Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 9/11 conspiracy theories article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42

Template:Todo priority

9/11 conspiracy theories was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (No date specified. To provide a date use: {{FailedGA|insert date in any format here}}). There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

9/11 conspiracy theories received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Template:TrollWarning /Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3 /Archive 4 /Archive 5 /Archive 6 /Archive 7 /Archive 8 /Archive 9

This page is not a forum for general discussion about 9/11 conspiracy theories. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about 9/11 conspiracy theories at the Reference desk.

Corus study

Steel manufacturer Corus Group (formerly British Steel) conducted tests on unprotected steel beems in an office fire. Despite temperatures of unprotected steel beams being in excess of 1100°C, there was no collapse [54]. A total of 7 tests were carried out between 1994 and 2003 on a 8-storey composite building with metal deck floors at a test facility in Cardington. There are no reports of any structural collapses during the tests [55].

I read the cited articles, and they don't seem to say anything specifically about the WTC.

Do we have a source that cites these studies in relation to 9/11? Otherwise it is Original research.--DCAnderson 23:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See here: http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI.htm TurboForce 13:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are many references to the Corus study in relation to 9/11 on http://911research.wtc7.net/ Search the site for the word Corus and you'll see for yourself. The mention of these fire tests ought to be included in the main article - where it was before being removed. TurboForce 13:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have now updated this section with the cited source above. Have also mentioned that the fires were blamed for the collapse of the twin towers, but the 7 fire tests conducted on the steel structure by Corus never produced any collapses.

CITED SOURCE: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/fires/steel.html

Okay okay, I hope to prove the Corus tests aren't original research. TurboForce 12:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

911research.net is only a reliable source for what its operator thinks. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it would be okay as long as it says something like "According to 911research.net, the Corus study is indicative of..."--DCAnderson 17:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SO WHY DO YOU KEEP DELETING IT WHEN THE INFORMATION ABOUT THE CORUS STUDY HAS AN EXTERNAL SOURCE OF INFORMATION?!!!!!!!!!!!!. TurboForce 21:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The adiabatic flame temperature of the kerosene fuel Jet-A is 1727°C, well above the melting point of the WTC's steel. These temperatures persisted for quite some time, to say nothing of the severe structural damage from the high-speed plane impacts that are discussed in the sections below. -- Huysman^talk^| ^contribs 19:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see plenty of evidence around that shows the temperature of the fires in the twin towers could not have been anywhere near that high. Examples:

I think the Corus fire tests are a good example of what could be put into the main page. Researchers say that the fires melted or softened the steel which brought down the twin towers and maybe WTC building 7; the Corus fire tests show steel structures do not collapse when exposed to fire - see:

http://www.corusconstruction.com/en/design_and_innovation/structural_design/fire/cardington_fire_test/cardington_fire_test/

Quote from that page:

"despite atmosphere temperatures of almost 1200°C and steel temperatures on the unprotected beams in excess of 1100°C in the worst cases, no structural collapse took place."

TurboForce 21:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article nomination has failed

The Good article nomination for 9/11 conspiracy theories has failed, for the following reason:

This article has failed for a few reasons. First it is unstable, since many edits have been made in the past few days. Second, all the citations are not listed at the end of the article. Last, this article still seems to have many tasks still pending left. Fix those up before renomination. Alvin6226 ^talk 01:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These are all valid reasons. I'm going to focus on removing weasel words from this article when I get the chance. -- Huysman^talk^|^contribs 02:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, upon reading the article I see that the number of weasel words has been greatly reduced, perhaps enough to have the weasel words item crossed off the pending task list. What do you think? -- Huysman^talk^|^contribs 02:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page needs to be split

The main page is far too long, is tagged as such, and breaking the main headings into sub pages is clearly long overdue. Taking the main impact sites, WTC, Pentagon, Flight 93 site, combined with wargames, and foreknowledge, seems a sensible preliminary division. I propose the following and invite comments. Timharwoodx 09:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Foreknowledge

WTC complex

The Pentagon

Flight 93

Wargames

"I propose the following and invite comments."

