk) 00:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Did anyone look at his WP entry which is wikilinked in the paragraph? "Alexander Keewatin Dewdney (born August 5, 1941 in London, Ontario) is a Canadian mathematician, computer scientist and philosopher who has written a number of books on the future and implications of modern computing."
As for having it "both ways" the paragraph should concentrate on the study not on his own irrelevant views as the study stands by itself. The source for the cell phone calls origin is the 911 commision report and the only part that had no reference was flight 77 having no airphones which I checked and found that not only do the airlines literature of the day state they had none, but they were asked and confirmed the fact.
The new sentences that have been added are misleading as a.) the source predates the study and b.) no one (not even Dewdney) disputes that there is a chance (1.8% above 6000 feet and "physically impossible" above 8000 feet) but the source implies ALL cell calls have a HIGH chance of connecting which is incorrect in light of actual studies and this implication makes the addition POV and it needs to be deleted. Wayne (talk) 13:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The assertion that cell phone connection is unlikely is not in or quoted by the 911 Commission report. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The sources don't say they have a high chance, they say they can work or they have varying degrees of success, neither of which implies a high success rate. RxS (talk) 14:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

And why should we just focus on his study? Why aren't his other views about the phone calls important? It seems that his opinion that the cellphone calls were faked is not in any way irrelevant to a section entitled "Claims relating to the cell phone calls". Would you mind explaining why you think that claim is irrelevant, while his claim that the phone calls were unlikely to impossible is relevant? --Haemo (talk) 18:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, you are mistaken that the source predates the study. The study was published between January 23rd and April 19th 2003. The MacLeans article was published on Aug 30, 2006. I do not believe the sentences are in any way misleading — they are a direct quote of what he believes about the cellphone calls. If you believe he was misquoted, or that the context is wrong, then please provide a source at odds with this quote. --Haemo (talk) 19:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Dewdney's study is relevant because it is a study and backed by other sources, but his own views are not notable (I didn't even know he had any until you found that 911 conspiracy website) as they are not widely known and were not stated until after the study (they were possibly formed based on the studies results) and to mention both (especially mixing them together as you did) can cause confusion for a reader in differentiating between what is the study and what are his personal views.
The Macleans source you quote is a hit piece that has factual errors that even cursory fact checking would have fixed (ie:it's not a RS). The other source you used that says cell calls are possible is dated 1989 at which time there had been no studies and is thus OR on the part of the people interviewed. Your version is clearly cherry picking in an attempt to debunk what is probably the only 911 fact that is undisputably true which is that cell calls are next to impossible. Asserting those calls were faked is another kettle of fish and as such needs to be separated from the study. I also noticed you put your version back without consensus and with the comment "No response after 2 days -- readding reliable sourcing with quote". No response was due to a belief we would keep the original until such time as you could prove your case. I remind you of the Arbcom findings, they apply to you as much as anyone. Wayne (talk) 06:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Dude, I spent two days sitting here with no reply to very clear and pointed arguments in favor of including it. How long should I wait? A week? Your argument is here does not make sense — how is Dewdney's study "backed by other sources"? The only source that's ever been presented in this discussion has been the Macleans article, and the study itself. How is the Macleans article a "hit piece" — how does it have "factual errors"? How on earth do you conclude that Macleans, the most respected newsmagazine in Canada, is not a reliable source. At no point have you demonstrated that this study has any notability — the only reliable source which discusses it so far discusses it in the context of his views about 9/11. Do you seriously think that his views about the cell phone calls have no relevance to "claims regarding the cell phone calls"? Why do his views embodied in the study become relevant, while his views in terms of his statements become irrelevant — is Mr Dewdney a notable conspiracy theorist? How could his study be notable and not him? Could you provide some sources that back this up — because, so far, I'm the only one providing sourcing which portrays his study, or his views, as in any way relevant and you have decided that you don't want to include part of his views because you think they're "kooky" and debunk the "correct" version. That's not how this works. Either provide sourcing showing that Mr Dewdney's views about the calls being faked are viewed as unimportant, while the study is important, or please stop trying to selectively include views you think are "indisputably true" while distancing them from the other views of their proponents. Because that's exactly what you're doing. --Haemo (talk) 07:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have gotten your dates wrong again. The second source used is dated 2001 not 1989 — I'm not sure if that changes your argument but I didn't include that other source, but how does the fact that you believe it was "OR on the part of the people interviewed" in any way invalidate it. Mr Dewdney's study is OR — why is that valid, but not this? OR applies to Wikipedians — not to people off-Wiki. Indeed, "OR" reported in third-party reliable sources is what we're supposed to be basing this article on. --Haemo (talk) 07:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

2001 still predates the study, so it commenting on how easy it is to make calls without any scientific backing is OR. Dewdney's study is no more OR than NISTs report is, both investigated a theory and published conclusions which a generally accepted.
Dewdney is not a notable conspiracy theorist. I doubt most readers of conspiracy websites would have even heard of him. To include his views would appear to many people as an attempt to discredit the study which should stand on it's own merits. I point out that similar quoting of supporters of the official theory that possibly discredits them have been reverted in the past for the same reason. Have you read all the Macleans article? It gets Dewdney's occupation wrong, it makes fun of all Canadians, it makes fun of conspiracy theorists, it deliberately lies/exaggerates to make it's point, it extensively promotes a debunking book, it uses disparaging language etc etc. I've never heard of the magazine but if this typical of it's journalism it is no better than some of the conspiracy websites. Wayne (talk) 18:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

But, if no one has heard of Dewdney, then why are we discussing his study? Macleans believes that both have about equal notability, and gives them about equal time. His views are totally relevant to the study — we would not, say, explain a study found evolution to be impossible or highly unlikely without also mentioning that the studier happened to be a Creationist. Also, the article didn't get his occupation wrong — it's just out of date. He used to be involved in both environmental science and conservation. If you've never heard of Macleans, that's understandable but it is definitely a reliable source. It has a circulation of over 350,000 copies a week, and is "one of Canada's leading sources of news and information", according to our article on the subject. You may not like that it disparages theories you think are credible in the article, but you will notice that we don't focus on that at all — we focus on Mr Dewdney's views. --Haemo (talk) 20:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, it's been more than a week. Do you have a reply? Because in the absence of any reasonable objection to the points I've made here, I'm inclined to simply make the change. --Haemo (talk) 23:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, why is A.K. Dewdney listed as a "participant" if he isn't mentioned in the article? Dscotese (talk) 00:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Magic passports?

Is this really a notable or important view amount 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists? I can't find any sources that discuss this term in any depth, and it appears that section claiming it is related to the "magic bullet" is completely the opinion of the author. I'm not "up to date" on what the important views are, but I can't find one reliable source discussing these passports in the context of 9/11 conspiracy theories, or ascribing them any importance to these theories at all. --Haemo (talk) 23:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Does This belong anywhere?

TEHRAN, April 9 (UPI) -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has questioned whether the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks by al-Qaida really took place, an Israeli military Web site said. The man who is famous for denying the Nazi Holocaust told an audience he wonders how U.S. radar could have failed to detect two planes before they struck the Twin Towers in New York, the DEBKAfile reports.[4] Edkollin (talk) 02:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

That's really odd — it's a source reporting that another source has reported that someone said something. The source for the story is this site which looks, uh, unreliable on issues of Israel-Iran-Palestine etc. So, I'm not sure. --Haemo (talk) 02:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, if you go to the source, they not only attack Iran in the article, but the statements they attribute to him are really bizarre — so I think we should with-hold action until better sourcing arises. --Haemo (talk) 02:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It struck me as odd also that is why I put it up for discussion. I would not cite Debka.com directly as it is an a gossipy (intelligence and security matters not celebrity) source with a agenda but UPI is a a reliable source and they did not write that he has reportedly said but wrote that he did say it. Edkollin (talk)

Another cite claiming he said this [5] Edkollin (talk) 04:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

If you read the source, they don't say he said it — they say an Israeli website said he said it — you can see they're being really careful with how they couch it. Second-hand from an unreliable source, in other words. --Haemo (talk) 20:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

My first source says an Israeli website said it. This one [6] I added later from an Arab news source does not mention debka at all but quotes him directly.Edkollin (talk) 06:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't see that. Hmmm — I'm not sure how we want to deal with this, then — we really need a section on "Arab and Muslim views". This article is rather badly US-centric, when the majority of 9/11 conspiracy theorists are from the Muslim world. --Haemo (talk) 19:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The Truth Behind 9/11

