Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories

Template:9/11 conspiracy theories

Does someone want to rename Template:911ct to Template:9/11 conspiracy theories? Christopher Connor (talk) 03:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

There are numerous related templates. Is it really worth all the disruption? I don't see that the name is being confused with anything else. --UncleDouggie (talk) 06:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Paragraph 2 in Main theories - Foreknowledge

The opening sentence of paragraph 2 states:

One popular conspiracy theory suggests there was a suspiciously high volume of put options placed on United Airlines and American Airlines stocks just before 9/11.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/19/eveningnews/main311834.shtml reports that it is not just a theory that there were such option trades, but a fact. The paragraph needs to be reworded to have it convey fact from mere theories such as follows:

A few days prior to the attacks, a suspiciously high volume of put options were placed only on United Airlines and American Airlines stocks "coincidentally" just the airlines hijacked on 9/11 suggesting foreknowledge of the attacks.(then provide the link above as at least one reference)

Existing next sentence:

According to this theory, trading insiders knew in advance of the coming events of 9/11 and placed their bets accordingly.

changes to be:

If foreknowledge of set plans involving just those airlines were used, insiders options trades would have made handsome profits. British securities regulators and the AXA Group identified some of the UAL trades as originating from the American arm of of German giant Deutsche Bank. (ref http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/10/19/BU142745.DTL) Oldspammer (talk) 09:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I did add a paragraph with the 60 Minutes sourced information naming the brokerage firms involved discussing the profit to be made and discussing the SEC investigation. I see no reason to change “suspected” as that is the language the source used. Since nobody was convicted of insider trading “suspected” remains the correct word here. The SEC was not investigating a US government 9/11 CT and Osama was the main suspect.

Also since only two foreknowledge theories are being discussed split that section into two for clarity Edkollin (talk) 19:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The sequence of words to which I object is "theory suggests there was..." evidence. However, WP:RS state that none of the evidence was theoretical. The theory uses this proven evidence to suppose other stuff. Do you get me? The sentence says that "theory suggested evidence" existed making the theory look pretty lame if evidence does not even appear proven but remains theoretical. It is a question of grammar presentation of the info. The grammar must be changed not to be lame. Oldspammer (talk) 07:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing suspicious about the number of put options. The imbalance was *unusual*, not *suspicious*. The original sentence above is as such correct. It could also be reworded as "One popular conspiracy theory suggests that an unusually high volume of put options placed on United Airlines and American Airlines stocks the 8th of September is suspicious" or something, but it's kinda silly. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

"Just before 9/11 there was as "extraordinary" amount of put options placed on United Airlines and American Airlines stocks. Conspiracy theorists believe trading insiders knew in advance of the coming events of 9/11 and placed their bets accordingly. An analysis by Allen M. Poteshman into the possibility of insider trading on 9/11 concludes that"

"Extraordinary" was the word used by 60 minutes and is a more in my view powerful then "unusual" which could mean a wide range of “unusual.” Edkollin (talk) 19:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

That works. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

If no objection in the next few days will change the language Edkollin (talk) 20:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Done Edkollin (talk) 19:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from PAhsagah, 27 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Someone has placed their own opinions on the page, saying "you'd have to be a gullible idiot to believe these half-baked conspiracy theories, most of which were thought up by marijuana smoking basement-dwellers.

It's offensive and ignorant. Please remove.

PAhsagah (talk) 06:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

...but its true? 24.235.198.240 (talk) 19:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think it's possible for one to be gullible, but not quite down to the idiot level, to believe the theories. I don't think they were thought up by marijuana-smoking basement-dwellers. But it's almost true. However, Wikipedia doesn't care about Truth, only about Verifiability. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

That type of remark is vandalism and always needs to be removed. And if it happens a lot the page can be protected.Edkollin (talk) 21:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

If the statement comes from a professional investigator, researcher, or etc, it should be given some weight. James MEIGS, the editor of Popular Mechanics, described elements of the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories as “disgusting.” He did NOT call followers “gullible,” “pot smoking,” nor “basement dwelling” (in the sections I actually caught), but others may have, and this should be given some consideration (these are professionals, not “mere wackos with an axe to grind,” as NECT Deniers have been accused of by so-called “Truthers”).174.25.8.116 (talk) 15:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC) A REDDSON