PLEASE make the proposal before making such a drastic change in an article that so many of us have been trying to get right through so many disagreements and compromises. We are getting around to deciding on what splits to make if you care to read the discussion above. SkeenaR 09:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its a prod to get you all to sort it. The main page is absurdly long. I don't see the need for Foreknowledge, Pentagon, WTC, and Flight 93, Wargames, sub pages, really needs much thought. The wargames page already exists, so you are duplicating content on the main page, in that respect. I've done lots of work on various WIKIs, and I've never had any queries about my chops of overly long pages before. You take the main headings, on which a concensus already exists, and split it out that way. Its not difficult. Get on with it. Timharwoodx 09:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

98 kilobytes is an absurd page size, and vastly exceeds the Wikipedia:Article_size guidelines, which give 20-32 kilobytes as the range to begin to consider subdivision. So logically, following the WIKI rules, AT LEAST 3 sub pages are required, and possibly 5. I don't understand why there has to be so much discussion about something, that is just the application of standing WIKI style guidelines. If this was any other topic than 9/11, it would have been done MONTHS ago. Whats the problem here, exactly? Timharwoodx 10:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, I agree the article needs to be broken up, but you need to leave a one-paragraph stub behind, not just a link to the new article. -- MisterHand 10:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your gonna get a query or two now. Guaranteed. I agree that this thing should be split up a bit, but it's kind of a zoo here, and unless it's done with some foresight it will turn into more of a chaos than it already is. Thanks for the prod, but since you have been so bold in attempting to instigate this, perhaps you should stick around and take part in this wonderful progress. As to your last query, you could start by doing some reading. SkeenaR 10:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there's gotta be stubs of course, and don't forget all the new afd's that are going to happen. How many do we want to deal with all at once. It doesn't have to instantly be broken into six pieces. You know what I mean. SkeenaR 10:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think there should be one article, here, and the various sections reduced in size, with a plethora of pointers to conspiracy theory pages outside of Wikipedia. These are marginal claims with little substance and much speculation. In many cases the claims have been thoroughly refuted.--Cberlet 13:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough I have to commend Tim for being bold with his edits, and combatting what was essentially a great amount of heel dragging going on on this page. Though the only real split I can agree with is the controlled demolition one. The rest I don't think quite justify their own articles. The last time I checked, the page was 66 KBS with the stff abot the WTC taken out, which is a generally accepted length for an article.--DCAnderson 14:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The suggestions by Timharwoodx and MisterHand make the most sense to me. After all, the article is already in sections. It's pretty standard (at least for a librarian) to assign full-page status to these sections, which have all developed in their own right (e.g. 9/11 Conspiracy Theories: Government Foreknowledge), and leave their introductory one-paragraph stubs on the main page with a cross-reference to the new page. Let's split the work up. I'll do the Government Foreknowledge, and perhaps others will volunteer to do the other sections?--PureLogic 22:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New York Times Covers Chicago June 2006 conference

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/05/us/05conspiracy.html http://www.911revealingthetruth.org/

CB Brooklyn 03:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is by far the most sympathetic article toward the 911 Truth movement I have seen in the “mainstream” press 15:14, 7 June 2006 (Ed Kollin)

FBI says "no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11"

This information should be placed into the main article:

According to the Muckraker Report, Rex Tomb, the Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI, has said on June 5, 2006: “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”

Assuming the quote is accurate (I could not find a second link to that quote after a brief search) where do you put this in the main article? While this would put a huge hole in the “official “ theory and should be the lead story on every newscast the linked article while asking many questions does not theorize as to a specific alternate theory. 15:25, 6 June 2006 (Ed Kollin)

It just sounds like something taken out of context. If Rex Tomb really did mean what the quote seems to imply, then yes, it would be the lead story on every newscast. If we can't find the quote in context, we probably should not be including it for the time being.--DCAnderson 19:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying he didn't say what this article claims, but Rex Tomb has addressed this issue in the past, as early as late September, 2001. The reason he has consistently given given in the past is that Usama bin Laden has not been indicted for anything relating to the events of September 11th, 2001. It would seem highly inappropriate for an official FBI spokesperson to plainly state that there is a lack of physical evidence to obtain this indictment when the official line is that he remains a suspect and remains under active investigation. The videos in which he claims responsibility might be convincing, except that there are others in which he denies having any part of 9/11, highly praising (but not naming) those who did. It's actually not surprising that there's no "physical" or "hard" evidence of his involvement. Physical evidence would be fingerprints, DNA, incriminating documents with an identifiable source, and so on. Whether he was involved in 9/11 or not, there is almost certainly no reliable physical evidence to be found that would prove it. The man might be an evil killer, but he has decades of experience at staying alive while being hunted by the world's most powerful nations. Indicting him for 9/11 isn't going to make it any easier to capture the man. There's already at least USD $27 million to be had in official rewards for information leading to his capture (based on the FBI's most-wanted site), and billions of people who would love to see him hang by his neck until long after he is dead. Joel Blanchette 21:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's amazing how so many just can't see it.