It appear, to me at least that the organization The Truth Behind 9/11 is not notable, and their inclusion in this article gives them undue weight. I've already removed it once today, but User:Saint.Pierre.Pro re-added it without comment. Since I've pledged not to revert changes more than once per day, I'm referring this for discussion here. Does anyone agree with me? --Haemo (talk) 20:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

In fact, after doing some research, they don't appear to be a registered non-profit — they appear to be a website using freehosting a la Geocities which is so obscure I had a devil of a time finding them using Google. --Haemo (talk) 20:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

My Regards

I am very very sorry for confusion or anything I have caused. I wish to apologize and my article "The Truth Behind 9/11 has been removed. I am terribly terribly sorry and I wish to improve my Wikipedia editing skills as soon as possible. I must really apologize to Haemo for the inaccuracy of my article. The only problem is I wish to create articles not to edit others, does anyone have any suggestions? Once again, I apologize. Thank you. Saint.Pierre.Pro (talk) 21:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It is much harder to create new articles, in my opinion, because (with a few exceptions) all the best subjects already have articles. I would recommend spending a little time reading the links on the welcome message I sent to your Talk page; this will help you to work with other editors editing existing wikipedia articles. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 21:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

No worries at all! I replied on my talk page in more detail — but, BTW, welcome to Wikipedia :) --Haemo (talk) 01:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I Would Like To Help

Hey everybody, I have had much experience in the area of the September 11th Attacks. After deleting my past article I am left with helping with this one. Would anyone like me to do anything for this article. You can post ideas here or at my [talk page]. Thanks. Saint.Pierre.Pro (talk) 14:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

We need more reliable sources discussing the theories on this page, and less primary sources. If you could find more of these, that would be awesome. --Haemo (talk) 19:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Great! I know what you mean, but do you have any suggestions to make finding more reliable sources easier? Like I've said before, I am new to Wikipedia editing and I am not fluent in all the terms and expressions used. Please explain. Thank you. Saint.Pierre.Pro (talk) 19:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Um, well, that's the problem :D Reliable sources are "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" — in general, we're talking about newspapers, magazines, books, academic works, etc. The kind of things you would use to write a report on a subject for class, or what-have-you. The issue is that we're having trouble finding them for this subject. So, hit the library or any databases you have access to. --Haemo (talk) 20:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting 911 update

The Society of Civil Engineers has convened a panel to investigate claims against it of conflict of interest, engaging in a cover-up to protect the government and of falsifying conclusions that skyscrapers could not withstand getting hit by airplanes. An investigation funded by the National Science Foundation found that most New York skyscrapers "would survive such an impact and prevent the kind of fires that brought down the twin towers". The claim is made by structural engineers after independent computor simulations couldn't get the WTC to collapse. They are not claiming CD but suspect a major construction/structural flaw. Wayne (talk) 19:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Dang..I'm behind the times, someone has already added it to the page. I would have suggested it not being added yet as the panel will give it's results in a few weeks. Wayne (talk) 20:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

This seemed fairly likely to me when they got rid of all the rubble ASAP rather than really examining it; the Bush administration has a lot of friends in business who would have lost billions of dollars had the insurance company not had to pay out because the building design was defective. Titanium Dragon (talk) 19:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Where is it? Dscotese (talk) 00:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Israeli/Jewish victims of the 9/11 attacks?

I came here figuring that I'd be able to find accurate info on the number of Israeli citizens, and persons of Jewish descent who died in the WTC attacks.

A list at the State Dept website (i just added it) lists 76 and says it's a "partial" list; http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Jan/14-260933.html

these are the sources citing higher numbers, from 270-500:

1. "Surveys" are cited without any info about who did them or where they can be found. What a joke.

2. Rosenblatt article says "While no one knows for certain how many Jews were killed on Sept. 11, the most reliable estimates put the number at about 400." Does citing an unsupported claim from a source with conflicts of interest meet Wikipedia standards?

3. same as 2. ""A week later I called him and said 'about 500,' which is 15 to 17 percent of all the victims killed in the World Trade Center. The figure would have been even higher had it not been for the fact that many Orthodox Jews went to work an hour later because of the Selichot prayers recited in the days before the Jewish New Year."

4. "4000 Jews" rumor article; why'd the person who put this here not note that it only lists 76 victims?

Whoever posted these bogus cites should know it really reflects badly on them, and their efforts to discredit the "conspiracy theories"

Note: I don't think "the Jews" or "Israel" were responsible for the attacks- I do believe, like 81% of Americans, that the Bush Administration is "hiding something" or "mostly lying" about what they knew prior to 9/11. http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/13469

I do believe a full criminal investigation, independent of the Bush and Clinton Administrations and anyone connected to them, with public oversight, is needed to determine who all the responsible parties are, for the 9/11 attacks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorkelobb (talk • contribs) 04:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I doubt there is complete and accurate data on this sort of thing anywhere, which is why this article lists so many varied sources. Furthermore, this article isn't intended to discredit the theories. That would violate the neutrality policy of Wikipedia.

At any rate, if you're looking for information regarding the attacks, the September 11, 2001 attacks page would be a better choice. --clpo13_(talk) 04:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Except for the second sentence in that section and the last sentence of the second paragraph I researched and wrote the entire section. I also wrote note 160 in it's entirety and it explains the discrepancies in the sources. I could have mentioned the sources for that note but they are not disputed and would have made the note far too long (notes tend to be reverted for the most minimal reasons). These sources are easily found in a search. I am seen by most here as being a conspiracy theorist so that section contradicting CT's can be seen as particular reliable lol. Wayne (talk) 03:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Theories and hypotheses

Nothing described in this article rises to the level of a theory. All are merely hypotheses, and the article now so notes. Wowest (talk) 16:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Following Arthur Rubin's tendentious revision, I have restored my additions. Although some conspiracies are not criminal, as Arthur pointed out, all conspiracy theories concerning 9/11 do involve criminal conspiracy. Wowest (talk) 17:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there are a couple of 9/11 conspiacy theories that I have read about that are not criminal. I haven't seen them in this article but I tend to agree with Arthur's take on this issue. UB65 (talk) 18:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Incompetence, one of the most prominent, and mainstream theories is not necessarily criminal. I also support Arthur here. --Haemo (talk) 05:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

INCOMPETENCE is the mainstream account! "A failure of imagination," according to Bush. Are you now acknowledging that the mainstream account is, itself, a conspiracy theory? I just got warned about "tendentious" editing for adding that statement to an article, so I'm no longer editing 9/11 articles -- only commenting on them. Wowest (talk) 05:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I meant incompetence concealed from the 9/11 Commission. Don't put words into my mouth. --Haemo (talk) 05:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that. You've been reading something I haven't read or thought about though. Could you give an example of an accusation of "incompetence concealed from the 9/11 Commission," as a conspiracy theory? I currently believe, personally, that it was MIHOP and that incompetence argument is just excuse-making. Of course, I can't say that in an article, and I don't read much theory in either direction any more. Wowest (talk) 06:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Silverstein Again

It belongs because most notable CT cites, videos etc mention him. There is to much emphasis on how much he made in this debate. That is at most to give background for the reader. I fail to see how the this particular allegation of mass murder differs from those mentioned in this article and associated sub articles against President Bush, Members of the Project for the New American Century and Mossad. They are living people many of the allegations come from “notable” “non reliable” web based sources in many cases they are based on the “connect the dots” approach etc. Again this is an article not about facts but of notable allegations, theories, hypothesis or whatever you decide to call it. Edkollin (talk) 06:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Produce reliable sources documenting these claims or accusation and we'll have a discussion about it. Until then, it's un-encyclopedic gossip-mongering by anonymous speculators and has no place here. The argument that other stuff exists is not compelling in the slightest. --Haemo (talk) 06:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd just echo what Haemo said, CT sites are not reliable sources. And I think you can tell the difference between Silverstein and Pres. Bush....and if there are other BLP problems in the article, they should be fixed, as opposed to making more problems. We're a long long way from adding material about him in a 9/11 conspiracy article. RxS (talk) 15:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

