Talk:9/11 truth movement

This article was nominated for deletion on 19 May 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Deletion Review: 'Judy Wood'

Deletion review here. Please discuss in the proper forum. Any discussion of Judy Wood-related material to be included in this article should provide properly-sourced claims for evaluation in a new section on this page.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please have your say in the discussion. Dr. Judy Wood is the only 9/11 researcher ever to have filed evidence with the courts in pursuit of truth and justice, and one of her cases made it all the way to the Supreme Court. I think she deserves a Wikipedia page. Please comment here: [Deletion Review: Dr. Judy Wood & the 9/11 Truth Movement] Thank you. -Abe '''Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez''' (talk) 9/11 Truth Movement & Dr. Judy Wood Seeing as Dr. Judy Wood is the only person to have filed her evidence with the courts in pursuit of truth and justice, and also considering that one of her court cases made it all the way to the Supreme Court, I think it is fairly obvious that the following information needs to be included in the 9/11 Truth Movement Wikipedia Page: 1. I think that Dr. Judy Wood's Journal of 9/11 Research & 9/11 Issues needs to be included in the external links section alongside the other Journals of 9/11 Research. 2. I also think that her name needs to be included in the Adherents of the 9/11 Truth Movement, especially considering she is the only person to actually take legal action, in addition to scientific research, in pursuit of 9/11 truth. 3. I also think that her legal efforts, especially the Supreme Court case, needs to be included in the History of the 9/11 Truth Movement, as it was the only court-case ever filed in pursuit of 9/11 Truth, and it made it all the way to the Supreme Court. In 2007, Dr. Judy Wood filed several legal cases against the National Institute of Standards & Technology's (NIST) contractors for science fraud, and legal requests that NIST’s fraudulent data gets reexamined. [1] The filings in these legal cases included Requests For Corrections (RFC) based on the Data Quality Act [2], and Qui Tam whistle-blower cases. [3] Dr. Wood is the only 9/11 researcher who has submitted evidence to the courts in pursuit of the truth. These are obviously supposed to be on this Wikipedia page, so I truly question the motives of those who are deleting this information. Her effort speaks for itself, and this information needs to be included in the 9/11 Truth Movement Wikipedia page for the sake of honesty and accuracy. Please help. Thank you, -Abe '''Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez''' (talk)

Criticism section

I noticed the criticism section is very weak.

The first sentence is vague and only suggests that there is no factual basis in conspiracy theories in general. It doesn't refer to the movement. The second sentence is not a criticism of the movement. The third sentence is about name-calling for people with alternate beliefs. Noam Chomsky mentions nothing on the movement, just dismisses alternative theories without explanation. Then an engineering scientist, incorrectly described as a professor, is mentioned who criticises a researcher's method. Bill Clinton is quoted as reaffirming what the 9/11 truth movement denies. The next paragraph is about a 2008 paper, which in the abstract linked as a reference, is referring to conspiracy theories in general and is not a specific criticism of the 9/11 truth movement.

The only statements which are a criticism of the truth movement are incorrectly assigned quotes attributed to Bill Moyers who was actually quoting independent journalist Robert Parry.

If there is to be a section like this it should be titled Opponents or similar together with a Supporters section, listing statements of support towards the movement and its aims. - Shiftchange (talk) 13:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

verification required

Can statement like this "Adherents also call themselves "9/11 Truthers",[23] "9/11 skeptics"[24] or "truth activists",[25] while generally rejecting the term "conspiracy theorists".[16][25]" be verified completely and does it matter what the adherents do or do not think themselves of? ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 0police (talk • contribs) 19:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Obvious Wikipedia Bias

Upon reviewing many articles on Wikipedia concerning the 9/11 Truth Movement, I find it is very obvious that Wikipedia is heavily biased in support of the official conspiracy theories produced by government appointees who generated the 9/11 Commission's conspiracy theory and NIST's accounts of what caused the three tallest WTC buildings to collapse even thought these reports defy basic laws of physics as pointed out by many highly respected engineers of many disciplines. Articles on Wikipedia about the 9/11 truth movement that begin by citing the government's official conspiracy theory as absolute fact, before presenting anything about the 9/11 Truth Movement, is an obvious case of prejudice.71.35.168.182 (talk) 02:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I was going to say, "Verifiability, not WP:TRUTH", but "official conspiracy theory" is too far away from WP:NPOV to be appropriate even here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the concept of an "official conspiracy theory" intrigues me. HiLo48 (talk) 07:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