the FBI does not consider the video hard evidence. The only rational explanation is that they know the tape is not bin Laden. If you haven't already, take a look here

I have seen that page many times as a former 9/11 conspiracist and I can't believe I fell for that junk. -- Huysman^talk^| ^contribs 19:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not headline news for the same reason every other 9/11 Truth issue isn't: The MSM is controlled.

Whether or not it would help find bin Laden is not the point. The point is that the FBI did not put 9/11 on bin Laden's poster. They have no hard evidence, yet many Whitehouse officials said they knew it was him. We bombed Afghanistan under the assumption the video was real.

THE FBI says they have no hard evidence. Looking at the video, it is obviously not bin Laden.

On what basis can anyone say otherwise? Where is the reasoning supporting that line of thinking?

CB Brooklyn 21:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The person in the video obviously is bin Laden. -- Huysman^talk^| ^contribs 12:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend an appointment with your eye doctor :-) CB Brooklyn 12:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise. :-) Did you even visit the page? If you did, you ought to have realized that the video shows Osama. Can you provide a substantive reply? -- Huysman^talk^| ^contribs 23:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 911myths site is ridiculous. It makes silly assumptions not based on facts. And btw, what education/experience do the writers of that site have? What are the authors names???????? Don't be taken in. CB Brooklyn 13:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please list some "silly assumptions" instead of a blanket statement and caricature of the site. -- Huysman^talk^| ^contribs 23:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the 911 myths FAQ this site is Original Research by the web site creator U.K. software developer Mike Williams. He claims he did this to sharpen his research skills and because he enjoys the topic. 11:40, 8 June 2006 (Ed Kollin)

Kindly post the URL to that FAQ showing the author's name.

http://911myths.com/html/site_faq.html. -- Huysman^talk^| ^contribs 23:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strange how the FAQ is not linked from the home page. In any case, it's an unscientific site, and I don't consider a software developer reputable for this type of situation anyway. CB Brooklyn 04:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's ironic, considering that Jim Hoffman is a software developer and one the most frequently cited sources in the article (and one that has been suspected of linkfarming wiki articles to his site. --Mmx1 17:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

911myths is the most unscientific site I've ever seen about 9/11. This link describes the author's method of evaluating the evidence: Pathological science.

Nope, not even close. Read the criteria on that page again and you should notice that it fits many of the 9/11 conspiracist claims in this discussion. -- Huysman^talk^| ^contribs 23:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It does not fit the claims of Dr Steven E. Jones. CB Brooklyn 04:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Jones promotes "fantastic theories contrary to experience." -- Huysman^talk^| ^contribs 19:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a person from BYU who is actually qualified to assess the WTC collapses has this to say on Jones's paper: The structural design of the towers was unique in that the supporting steel structure consisted of closely spaced columns in the walls of all four sides. The resulting structure was similar to a tube. When the aircraft impacted the towers at speeds of about 500 plus mph, many steel columns were immediately severed and others rendered weak by the following fires. The fires critically damaged the floors systems. Structural steel will begin to lose strength when heated to temperatures above 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. Steel bridge girders are bent to conform to the curved roadway by spot heating flanges between 800 and 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. It is easy to comprehend the loss of carrying capacity of all the structural steel due to the raging fires fed by the jet's fuel as well as aircraft and building contents. -- Huysman^talk^| ^contribs 19:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The author of that site simply starts with the assumption the official conspiracy theory is correct. From there, he attempts to debunk as many claims as he can that contradicts it. That is unscientific.