This article is here because the CT theories are a political phenomenon. Therefore it is and has been up to now “notable” proponents of theories not necessarily “reliable” proponents of theories that have been cited. Although I would disagree with this course of action because this is not an article about a straight factual subject if we are going to use only traditional reliable sources this article should be only a few paragraphs long another words all cites, external Links using such types of sources as Alex Jones”,”Loose Change” etc need to be wiped out. And no I do not see why allegations against President Bush and Larry Silverstein should be treated differently at all. I guess what I have come to the conclusion is that allegations against Larry Silverstein is not the real issue behind this debate but the unhappiness about of what types sources are used as cites in this article and possibly the general direction and tone of the artical. Edkollin (talk) 05:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

None of this has any bearing at all in terms of BLP and Larry Silverstein. If you don't get that, please read WP:BLP. Any discussion about the type of sources used in the article or the tone of it is a separate issue. In terms of Larry Silverstein there really isn't anything to discuss. RxS (talk) 17:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not a biographical article and this discussion is not about deleting an article or comparing articles so BLP and other stuff exists do not apply. This is not a separate issue in fact it has everything to do with the question should allegations against Larry Silverstein be mentioned in the article. But it is a broader issue and I will deal with it below in that way Edkollin (talk) 04:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that it isn't a biographical article: This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons on other pages. That's why I asked you to read WP:BLP, it wasn't a rhetorical request. This a very clear, very separate issue, we are not going to add his name to a 9/11 conspiracy page because of some speculation on the Internet. We're just not. There are no reliable sources to point to and no controversy or debate within mainstream media, academic sources or anything else even faintly resembling a reliable source. I don't know how to make it any clearer except to say that insisting on this point will only end with a topic ban or block, and it would be by no means the first time. RxS (talk) 05:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Notable/Popular CT theory sourcing

The type of sourcing I am referring to is the Alex Jones, Loose Change, prison planets of the world. I am not referring to some conspiracy theorist sitting in his or her basement and creating a website. I do not want to get involved in an argument here over whether a particular source fits a category or not.

1. Should this type of sourcing be used in the article?.

2. Should this type of sourcing used as an external link?

3. If a “reliable source” quotes a source like this should it be used?

I have made my point above but if these sources are not to be used then we should not use them in all circumstances. I understand number 3 is correct by Wikipedia rules but I would find doing that hypocritical and not seeing the forest from the trees Edkollin (talk) 04:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The answer is clear — reliable sources. We should include prominent views reported on by reliable sources. We can also attribute details of these views to primary sources. Beyond that, there isn't a lot to say — policy is policy, and if you can only write a stubby article about a subject because of it, then that's the appropriate length of the article. --Haemo (talk) 21:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The Parity of sources section of the Fringe Theories rules specifically allows for this type of sourcing for this type of article. Edkollin (talk) 08:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Read it carefully. --Haemo (talk) 21:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

In particular, the fact that this article is about fringe beliefs doesn't allow us to ignore WP:BLP and post poorly-sourced, contentious, defamatory material. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Zeitgeist movie

There's a great movie that has all kinds of great points about 9/11 and the federal reserve and stuff like that. I'm not much of an editor but I think it shoould be added in the movies section. It's a free movie available to download at the main website [7]. --InsayneWrapper (talk) 21:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It covers multiple conspiracy theories, not just 9/11. I really don't think it should be in this article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The movie used to have its own article page, but was deleted because it is not notable. I would say WP:NNC excludes its inclusion as a factual supplement, because the movie is simply a well crafted and entertaining opinion. By the way, the movie's most credible material has to do with well documented Christian history, not 9/11, rich bankers, Amero advocates, or RFID chips. —Kanodin 10:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

That's actually the least credible material. As for whether the movie should be included, it's been firmly established that it should not. The credible material (everything Kanodin mentioned minus the Christianity stuff) isn't anything that you couldn't find in more reliable sources. --Pwnage8 (talk) 17:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Minor edit

This citation: cite web|url=http://www.stage6.com/911Revolution/video/2163757/911taboo-v1-1%7Ctitle=Watch 911 Taboo now on Stage6, a movie by Genghis6199 of 911taboo.com is a dead link, can someone with access please remove it? Sadmep (talk) 13:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

RE: This citation: I cited the particular link that has since been killed. Please replace the link to its previous link: http://www.livevideo.com/socialservice —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.243.87 (talk) 04:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Rebuttals?

Where's the nice rebuttals to the various proposed conspiracy theories? I read an older version of this article years ago and it was organized so you could read the theory then the rebuttal, very nice and easy to find the information. Now I don't see any rebuttals in the article anymore. What happened to them? JettaMann (talk) 15:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It was felt that this made the article to long and unreadable. The article was split off into sub articles. If a section had a sub article that section was made into summary. I liked it the old way also but was in the minority. Edkollin (talk)

It's also not really the job of the article to provide "rebuttals" to conspiracy theories. Rather, it should discuss them, and criticisms of them together. --Haemo (talk) 05:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Then where are the criticisms of them? It's too hard to find them anymore.JettaMann (talk) 18:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Some of the "rebuttals", such as one from Popular Mechanics, do not stand up to scrutiny. They show complete lack of respect by only assigning one or two paragraphs to each theory.Autonova (talk) 14:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a laugh. I read the Popular Mechanics article and it was pretty much right on the money. You see, they are familiar with this crazy thing called "science". JettaMann (talk) 18:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Initial wording of official account

The following is part of the first paragraph of the article as of this Talk Page entry:

A variety of conspiracy theories question the mainstream account of the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States. At the very least, these theories posit that the official report on the events is not sufficiently forthcoming, thorough or truthful.

I was told to get a consensus on the talk page about this edit, which was erroneously described as "absolutely wrong" by one editor, before I put it in the page:

A variety of conspiracy theories question the government account of the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States. At the very least, these theories posit that the official report on the events is not sufficiently forthcoming, thorough or truthful.

My only point is that at it's most basic form, the mainstream account is the US Government's account. I was accused of trying to "cutely" insert a "fringe POV" edit, when all I am doing is clarifying in only the initial wording of the issue at hand what exactly the mainstream account is at its most basic form. It is the government account that is considered mainstream, not that the mainstream account is inherently given by the government, and that is an important point to make in this article. If I were attempting to insert a biased point of view in the article, then I'd have gone throughout the entire thing and replaced "mainstream account" with "government account" every time it occurred in the article, which I clearly have not done here. So, if my point is sufficiently explained for the condescending editors who insist on seeing me as some sort of opinionated cook, one of whom having begun to stalk my own edits on other articles and accuse me of inserting "vandalism" in "many" of my other edits, then I guess we can begin getting a consensus on this one way or the other. Thank you. Fifty7 (talk) 15:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, the US government is by no means the only (or even main) source of the reliable sources used to base that sentence (and the general account) on. Media, academic sources, foreign governments and people involved in the attack itself all make up what's considered the mainstream account. Claiming that the mainstream account is solely made up of US government sourcing would be wrong. RxS (talk) 16:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

RsX is right. The governments account of events would not be the mainstream account of events if media and scientific sources did not accept the governments conclusions. In most cases the government and mainstream sources come to the same basic conclusions but this is not always true. For example until recently scientific and mainstream media sources were much more likely to attribute global warming to humans then the Bush administration Edkollin (talk) 05:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

But no one knows what the "mainstream" account is. In fact, I would venture to say that there is no "mainstream" account (note all the CTs). However, the account provided by the government is well documented, and the very next sentence explains where. If the first sentence is not an unnecessary tautology, then what is it trying to say? That a variety of conspiracy theories express a minority view? That most people believe something other than (some) of the conspiracy theories? The sentence is much more useful if it addresses the largest subset of conspiracy theories that question a particular well-defined account by describing precisely what they question, and that would be the government account, wouldn't it? Dscotese (talk) 00:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Al Qaeda blame Iran and Hezbollah for the conspiracy

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7361414.stm I believe it should be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oren.tal (talk • contribs) 16:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC) .

When this story came out I put in in this sub-article Responsibility for the September 11, 2001 attacks#Other alleged responsibility under Israel Edkollin (talk) 05:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Minor edit

I just wanted to point out a typo in the following sentence:

'Additionally, a National Reconnaissance Office drill was being conducted on September 11 in which the event a small aircraft crashing into one of the towers of the agency's headquarters, was to be simulated,'

The word 'of' should be inserted after the word 'event.' Joachimboaz (talk) 18:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Changed. Hut 8.5 18:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

For slight grammar changes like this you can just make the change and give a brief description of it or just say fixed typo it the Edit Summary Section Edkollin (talk) 23:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

No they can't - the article is semiprotected, which means new and unregistered users can't edit it. Hut 8.5 18:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Very important article

http://www.daily.pk/world/americas/99-americas/3865-usa-military-officers-challenge-official-account-of-september-11.html Autonova (talk) 14:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Implication of Afghan Opium Drug Lords ?