Meigs is not an expert on questions of taste or moral judgment. Therefore, his opinions in this regards would be undue in this article, in my view.  Cs32en Talk to me  16:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

United 93 "Passenger Revolt"

Did not the 9/11 commission conclude that the hijackers had a pre arraigned plan to ditch the plane in the NYC streets if there was a problem and with revolting passengers at the cockpit door the hijackers ditched the plane following the general idea of the plan. The was different then the original story which claimed the passengers them stormed the cockpit and took the plane down. Edkollin (talk) 20:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

NIST and Popular Mechanics?

Umm, gee... when did NIST and Popular Mechanics become experts on "conspiracy theories" per se? Or for that matter who exactly in science or engineering regards Popular Mechanics as any kind of an authority on anything? Seriously, NIST may be have to be presumed to have some credible here despite their blatant conflict of interest, but Popular Mechanics is laughable (just like the ridiculous story we were told about 19 hijackers and Osama bin Laden's cave). Why not cite some actual experts on "conspiracy theories" per se or false flag operations instead? Certainly there are plenty of credible former intelligence officers who can be quoted instead. http://patriotsquestion911.com/ provides many. 24.11.186.64 (talk) 03:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS. 77.10.179.229 (talk) 15:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Because is popular and mechanic. Mechanical thinking pays D. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.244 (talk) 05:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Films

There is a lot of films of youtube. The films contains notable information. For example film watched by 1.7 mln peoples is more notable than party newspaper printed in 100k or 10000 books burned by Pentagon. Agreement?

So there is need to prepare here collection of links so we can get agreement which later we put to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.244 (talk) 08:31, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Nope, not going to be included. Loose Change is NOT a reliable source. Soxwon (talk) 18:40, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

There is some sort of copyright issue with youtube videos so Wikipedia does not allow them to be used as sources. Edkollin (talk) 20:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Jotakin5512, 12 September 2010

Could you change: "NIST does not claim that the steel was melted" --> "Despite eyewitness testimonies of molten metal, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fs_ogSbQFbM NIST does not claim that the steel was melted "

Yes, let's include eyewitnesses who were certainly objective and had no emotions distracting them. And certainly we'll only use high quality that have no agenda to push like Architects and Engineers for truth. (/sarcasm) Soxwon (talk) 18:39, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Supposedly New Video

An editor added a cite from a major German newspaper that shows supposedly new videos provided by the International Center for 9/11 Studies. The edit claims the article states that the video supposedly provides "new evidence". Does the article actually say the videos are new evidence or International Center for 9/11 Studies group is claiming that it is?. Since I am not a German speaker I can't answer that question. If the article does not say that International Center for 9/11 Studies is claiming evidence of a conspiracy the material should be deleted. There is a question as to the notability or reliability of the International Center for 9/11 Studies. Wikipedia does not have an article on that group which while not an automatic disqualification should raise questions. If the International Center for 9/11 Studies is not notable or reliable Wikipedia should not publish there material just because one reliable media source has. Only if the International Center for 9/11 Studies are reliable or notable and the article actually states that the organization is making a claim that the videos demonstrate a conspiracy should the material be left in Even then the piece should be rewritten to specifically state that it is the International Center for 9/11 Studies that is making the claim. In the meantime I slapped an unreliable warning on it. If no satisfactory answer is given in the next few days I will delete the material. Edkollin (talk) 21:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung is considered to be a first-class publication with regard to reliability and accuracy. This is the German original of the article and my English translation:

Terroranschläge

Neue Videos vom 11. September
Im Internet sind neue, spektakuläre Videos zu den Terroranschlägen vom 11. September veröffentlicht worden. Die Videos, jahrelang unter Verschluss gehalten, geben Verschwörungstheoretikern neue Nahrung.
10. September 2010 Neue Nahrung für Verschwörungstheoretiker: Pünktlich zum neunten Jahrestag des Terroranschlags auf das World Trade Center in New York sind im Internet neue, bislang unbekannte Videos zum 11. September 2001 veröffentlicht worden. Diese waren bislang unter Verschluss gehalten worden. Das private „International Center for 9/11 Studies“ hatte erfolgreich auf Herausgabe der Videodokumente geklagt und sie nun auf seinem eigenen Kanal bei Youtube veröffentlicht. Das „National Institute of Standards and Technology“ (Nist), die technische Prüfstelle der Vereinigten Staaten, hatte die Videos - beklemmende Amateuraufnahmen von direkt Beteiligten und Berichte von lokalen Fernsehstationen - jahrelang nicht freigegeben.