For the last time, the official story is not a conspiracy theory. -- Huysman^talk^| ^contribs 23:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no proof to back up the official story. Therefore it is a conspiracy theory. Any "proof" that people claim exists is easily contradicted by facts. btw, just so I know where you stand, are you LIHOP, or imcompetence theory? Or, plain ol' official theory (government caught completely by surprise)? Obviously I am MIHOP. The controlled demolitions of the Twin Towers and WTC 7 makes that decision easy. CB Brooklyn 04:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your first sentence makes it hard not to believe that you have committed intellectual suicide. I think it was a mix of bad luck, missed opportunities, and incompetence. -- Huysman^talk^| ^contribs 18:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

btw, I'm still waiting for someone to explain the report of partly evaporated steel in the rubble of WTC 7 :-)

Also, every point made here must be addressed and explained (without absurd claims).

CB Brooklyn 16:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. It will take me some time but I'll try my best within the time constraints. It's funny how one can call himself a patriot while accusing his own government of mass murder, conspiracy, and coverup with phony evidence. I think I'm going to post a response to each section (e.g. "High-level officials") in separate blog posts so as not to clutter up this talk page, and then provide the external links. -- Huysman^talk^| ^contribs 23:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea... posting in a blog is better than here. As for your other comment... America was built on questioning the government. I accuse them of mass murder because of the overwhelming evidence, mainly the controlled demolitions of the Twin Towers and WTC 7. CB Brooklyn 04:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "evidence" is based on bad physics, Ockham's razor violations, question begging, lies, and other faulty logic. The Towers weren't demolished; I will elaborate on my upcoming blog posts. -- Huysman^talk^| ^contribs 18:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the main page of 911proof there is a link to a blog post saying that 7 men could have planned the conspiracy and kept it secret. The author of that blog post says it is probably more than seven, but the point is that the number of people could have been extremely small. This is absurd. Here are just some people it would have to include: Bush, Cheney, Larry Mitchell, Rice, Ashcroft, Silverstein, numerous FBI personel working in the Moussaoui case, the people who "planted evidence" in the hijacker's cars, five dancing Israelis, Bush's secret service team, SEC and all the people who committed "insider trading," NORAD, fighter pilots, the people who would've planted explosives at WTC 1/2/7, CNN, FEMA, NIST, WTC insurance companies, FDNY, NYPD, Giuliani, KSM, Binalshibh, numerous al-Qaeda members giving "fake" confessions, Pentagon workers in charge of missile batteries etc., "remote control planes" pilots, numerous UAL and AAL workers, and myriad others. -- Huysman^talk^| ^contribs 00:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only the higher ups would be in the need-to-know. That does not include fighter pilots, the FDNY or NYPD, but does include some of the others you mentioned. Still... saying it's absurd does not explain all the anomalies in the government's version. (Many of those anomalies contradict the government's version, making their version a conspiracy theory.) CB Brooklyn 04:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The WTC collapses, Flight 93 and Pentagon crashes, hijackers' identity, trading patterns, etc. are not anomalous. The FDNY and NYPD would have to know something was up because if a conspiracy were true they would've had to silence many people. The fighter pilots would've known something was wrong if they deliberately flew "slowly." -- Huysman^talk^| ^contribs 18:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They're not anomalies??? Kindy show a reference to a high rise building anywhere on the planet that collapsed with the characteristics of the Twin Towers and WTC 7, but were not brought down in a controlled demolition. If you can reference such an event, then I will agree with you that they are not anomalies. CB Brooklyn 23:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not in denial nor am I brainwashed; these terms would apply to me when I was promoting 9/11 conspiracism in my writings a couple of years ago. The Twin Towers were hit by jets, come on already. As shown above their design was nowhere near strong enough to survive the crashes and resulting fires. Some buildings that suffered from progressive, pancake collapse are L'Ambiance Plaza, other steel frame buildings in Los Angeles and Fairfax County, VA, and the Ronan Point building in England (1968). Progressive collapse of steel framed buildings, including fire induced collapses, is something that has occurred several times in history. -- -- Huysman^talk^| ^contribs 00:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the towers were hit by jets. But the government did not explain how impact damage and fires caused all the following anomalies in the Towers and WTC 7... anomalies that are all common to controlled demolitions (and WTC 7 was not hit by a jet): complete collapse; near freefall speed; straight down; puffs of smoke coming out the sides; molten metal in the rubble (hotter than burning jet fuel); partly evaporated steel in the WTC 7 rubble; pulverization of concrete, office furniture, carpeting etc, into flour-like powder; multiple reports of controlled demolition behavior, explosions, and bombs. In order for