Implication of Aghan Opium Drug Lords ?

With over 80% of the world Opium derived from Afghanistan why is not this part of any conspiracy.

The war on drugs and or a other interference in the trade of some, is putting pressure on the Lords...

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 13:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Has the American media exposed this ? Canada's Foreign Minister "dating" former biker wife. Biker Girl and Foreign Minister

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 16:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

It truly is surprising that opium if seldom mentioned, the half-truth that remains hidden. Seems these may be modern opium wars disguised as something else; remember this is all criminal activity.

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 17:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Opium Links removed?

I had placed three links to site dealing with the Opium trade in AFghanistan.

They appear to have been removed ?

CI

Like this one.

VOA News Afghanistan 90% of worlds Opium and largest Heroin Supplier

Most important was a BBS report saying that agreements were in place since 1989? to buy the opium..?

I am certain that they were posted?

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 18:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Sometimes 2 plus 2 is twenty two.

"Some experts suspect that bin Laden's al Qaeda network -- and other Afghan- based terrorist organizations such as Egyptian Islamic Jihad, the Army of Mohammed and the Army of the Righteous -- may also be directly involved in the drug trade."

San Francisco Chronicle

Seem the obvious possible "conspiracy" or truth has been missing. Then again, it is suppose to be illegal.

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 18:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not know what has been deleted or not but I can tell you that this material is not article worthy becaus0e there is not even a suggestion in your cites that the money was used to fund the 9/11 attacks. At most is the suggestion of possible old fashioned drug corruption. If I understand what you are saying is that since the U.S. taxpayers money went to these organizations that suggests that the U.S. had a working relationship with the Taliban therefore had foreknowledge of the attacks or were working with them in planning or carrying out the 9/11 attacks. The problem that this is your theory not the articles theory therefore it is Original Research one of the biggest Wikipedia no no's. You must come up with a reliable source that ties the Taliban,U.S. money and the opium trade to a conspiracy involving the 9/11 attacks. Edkollin (talk) 04:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not suggesting a tie with US money.

The movie, Clear and Present Danger http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_and_Present_Danger contains within the wikiepdia information a useful link.

• Clear and Present Danger can also be considered an allegory to the Iran-Contra (Afghanistan) scandal, which occurred around the time this novel was being written.

That is that 'some' involvment related to the illegal drug trade in the area is beyond the law. That is like in the days of New York when SOME within the system was corrupt and involved in corrupt affairs, they were at war with the gangsters and the Cosa Nostra who were trying to bring law and order to their community. (history might record it in that matter, as the line between law and order and criminal organizations does not exist or changes in time...)

Newsreports in Canada say that 'corrupt cells' within prisons, within the police forces are part of the problem.

My conclusion: The half-truth logical flaw of the material on 9-11 or conspiracy thought, is the total lack of mention of drugs.

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 14:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Unless you have a reliable source to back these claims up, this is not going to be included in the article because it violates our policy of no original research. --Hut 8.5 15:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• If I had a reliable source then it would not be a conspiracy it would be true.

This is not necessarily correct. Although in the minority there are reliable sources touting 9/11 conspiracy theories. An example: The former president of Italy who has been involved in false flag operations claims 9/11 was a joint United States/ Mossad operation. With his background he is an expert on the subject of nefarious conspiracies carried out by governments. While most experts would disagree with his claim we put his claim in one of the sub articles of this article. Another example: Scientists disagree on how aggressively to treat prostrate cancer. In a case like this Wikipedia would print both sides of the dispute citing the disagreeing scientists as reliable sources. The point is for the purposes of editing articles we do not care if it true but whether reliable sources say it is true Edkollin (talk) 06:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

My point was to show you that no where, no where on this site on others related is there a mention of the Drug trade.

I have discussed this with

VegitaU http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:VegitaU

• "I was born in Colombia and immigrated to America when I was three. Since then, I've lived mostly in Maryland. I served four years in the Air Force and was honorably discharged in 2007. While serving, I spent four months performing non-combat duties in Iraq.*

I cannot understand why he was not aware of this ?

Remember these are all conspiracy theories, not actual thought.

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 18:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand. All content in Wikipedia must be sourced to reliable sources. If you don't have a source, it's not appropriate for Wikipedia. Many conspiracy theories (even those which are universally seen to be false) have Wikipedia entries, and are covered by reliable sources. --Haemo (talk) 01:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The drug theories have no connection with any 9/11 conspiracy theory. The Taliban had effectively ended drug production in Afghanistan so there was no drug financing available for 9/11. There is very likely a drug conspiracy now involving the CIA as there is considerable evidence they are involved but that is post 9/11 so not appropriate here. Wayne (talk) 03:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Opium War Revealed

They missed the link? Opium = Taliban = Bin Ladin Problem with US War on Drugs / Nato / Military / Clear and Present Danger

Would you admit that some of your forces were involved in the drug line, legal or not ?

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 16:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Canadian Foreign Minister Resigns after "spouse" former biker/drug lady

By the way, how can you have a 'reliable source' about a so called unsupported conspiracy ?

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 17:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

You can have a reliable source that states 'Mediocre unstable people who want to feel important think such-and-such.' If it's properly researched, it will also state 'Such-and-such, is, in fact, completely wrong'. Found anything? John Nevard (talk) 17:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

New Flight 93 article

To save space, I've diverted most of the info in the Flight 93 section into a new article: Flight 93 controversies and discrepancies --Noah¢s (Talk) 13:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this move. The new article is 7 KB, and because of the nature of the subject, smacks of content forking. The 100 KB size is not a hard and fast limit, and I don't see how the topic is enhanced by creating two articles. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 23:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

FYI, it's 100 KB of readable text. This article is less than 80. --Haemo (talk) 23:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, there aren't enough reliable sources in the forked article to justify it. The article should be brought up for AfD. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 02:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd be fine with simply bringing it back into this article. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 02:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

"Conspiracy theory", as stated by Wikipedia itself in an undisputed article, has acquired over the years the status of a derogatory term. I suggest that the every time a theory is labeled as "conspiracy", we should say it's a "so-called conspiracy theory". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nashledanou (talk • contribs) 16:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. It's more neutral that way. --Pwnage8 (talk) 17:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Please no. Read WP:WEASEL. Hut 8.5 17:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not a weasel word. --Pwnage8 (talk) 18:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is. The obvious question that is raised by "so-called conspiracy theorist" is "who calls them conspiracy theorists?" As Ice Cold Beer points out below the term is used by reliable sources. Hut 8.5 15:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Good questions.--caesarjbsquitti

Yes "Conspiracy theory" is pejorative, thats why its used. If we really want to have a it NPOV it should be "Alternate Hypotheses" but those editors that want to influence how others think about this topic in a negative way will never allow that.