Die bislang unbekannten Videos sollen als weitere Beweise für eine Verschwörung rund um den 11. September dienen. Hartnäckig kursieren im Internet Gerüchte, dass nicht die von Islamisten gekaperten Flugzeuge den Einsturz der Zwillingstürme verursacht hätten, sondern kontrollierte Sprengungen durch Fachleute. Der Schlüssel zu dieser Theorie soll im Kollaps des Nebengebäudes World Trade Center 7 liegen. Das Nachbargebäude, Sitz des Geheimdienstes CIA, stürzte ein, obwohl es nicht von einem Flugzeug getroffen worden war. Eine Vielzahl der nun neu veröffentlichten Videos zeigt Bilder vom WTC7.
[This introduction is followed by descriptions of several of the videos, which are linked from the journal's website]

Terrorist attacks

New videos from September 11
New, spectacular videos about the terrorist attacks of September 11 have been published on the Internet. The videos, which have been kept under wraps [or: from public view] for years, provide new fuel for conspiracy theorists. [or: feed conspiracy theorists]
September 10, 2010 New food for conspiracy theorists: On time for the ninth anniversary of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York, new, previously unknown, videos about September 11, 2001, have been published on the internet. These have been kept under wraps [or: from public view] before. The private „International Center for 9/11 Studies“ has successfully sued for the release of the video documents and has now published them on its own channel on YouTube. The „National Institute of Standards and Technology“ (Nist), the technical certification institution [don't know if this particular translation is fully accurate] had not released the videos – emotionally distressing amateur videos of people that have been directly involved and reports from local television stations – for years.

The previously unknown videos are supposed to serve as further proof for a conspiracy around September 11. Persistent rumors on the internet say that the collapse of the twin town had not been caused by the planes hijacked by Islamists, but by controlled demolitions carried out by specialists. The key for that theory is supposed to be found in the collaps of the adjacent building 7 World Trade Center. The adjacent building, rented by the CIA, has crumbled, although it has not been hit by a plane. A large number of the newly published videos shows images of 7 WTC.
[This introduction is followed by descriptions of several of the videos, which are linked from the journal's website]

  Cs32en Talk to me  22:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Evidence for involvement of Neo-Nazis, domestic terrorists!

There are so many clues of a Neo-Nazi involvement it's scary. It all centers around William Luther Pierce, founder of the National Alliance and author of The Turner Diaries (Timothy McVeigh's guide for the Oklahoma City bombing).

Pierce's April 2001 article named "As ye sow" is terrifying to say the least.

Much evidence for their (Neo-Nazi) involvement at the following link:

http://letsrollforums.com/neo-nazis-domestic-terrorists-t22140.html?s=085a4e0d7fc01e92aafcce49f280d452&

Maybe someone can incorporate this theory into the article. I am not familiar enough with Wikipedia to do it myself. Anonymous, 09/13/2010, 04:06 UTC (+1) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.153.221.249 (talk) 02:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The material from the link you included is clearly fringe original research from an anonymous forum poster. Sorry to say it is far from being a verifiable, reliable source, remember, the threshold for wikipedia is "verifiability, not truth". КĐ^♥ 06:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

This is my article in fact. :) You can use any part of it. And I only used reliable sources I found, like "natvan", the page of the National Alliance, William Pierce's group. They host all his articles, like "As ye sow", which indicates Pierce had foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks, to say the least. And also I use CNN as a source, or the official Oklahoma City Bombing investigating website. These are all serious, reliable sources.

Sorry, but we have a theory in this article claiming shape-shifting reptiles were behind the attacks. You can't tell me we can't incorporate the theory about the possible Neo-Nazi involvement into this article. These people attacked the US in Oklahoma in 1995, shape-shifting reptiles never did, as far as I know...