It's typical of a Truther to use such a tern; their theories are so absurd that they have to lower what happened to the level of their views by using such a term. Toa Nidhiki05 15:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

That is the purpose of the phrase "official conspiracy theory", and the reason people want to define conspiracy theory as any theory involving a conspiracy. Related is "official theory," which attempts to poison the well by mis-characterizing the sourced history of what happened on September 11 as some kind of malign propaganda construct. This article is supposed to be about 9/11 conspiracy theories as social/psychological/political phenomena. In the past it's often been used as a soap box for Trutherism, or a pov fork to tell the world "what really happened." Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Let me explain. You are making a personal attack against people who hold alternative views on the subject. Published polls have shown that millions of people do not believe the official theory that 19 hijackers just happened to destroy three skyscrapers and attack the defense headquarters of the most powerful military nation on the planet. They find this theory of the events is unreasonable, laughably foolish, incongruous and lacking any credibility. That is to say, they hold a view that the official mainstream view is absurd. There are also thousands of professionals and experts who hold alternative views which are contrary to the mainstream view. That is what this article is about. It is not about your opinion of those people's beliefs and your characterisation of said beliefs is not relevant and presenting them on a talk page is against our policy and unproductive. You are disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. It is not a place for you to express your opinion of those views or those that hold such views. Please remove your comment as it doesn't belong here. - Shiftchange (talk) 18:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

No. I am not attacking anyone. I never said 'Truthers are idiots' - I said that their theories are absurd. Further, please don't try and rationalize these beliefs - which are absurd - I don't care for them or how 'X random celebrity believes it'. It is a fringe viewpoint and they use fringe terminology. Millions of people deny the Holocaust, think the Earth is flat, or think NASA faked the moon landing... And they don't get any credence here either. Saying they are absurd and lack credibility is not an attack. Toa Nidhiki05 20:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

You are not being neutral either. Imagine making a comment on the Mormonism page that their beliefs were absurd. Some people question details of the Holocaust and if you added a comment that those people have absurd beliefs to the talk page of Holocaust denial article it would be removed because it doesn't help improve the article. Published polls do not state that significant percentages of people think the Earth is flat or think NASA faked the moon landing. - Shiftchange (talk) 04:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Aaaannnnndddd we have Godwin.

To begin with, any use of "official conspiracy theory" in the Wikipedia voice fails WP:NPOV miserably, even with scare quotes in this article, and it approaches a WP:BLP violation. (If it were a WP:BLP violation it could be removed from talk pages, as well.) That being said, although most rational people assume that anyone using the phrase is a "truther", and hence immune to truth, it is possible that someone using the phrase may actually be helpful in improving the encyclopedia. That's not really the way to bet. Toa's comment does approach an WP:NPA and WP:AGF violation, but Shiftchange's comment contains enough lies that it should also be disregarded. "Thousands of professionals and experts" indeed; "hundreds" is possible, but "dozens" is really all that is verifiable.

As for the OP, "mainstream account" has been generally considered an accepted way to report the account of the 19 hijackers. Both "official" and "theory" are clearly misnomers. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Truthers don't trust the government's official report that 19 hijackers could do all that damage to America because they trust the government to protect them better than that. HiLo48 (talk) 21:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

You know, though this is totally WP:NOTFORUM my understanding is that most people who espouse a conspiracy theory are in fact just questioning the official version of events for legitimate reasons. Whether it is a warranted distrust of government, a failure to understand the scientific questions involved in some cases, or finding legitimate gaps in the official version that need to be addressed, the reasons for people subscribing to a conspiracy theory are really not as simple as some psychological defect.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, such as why was molten steel dripping from the towers before it collapsed, or why was there molten steel under the debris piles for weeks after the collapse, or why wasn't there any pancaked floors in the debris pile, or why was the collapse symmetrical? There are many unanswered questions, improbable coincidences and suspicious behaviour which has never been adequately explained. That is why the 9/11 truth movement has developed and gained legitimacy, not because we cannot accept government failings. We accept their failings and their corruption to vested interests more than those that instantly dismiss alternative views without question. - Shiftchange (talk) 04:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

So, it's back to forum posts, eh? Please leave, and take your trash with you. HiLo48 (talk) 04:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)