"so-called" is bad grammar and a weasel word. Tony0937 (talk) 22:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

HRrrrhrrmm. Sigh. I don't know how many times I've said this. To everyone: The official and alternate theories are all conspiracy theories. The only difference between the two are the conspirators!Si lapu lapu (talk) 00:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)Si Lapu Lapu

We just had an extensive discussion over this which ended with no consensus. There are arguments to be made both in favor of the name, and against it. Let's not bring this up again, because it's going nowhere. --Haemo (talk) 01:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Please read the archives their have been probably literally millions of words written about this dispute. Edkollin (talk) 06:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

This is getting rather ridiculous. This has been brought up endlessly. There was a case for arbitration in April see: [[8]] Please stop rekindling old flames.Cdynas (talk) 06:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

If I'm "pro-conspiracy", then you're "pro-conspiracy theory". If we want to bring neutrality to the page, we need to discuss things like this and reach a consensus for language that doesn't advocate either side. Right now the article is written in a predominantly dismissive nature. HOW is that neutral? --Pwnage8 (talk) 14:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources call them conspiracy theories, so that is what we call them. The term is not used pejoratively within the article, so the title stays. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 15:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

If we are quoting them then it is acceptable in the context of a quote. That corporate media has been primarily dismissive and even antagonistic toward any questioning of the Official Account is not in question. What I have issue with is we that are a using the pejorative outside a quote. Which is clearly against policy[9].Tony0937 (talk) 16:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Guys, we're not starting this again. --Haemo (talk) 23:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pilots for 911 truth revisited

A large article on them has been published in a reliable source and can be found here.
"Twenty-five former U.S. military officers have severely criticized the official account of 9/11 and called for a new investigation. They include former commander of U.S. Army Intelligence, Major General Albert Stubblebine, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Col. Ronald D. Ray, two former staff members of the Director of the National Security Agency; Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, PhD, and Major John M. Newman, PhD, and many others. They are among the rapidly growing number of military and intelligence service veterans, scientists, engineers, and architects challenging the government’s story."
One of them may not be credible as he pushes the "no plane" theory but the others have credible concerns so the organisation shouldn't be dismissed. Wayne (talk) 03:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I don’t know how pertinent this really is. Sure 25 former military officer's distrust the official account but I'm sure there are 100,000+ more who don’t. Do you see where I am going? If we begin toting up additional people who do or don’t believe in the conspiracy where does it stop?Cdynas (talk) 05:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

We do have an external link to this organization. As to where this should be going it should go in as replacements for some of the less reliable sources in the article and subarticles claiming the same things. We establish in the summary that most reliable sources do not believe in these theories, we have a section on the mainstream account,criticism and media coverage which for the most part is the same thing. As long as there is consensus that these minority views are worthy of an article at all and this article is not entitled criticism of 9/11 conspiracy theories I see no reason not to use these reliable sources touting 9/11 conspiracy theories because of possible future problems. Edkollin (talk) 06:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

This is useful because, as Ed says, we can use it to source some of the claims made by weaker sources. --Haemo (talk) 07:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thats why I suggested the source. Previous attempts to mention them have failed due to no RS for their members or qualifications. I'm not saying give them a section but now we have a source for when it is appropriate for their mention. I can see where you are going Cdynas but you overlook that of those 100,000 who trust the official account maybe only 10 or 20 have actually looked into it to any meaningful extent. If you only count those who have then we have maybe a 50/50 split. Wayne (talk) 16:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Reformat

I thought it'd be more accessible/easier to streamline in this layout. I hope the community appreciates my reformatting. Autonova (talk) 11:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

"so-called"

Since the discussion here was prematurely closed, I now have to reply elsewhere. In response to Hut 8.5, the answer to your question of "who calls them conspiracy theories/theorists?" would be the mainstream media, certain experts, and government officials. Tony0937 can back me up on this, and he even pointed out that using the pejorative "conspiracy theory" is against NPOV policy. Now, "so-called" may not be the best approach, but it's better than what's being used now, and is clearly not a weasel word, as I have demonstrated. What I liked about the original comment was the reasoning behind it, not necessarily the use of "so-called". I'd rather see "Alternate Hypotheses" used. --Pwnage8 (talk) 00:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

This has been extensively debated in a recent RFA here and although it was admitted that Conspiracy Theory is deliberately used as a perjorative there was no consensus to change the title. Without a clear majority there can be no change so it is pointless to try again so soon. Try again next year as it is counterproductive to bring up the same argument too frequently in the hope of getting a different outcome. Wayne (talk) 03:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I was on a wiki break when this was going on. I fixed your link and a spelling mistake in you post (hope you don't mind). I will read the mediation case before I comment further. Tony0937 (talk) 04:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

NP. Don't forget to read the archived discussion as well as a few comments there show suporters of the current title see it as perjorative but dont feel that is a reason to change it. Wayne (talk) 16:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

demolition

Wouldn't demolition make some loud noise? Any report from ground zero about it?Scmaster (talk) 15:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The noise would be the same regardless of whether the buildings fell or were demolished. However as far as reports go explosives would be heard and in fact most firefighters reported multiple explosions but their testimony was rejected by the 911 commission and not included in their report. In the north tower many survivors from below the impact floor thought there were explosions below them so climbed higher instead of trying to exit the building. Here you can read around 30 pages of survivor interviews catalogued by their building and floor location and quite a few mention the secondary explosions. Here you will find 12,000 pages of firefighter and EMS interviews and a great many mention secondary explosions in lower floors. To find plain text reports of those interviews that do mention explosions you will find it easier to find them on 911 conspiracy websites. Were the explosions CD or events related to the buildings collapse? We'll never know. Wayne (talk) 16:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I never knew steel could explode on its own ;) --Pwnage8 (talk) 20:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

There were machine shops on lower floors..fuel exploding due to fires? This is why NIST should have investigated controlled demolition (they rejected it without investigation). Now Conspiracy theorists use the explosions and NISTs refusal to even consider it as proof of CD. If NIST had investigated properly then I doubt this article would even exist lol. Wayne (talk) 07:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I will take a look.Scmaster (talk) 22:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Cell Phones

I deleted Sirbu's opinion for the following reason. Sirbu's expert opinion was made 3 days after the 911 attacks at which time there had been no research into cell phone use in aircraft. Dewdney conducted his research 2 years after Sirbu's comment and although it confirmed the basic opinion of Sirbu that calls were possible it contradicted the details of exactly how possible they were thus making Sirbu's comment irrelevant based as it was on personal opinion. Dewdney's study, which is accepted by the scientific community, must take precedence over an earlier unresearched opinion. If Sirbu has commented since Dewney's publication then that is acceptable as his opinion then is in light of the study and he is free to critisize it and have it in this article. To use Sirbu's earlier opinion no matter how expert it was at the time to debunk later actual research is POV pushing as we have no indication that he has not accepted the study. Wayne (talk) 14:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. American cell phones still primarily had an analog backup, while Canada never installed the analog system, and (primarily) uses a different digital system. Dewdney's research on Canadian cell phones is irrelevant, even if it were accepted by the "industry". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

"Nonsense" is a bit strong when you have not even read the research. Dewdney used both anologue and digital cell phones (plus a cell phone that could be used in both modes) and used the different network types available (CDMA, GSM, IDEN and Analogue). While the digital phones did not perform as well as the analogue the studies conclusions were based on the best performance for an analogue cell phone (not on the digital results) in ideal conditions in a radio transparent aircraft (Success would be lower in an Aluminium skinned aircraft). Also Dewdney makes the point that "the cellphone technological base in Canada is identical to its US counterpart" You need a better argument to justify the revert. Feel free to add a post 2003 source that contradicts the study. Wayne (talk) 07:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Dewdeney is, I'm afraid, a mathematician, rather than an RF professional. (I'm afraid I'm both, now, although I work mostly in RADAR bands and the GPS frequencies, which I don't think is near the cell phone frequencies.) I can confirm that the digital coding system used in the USA (TDMA) was not on the list you quoted. This is, of course, not sufficient to suggest removal of Dewdeney from the article, but it's sufficient that the older professional study of cell phone communication shouldn't be eliminated just because it's contradicted by a newer non-professional study. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Your "older professional study" is actually an "older professional opinion" not a study. Nowhere does the source or subject claim it is a study or the result of a study. Also your "newer non-professional study" is actually a "newer Professional study". Who cares what profession Dewdney is? All he did was record the results (which is where his mathmatical expertise comes in)...the actual study was carried out by techs from Wireless Concepts Inc who I suspect have some expertise in.. dare I say it...wireless and who, I believe, are the Canadian partner who helped design and build the Cospas-Sarsat. I'm very dissapointed that you so blatantly twist the English phrasing to back your own opinion. I repeat...justify the revert or as per the ArbCom 911 sanctions it has to go. Wayne (talk) 16:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Non-professional conspiracy theorist carries out study which is not published in any established peer-reviewed journal, and makes a claim. Conspiracy theorist uses said study to make claims that certain flights were shot down, and the calls faked. Prominent experts in the relevant theory offer their professional opinions that contradict said study. You (1) deliberately remove any mention that non-professional who commissioned the study is a conspiracy theorist and now (2) want to remove the professional opinion because it contradicts the conspiracy theorist's study. I think anyone would see the issue with that. --Haemo (talk) 18:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

By the way, you still haven't addressed any of these concerns above on this subject, and it's been literally months. You shouldn't just walk away from discussions, come back to revert if someone changes it, and then make further changes without discussing them. --Haemo (talk) 18:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Of what relevance is it that a non professional (in RF) commissioned the study? Bush was not a professional engineer so does that invalidate the NIST report? Of what relevance is it that Dewdney supports conspiracy theories? It is irrelevant as long as the study was performed as claimed (it was filmed). He can't be too vocal about it anyway as I have never heard any of them apart from what is mentioned on the WP page. Are you accusing Wireless Concepts Inc of faking the results at his request? You overlook that NO prominent experts as far as I know have contradicted the study. It is dishonest to use opinion from before the study was carried out to prove that they have. As I said before, you are free to add any professional opinions contradicting Dewdneys study that were made after the studies publication. If Sirbu's original opinion is correct then there must be many such made since 2003. Wayne (talk) 12:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

There's no constraint that professional opinions on this subject have got to be from a certain point in time. The subject is cell phones, not someone's opinion on them. RxS (talk) 13:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I've compromised to leave the Sirbu paragraph in. I've put the section in date order and added another cite for expert opinions so that everything is in context. See what you think. Wayne (talk) 13:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

At first glance, it seems to cover all the relevant studies without bias.

There was an earlier informal study showing that cell phones do not interfere with aircraft navigation, and that they do work near the ground. It was informal because the tests were in violation of Federal law. It might not qualify as a WP:RS, but it might also have been the best possible source at the time. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

If it was me I'd add that source to the sentence mentioning Sirbu as I have no problem with sources not normally reliable as long as they are verifiable however no one (not even Dewdney) has disputed that they worked near the ground so it doesn't seem to contradict Dewney's study. Wayne (talk) 00:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I am proposing that Flight 93 conspiracy theories be merged back into this article. As it stands now, that article is a poorly sourced POV fork that doesn't have nearly enough information nor reliable sources to stand on its own. Any objections? Ice Cold Beer (talk) 08:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Support strongly, per my arguments in the section above. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 12:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

If that's the case, then you fix the neutrality, or dispute it if you don't have the time. This article is already too long. --Pwnage8 (talk) 16:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't really have a problem merging the article back into this article, I only did it to save space. Noah¢s (Talk) 21:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I had already disputed the neutrality, and had started to fix it before I proposed the merger. However, article size is never a reason to create a POV fork or to spinout an article that does not have the reliable sources to show notability. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 02:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

If you fix the neutrality, then it's not a POV fork. And it's reliably sourced. --Pwnage8 (talk) 02:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It is clearly not reliably sourced. There is not a single RS in that article discussing Flight 93 conspiracy theories in depth. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 02:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

There's at least two. --Pwnage8 (talk) 03:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

There are more than two. But they don't discuss Flight 93 conspiracy theories extensively. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so there are more than two. And I don't quite understand what you mean by they "don't discuss them extensively". Most of the sources used are only about Flight 93. If it's an issue about getting better sources, I don't see why the page should be merged. --Pwnage8 (talk) 17:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The subject of the spinout article is Flight 93 conspiracy theories, so we need sources that discuss the conspiracy theories, not just Flight 93. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 17:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I support the merger proposal. {Jazz2006 (talk) 03:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)}

Support Same things so should be in the same article. 79.71.196.217 (talk) 20:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Support. Flight 93 conspiracy theories is very thin and would benefit from the high quality of the 9/11_conspiracy_theories article. JGerretse (talk) 00:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I've just completed the merge. Thanks for your input, folks. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 17:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Fictional Film "Able Danger"

A film entitled "Able Danger" "based on true incidents" centering around a 9/11 conspiracy will be playing at the Brooklyn International Film Festival Friday June 6 at 8PM.[10],[11]. The director will be available for questioning after the film. Of course this is nowhere near article worthy at this point but if any editors plan to be in Brooklyn Friday night this would seem of interest Edkollin (talk) 01:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Aaron Russo interview

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nD7dbkkBIA

Should this be included?

(Dchall1- please do not delete again on the grounds that the interview is conducted by Alex Jones. This is a respected politician, freely and independently speaking about his own experiences. Jones is effectively silent throughout, doesnt put words in Russo's mouth, so the fact the interview is by Alex Jones is irrelevant. How dare you delete my post on this discussion! How is Russo's experience supposed to be taken seriously if people ignore it just because it's on the Alex Jones show? If youre on a jury, you don't not listen to witnesses because they're left, right black or white- you listen to what they actually say. It's mentioned elsewhere on wikipedia, anyway.) Autonova (talk) 17:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Respected politician? I don't have sufficient vocabulary to explain the error of your ways. Errors of his ways are quite easy to express. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Ironic that you had an error to correct.[12] --Pwnage8 (talk) 17:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I was considering stating that "respected politician" is such an obvious oxymoron as to go without saying, but decided to speak to the specifics of the issue. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

One problem with this is you can not use YouTube as a cite due to copywrite issues. That being said he is a mildly notable public figure. This accusation should belong in the "New World Order" motive as an additional cite only with a line or two in the advanced knowledge sub article. Another consideration is External Links. "Terrorstorm" and "Loose Change" are linked and this is in a similar vain Edkollin (talk) 03:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Questions

What steps are being taken to ensure that all viewpoints, no matter how weird, are being allowed in wikipedia in general and to this article. What steps are being taken to notate comments and edits to Wikipedia articles that are originated in the Bush administration, by politicians, corporations, Nations, or by Skeptical organizations. I do not mean block them, but a note that would flow as follows. Example of a message that would notate who edited an article might look like this: " This edit has been traced to (X)corporation, (X) nation, the white house, pentagon or Skeptical Inquirer, (X) politician (Senator Congressman, Governor Etc) or some other organization, church or government agency". I believe such notation would be informative and useful, especially if politicians are trying to change articles to a more favorable view of themselves, or governments are trying to cover up something. (NOTE: I do not understand the warning at the top of the talk page. If this question falls under the warning, please let me know and I will either change the question or remove it) Magnum Serpentine (talk) 21:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

In the above example, (X) stands for the name of the organization or personMagnum Serpentine (talk) 21:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

How in the world do you expect us to determine that information, much less notate it? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Two thoughts come to mind. First, this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. As long as assertions are supported by reliable sources, it doesn't matter who makes the edits. Bin Laden could edit the page so long as his edits were verifiable. Secondly, you may wish to take a look at WP:FRINGE, which covers policies on inclusion of fringe theories. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 21:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Financial Times Magazine article

This Sunday the magazine published a lengthy article on the 9/11 Truth movement. I noted it in this articles and the 9/11 truth movement sub articles mainstream media sections. The cite said that the NIST report on building 7 is due out in August. I put that and other information from the cite relating the NIST investigation of the building 7 collapse in the Controlled Demolition Theory sub article. The Financial Times article is broken down into three separate cites and I used these in the articles. thepeoplesvoice.org combined the three parts into one page but I had doubts that would pass reliable source muster.[13] Edkollin (talk) 07:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Results of google search

This statement is made in the article

As of June 2008 a Google search of "9/11 conspiracy" comes up with 615,000 links.

I just did that search and got 619,000 links.

More importantly is the contrast with the search "9/11 truth" which yields 1.3 million links —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.233.52.60 (talk) 17:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:GOOGLE#What_a_search_test_can_do.2C_and_what_it_can.27t — BQZip01 —  ^talk 23:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I put in because that is what the cite claimed. I did what you did the day I put it in the article and got 616000 something links. But I can not put in the article my or your experiments because that would be original research. I put put in in because it demonstrates internet interest in the subject. "June 2008" might need to be reworded. That was the month the article came out there is no mention of when or if it was the cites author who did a google search. Edkollin (talk) 08:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The BBC is claiming 7.9 million for "9/11 conspiracy" and 22 million for 9/11 truth. [14] I do not know why there figures are so differnt Edkollin (talk) 20:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The quotes. From google.com

Results 1 - 10 of about 642,000 for "9/11 conspiracy". (0.28 seconds)

Results 1 - 10 of about 7,870,000 for 9/11 conspiracy. (0.09 seconds) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.29.237.240 (talk) 16:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

These results are so different because the use of quotes, narrows the search to when the items occur next to each other. I getroughly the same as B.B.C.'s result when I omit quotes, (thanks to the above user, I figured this out". That aside, both sets of searches seem to indicate that "9/11 truth" or 9/11 truth gets more hits than "9/11 conspiracy" or 9/11 conspiracy.

I haven't checked out the variations for 9-11, 9 11, September 11th, Nineleven, Or Nine Eleven. Which for the purpose of this article would constitute original research, and not be publishable. But I think a reference to the BBC article is in order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.233.52.60 (talk) 17:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Project for a New American Century doesnt exist

footnote 165 linking to newamericancentury.org leads here http://ns1.cpanel.btnaccess.com/suspended.page/

maybe someone can change it to the archive http://web.archive.org/web/*/www.newamericancentury.org/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.29.237.240 (talk) 16:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The Conspiracy Files (BBC documentary series)

I recently posted at Talk:Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center about the upcoming broadcast of The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 - The Third Tower on BBC2 tomorrow (6 July 2008). I thought people here should be aware of that, as it might lead to increased traffic here as well. I've also noted over there that this series has now done two documentaries on 9/11 conspiracy theories. The first, seemingly titled 9/11: The Conspiracy Files (not sure about the placement of the series title in the program title) was broadcast on Sunday 18 February 2007. The second one, as I mentioend above, is being broadcast on Sunday 6 July 2008. I'm posting here to make sure people don't get these two documentaries mixed up. I'm also not sure of the broadcast dates in other countries. Note that our article on The Conspiracy Files is (currently) mainly about the US series of a similar name, with the BBC one only briefly mentioned. Anyway, I came here to see whether the documentary is mentioned here, or whether its mention has been discussed on the talk page or in the talk archives - can anyone help? The links to the earlier documentary, possibly relevant for this article, are: here, here, here and here. Currently (from a cursory readong of the article), this article has the following mentions:

• "Q&A: What really happened. The Conspiracy Files. BBC (16-02-2007). Retrieved on 2008-07-04." (in the references)
• BBC Two The Conspiracy Files: The Third Tower Airdate July 6, 2008. Retrieved on 2008-06-23. (in the external links)
• BBC Conspiracy Files 9/11 at Google Video (in the video links - a dead link, was probably a copyvio)

I'm also looking at the 9/11 conspiracy theories#Media reaction section, which seems a bit of a hodge-podge or mish-mash at the moment. There seems to be no rhyme or reason over which articles or documentaries get mentioned. The films and books in the template, for instance, are not mentioned at all. Also, Zeitgeist, the Movie is not mentioned. I understand that this article may not be the right place to cover the various documentaries and books, but people will come to Wikipedia looking for information on these topics, so Wikipedia should probably try and organise at least a semi-coherent article or timeline on this. I note we do have Category:Films based on the September 11, 2001 attacks, and Category:Documentaries about the September 11, 2001 attacks, and September 11, 2001 attacks in popular culture and List of audiovisual entertainment affected by the September 11, 2001 attacks (the most clunky title I've seen in a while), but this all seems a bit disorganised at the moment. Would it be an idea to have two articles focusing purely on the films and documentaries about 9/11? Carcharoth (talk) 09:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm pleased to see someone else getting involved with this. The problem at present is that this whole area has become a battleground in the culture wars between those who believe in every conspiracy theory going, and those who wish to block any mention of the controversy, or use content forking, in contravention of our policies, to restrict non-governmental sources to "Controversy" articles such as this one. As the events concerned recede further into history, and as the discredited Bush administration begins to stand down, we may be able to attempt a more balanced coverage of this area, as we effortlessly manage to do in similar areas of controversy from history such as the John F. Kennedy assassination. We should begin with a dispassionate review of our coverage of this whole area, with a view to streamlining it and making it conform with policy. --John (talk) 12:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why Zeitgeist isn't mentioned in conspiracy theories. 9/11 really isn't a large part of it, at least according to our article. And the John F. Kennedy assassination still has more credible (as in not violating the laws of physics) alternative explanations than 9/11 (planes are harder to miscount than bullets), and probably more current credible discussion. Just last month, I recall a news story about performing (something like) spectral analysis on the various audio tapes to determine if all the bullet sounds had the same "signature" and also an attempt at echolocation of the shots. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

You may think so, I may think so, but the BBC seems to hold a different opinion. I think my points above still stand. --John (talk) 21:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Forgot to follow this up. I found the BBC documentary interesting. It let people say things in their own words, but in the end, by the implication and the way it ended, it came down fairly squarely on the side of those saying that there was no conspiracy. It covered a fair amount of ground and a fair number of the arguments, and did a good job of presenting the various points. It certainly left me wondering just why consipracy theories are so pervasive in today's society - something about being unable to prove a negative I think, but maybe also something to do with the relationship between some of the American people and their government and the media. I'm sure it will be studied by sociologists for generations to come. Carcharoth (talk) 19:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

video that cover that devloping of the conspiracy about the Jews

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hB5rBmmOaDU

I add this video as it give good back ground about how the issue was developed.Oren.tal (talk) 19:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Youtube videos may not be added to articles, even as external links, unless the source is indicated, and that source is at least credible. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

World Trade Center Design Investigation

This sections as any section can be rewordeed but it should not have been deleted because it does not voilate the biography clauses. The statement that the wife of the trade center's structural engineer and a representative of the buildings' original design team were members of the society’s investigative team are undisputed. The Associated Press and the teams lead investigator both agree on that point. As for the charge of "moral corruption" which I am going to assume is the basis of your objection I would agreee that just by itself would at best border on slander (they are not bieng accused of actual corruption ie fixing the investigation). But thier actions were givin a robust defense and that for me makes this a non-slandouras piece. Edkollin (talk) 19:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It still needs rigorous sourcing. The only reference cited by that section was a dead link that the Internet Wayback Machine hasn't heard of. There is also the implication that he somehow supports the conspiracy theories, which is unsubstantiated and (from what I have seen) wrong. Hut 8.5 21:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is the link [15]. This section is not about specific theories but alleged "pattern of behavior on the part of officials investigating the September 11 attack meant to suppress the emergence of evidence that might contradict the mainstream. So whether that particular scientist believes in the theories is irrelevant to this section that he is discussing a pattern of behavior. meant to suppress the emergence of evidence that might contradict the mainstream is. Goggling the articles title shows Conspiracy theorists of all sorts did seize upon this when it came out. Edkollin (talk) 00:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The source is fine, though these allegations concern the mainstream viewpoint of the construction and design of the World Trade Center, as opposed to the conspiracy theories which concern the mainstream account of the events of 9/11. I think this would be better off in Construction of the World Trade Center or Collapse of the World Trade Center rather than here. Hut 8.5 20:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Editors Note: 9/11 vs Anthrax case

The difference in mainstream reputable source response is striking between the two cases. Almost immediately after the FBI claimed Bruce Ivins did the anthrax attacks a whole of reputable scientists,journalists editorials public officials have doubts about the conclusions. It should be noted that as of this writing the 9/11 like the U.S. government CT's it remains on the edge of the debate. My POV is with this very different climate that if some "evidence" shows up of government involvement it will be taken seriously something I believe is unlikely ever to occur with 9/11 "evidence" Edkollin (talk) 16:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Control of Words

Various antagonistic entities in the media use the control of words to marginalize free speech.

"Conspiracy theories" is one of these expressions. As long as one accepts word usages in ways that ones detractors put forth, they fall into the trap and surrender to the label.

Note that Wikipedia has an article entitled "conspiracy theories", and it seems to be dominated by those who would dismiss any evidence contrary to the 'official theory'.

That gives us two articles then, that support official theories of the World Trade Center Incident.

I would suggest that those Wikipedians with evidence to alternative scenarios should establish a Wiki article with a title that is acceptable to their views and research, and for a link to be provided on the World Trade Center Attacks page, and that their article should be moderated by qualified representatives of that research.

--APDEF (talk) 14:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

That would be a WP:POVFORK, which is prohibited by Wikipedia guidelines. Furthermore, WP:FRINGE (a guideline) strongly suggests that mainstream analysis of fringe theories, such as 9/11 conspiracy theories, should be included in this article. May I suggest you read the edit history of this talk page before making proposals which have been considered and rejected previously? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

And...we already have "alternative viewpoint" articles...such as this one.--MONGO 15:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Protected edit request

{{editsemiprotected}}

Suggested external link addition to:

VIDEOS

Title: Who Killed John O'Neil

URL: http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-3857917663523144457

Thanks!

Mokeyboy

Google Video doesn't make for a brilliant external link. The videos already listed are from recognised sources (eg BBC, CBC) or have become notable in themselves (eg Loose Change). This video doesn't appear to be either. We have too many external links here anyway. Hut 8.5 18:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Origins

The origins of these theories are not sourced and they seem to be misrepresented stating that "websites, books, and films have been put forward" with no mention of what prompted their creation. The article continues "Although mainstream media report that al-Qaeda agents conspired to carry out the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks, members within the 9/11 Truth Movement say..."

The Jersey Girls page by itself would be a much clearer explanation of how the theories originated. However, there is more to the origins than just the Jersey Girls: this article and the William Rodriguez article should be referenced too. Here's my proposed text:

Immediately after the collapses of the Towers and Building 7, eyewitness testimony referring to explosions, along with features of the collapses caught on film that resembled footage of controlled demolitions, led many people, including some news anchors and engineers, to suspect that explosives had been pre-planted within the buildings.

Shortly after the attacks, William Rodriguez told CNN:

“ We heard a loud rumble, then all of a sudden we heard another rumble like someone moving a whole lot of furniture. And then the elevator opened and a man came into our office and all of his skin was off. ”

In 2005, he recalled the locations of the two rumbles, the first from below, and the second from above.

Rodriguez and the Jersey Girls, four widows of WTC victims, were instrumental in the creation of the 9/11 Commission.

Even before the commission formed, a minority of people took the view that the only reasonable explanation for the supposed anomalies in the official account, and the perceived cover-up, was that (a faction of) the government either deliberately allowed the attacks to take place, or were actively involved in the planning and carrying out of the attacks. Many of the questions the Family Steering Committee submitted to the 9/11 Commission seemed to the committee to have been left unanswered.

On March 25, 2002, on KPFA's Flashpoints with Dennis Bernstein, Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) said "We know there were numerous warnings of the events to come on September 11. ... What did this administration know and when did it know it, about the events of September 11? Who else knew, and why did they not warn the innocent people of New York who were needlessly murdered? What do they have to hide?".

After that, it can continue with "Members within the 9/11 Truth Movement..." as it does now.

Please comment if you have a better improvement for the Origins section. Dscotese (talk) 04:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this should be added. There's a difference between suggesting the attacks could have been prevented or that officials were incompetent and suggesting the attacks were deliberately organised or permitted by the government (which is the view that this article covers). Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center has a good section on the development of that particular theory. Hut 8.5 20:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is a difference. It's like the difference between a chicken laying and then sitting on a fertilized egg and the bursting forth of a baby chick. Or the difference between the origins of a theory and the descriptions of the theory that subsequently appear. Don't you think the "put[ting] forward" of the "websites, books, and films" is not a sufficient description of origins? If you think it is, I'm open to conversion. Perhaps the section should be called "Background and Reception"? Or perhaps you feel that the path from 9/11 attacks to conspiracy theories should not be presented? Dscotese (talk) 23:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You haven't got any references that these events were the origins of the theories though, so this is WP:OR. The origins section isn't very good, but as it's well covered at Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center (and 9/11 Truth Movement) and this article is too long already it might be better to add links to those articles. Hut 8.5 19:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

There are no sources that anything mentioned in the section was an origin or a reception of the theories. Really, since any selection of information to be included constitutes research, I think you are perverting the intent of WP:OR, but since the article is too long, I will work on shortening it and providing links to the other articles that cover the subject well, as you suggest. Dscotese (talk) 02:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Since from your comments above you are trying to add information that these events were connected to the origins of the theories you need references. If you had a reference which said something on the lines of "the conspiracy theories grew out of the same initial skepticism that produced the Jersey Girls and the Family Steering Committee" then your section could be included, otherwise you are interpreting the information to conclude that it has something to do with 9/11 conspiracy theories (hence the original research). Hut 8.5 06:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

If you check out September 11 attacks#Domestic_response, you'll see that President Bush's speech, the contingency plans that were formed, and the hate crimes discussed are all part of the "Domestic Response" - even though there is no RS that calls them part of the domestic response. These activities in the government and the country that followed the events can be represented as "Domestic Response" without a reliable source because you don't need an RS to state the obvious. In the same way, the problems people had with the mainstream account can be represented as the origins of conspiracy theories. As I suggested, we can call this "background" instead. This is why I call your use of WP:OR here a perversion. Dscotese (talk) 14:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The information quoted there is clearly part of the topic of 9/11 and clearly falls within the subject of the domestic response (a header which is only there for organisational reasons). It is less clear that criticism of the competence of officials or of inquiries into 9/11 has something to do with the origin of the conspiracy theories. Information shouldn't be included in this article if it has no relevance to the article's subject. Hut 8.5 17:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's suppose that the conspiracy theories really did NOT originate in the criticisms you mentioned. It's pretty obvious that such criticism has been worked into the theories by now, and those claims are obviously founded in part on the experiences of the Jersey Girls and William Rodriguez. This is why I suggested using Background in the section title and changed it to Initial Reception. Background and Initial Reception would be much more helpful to those researching the topic, and it allows the introduction of the articles about the Jersey Girls and Rodriguez. Also, the use of "Origins" is unwarranted since there are no reliable sources that point to the origins of the conspiracy theories. Anyway, is there some Wiki Policy that suggests that we should suppress the introduction of the Jersey Girls and/or William Rodriguez for some reason? Dscotese (talk) 04:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

We already have background information in the "Mainstream account" section. Given that this article is too long already and that the background is covered in other articles I don't think we can justify adding more. I would be surprised if there aren't any reliable sources at least mentioning the origins of the theories. Hut 8.5 20:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

removed Mineta paragraph

However, the 9/11 Commission report concluded, based on testimony from the other members who were in the bunker and overhead the conversation, that the young aide was referring to Flight 93, and that the young aide first entered and stated that the aircraft was 80 miles out "at some time between 10:10 and 10:15", after Flight 93 had crashed, but was believed to still be on its way toward Washington, D.C. Mineta did not know at the time what the orders referred to, and he learned only later that 'shoot down orders' had been given that day. However, it has been suggested that the orders spoken of could have been an order not to shoot down the approaching plane. This theory is based on an interpretation of the young man's question as an expression of his surprise about the order. Therefore, because shooting down the approaching plane would be the accepted action, the unusual nature of an order not to shoot down the plane would explain the young man's putative disbelief. Still others believe that the young aide's repeated questioning was due to ethical concerns over shooting down a commercial aircraft with innocent civilians on board. . Although Mineta later clarified that he believed the order being discussed was indeed a shoot down order, the 9/11 Commission found that "A shootdown authorization was not communicated to the NORAD air defense sector until 28 minutes after United 93 had crashed in Pennsylvania". Yet, this was due to NORAD military commanders themselves failing to effectively pass the President's and Vice President's shoot-down orders to fighter pilots in the air, and the report goes on to say that, "In short, while leaders in Washington believed that the fighters circling above them had been instructed to "take out" hostile aircraft, the only orders actually conveyed to the pilots were to 'ID type and tail.'"

preview

---

I am removing the above paragraph for the following reasons:

1. I think the 9/11 report does not say this about the Mineta testimony. If you think it does, please give a page number.
2. wanttoknow.info is not a valid source for the claim made
3. MSNBC does not give a source for its statements; it may be naive reproduction of hearsay. This is not an RS.
4. Mineta restated his testimony in 2006/2007 or so.

My conclusion is that the paragraph has no basis in sources upto now, so it needs fixing before we can put it back. Kaaskop6666 (talk) 19:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Suggested Historical Precedent

I propose to change

“ Conspiracy theorists sometimes bring up historical examples of where a government is known or alleged to have carried out or planned activities similar to those hypothesized as explanations for the September 11 attacks — often false flag operations. ”

to

“ In some historical examples of false flag operations, a government has carried out or planned activities similar to those hypothesized as explanations for the September 11 attacks. ”

I propose this change for these reasons:

• Who brings up these examples is not important to the subject.
• "...examples of where" is poor grammar.
• Other important classes of historical examples that are not false flag operations should be mentioned explicitly, just as "events that inspired conspiracy theories" are.

Please critique this change if you feel it does not improve the article. Dscotese (talk) 04:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Very Important Article

There's a new article that all wikipedia editors should read through.

It addresses very important issues:

9/11: Distinguishing The Propaganda From The Smoking Guns

Complete Truth (talk) 06:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)