the government's story to hold any water, all those anomalies must be addressed. CB Brooklyn 00:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The straight down collapses item is addressed above; see here as well. The most accurate timeframes for the collapses--based on seismic and video evidencefor--are 15+ seconds, way slower than freefall speed (however, pieces of rubble, not the tower itself, did freefall). Again, the adiabatic flame temperature of the kerosene fuel Jet-A is 1727°C, well above the melting point of the WTC's steel. Maybe the metal was aluminum; after all, Mark Loizeaux never said he saw molten steel and that contractors reported this to him regarding metal that they didn't test. These temperatures persisted for quite some time and these are what would have created molten steel. I addressed the reports of explosion sounds in the Proposed Alternative Theories section of the 9/11 attacks talk page. When the floors started buckling inward there was no debris ejection; this only took place after the pancaking floors started forcing massive amounts of air out of the windows, unlike in a controlled demolition (when ejection takes place beforehand). Abundant photographic evidence indicates an inward collapse. Although there was ejected steel, photographs show much of the steel was falling from above. There was a load of concrete that wasn't dust; insulation, ceiling tiles, and gypsum sheet rock were easily pulverized. There was such tremendous force with all the pancaking that it is no wonder lots of concrete was pulverized. Define "flour-like" numerically: how fine is that? I'll take a look at the WTC 7 "partially vaporized steel" link soon and get back to you on that. -- Huysman^talk^| ^contribs 02:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the NIST report, the South Tower collapsed in 10 seconds. But whether it was 10 or 15, is irrelevant though. The point is that buildings have never collapsed at that speed from anything other than controlled demolitions. The NIST report did not explain how fire and impact damage did that to three buildings all in one day, all in downtown Manhattan. Based on experiments by Steven E. Jones, the molten metal was probably not aluminum. Also, Prof. Thomas Eagar from MIT said: "The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel." You cannot simply say that the collapse caused tremendous force that it pulverized concrete to powder. You must demonstrate how. Read Dr Jones paper for info on the flour-like powder. The CNN link from Rittenhouse is from an interview and therefore means nothing. He cannot simply "explain" the collapses. He must prove it scientifically. He must perform scientific experiments demonstrating how fire and impact damage caused three buildings to collapse in that manner... a manner only seen in the past via controlled demolitions. I'll tell you what... let's forget about the Towers. Just explain WTC 7 to me. How did impact damage and fires cause it to collapse in that controlled demolitions style manner? When something looks like something, that is what it should be assumed, until proven otherwise. CB Brooklyn 03:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WTC 7 was severely damaged; read the reports. Photographs of WTC 7 show severe fires and smoke; look it up on somewhere that's not a selective conspiracist site. WTC 7 is already falling before "squibs" appear, unlike in a controlled demolition. The so-called squibs are actually windows popping out due to air, and the smoke travels upward and not outward. There wasn't enough water to fight in the fires in that building, and again, progressive collapse is something that happens to steel-framed buildings. -- Huysman^talk^| ^contribs 17:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I challange you to cite a building that collapsed like WTC 7 from anything other than a controlled demolition CB Brooklyn 03:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The collapse was asymmetrical, with most of the building falling to the southeast while some of it fell to the north. The collapse happened from the bottom and the penthouse, which fell first, had a fire under it. I already cited examples. My points in this reply and the one above prove that WTC 7 did not collapse due to demolition. -- Huysman^talk^| ^contribs 03:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Compare the WTC 7 collapse with the Philips Building, Southwark Towers, and Schuylkill Falls Tower collapses here

After viewing those, cite a collapse similar to that of WTC 7 but not from controlled demolition. CB Brooklyn 04:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In all those examples there are large squibs extending 100+ meters - several seconds PRIOR to the collapse. There were no such things with WTC 7. What are cited as "squibs" occur during the collapse and extend a few feet out - the result of failing structural members, not the cause. That and many of the controlled demolitions are decidedly asymmetrical. How is symmetry a "characteristic" of CD again?--Mmx1 05:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Explain how the vertical columns failed (near?) simultaneously. Also explain where the delay from conservation of momentum went. Also cite a building that collapsed in the manner as WTC 7 did (I must have asked this three times already) from anything other than controlled demolitions. CB Brooklyn 05:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've already given examples of both partial and total collapses. -- Huysman^talk^| ^contribs 17:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you are making the assumption that simultaneous vertical column failing is related to "partial and total collapses" of buildings. It is not. If you think otherwise, explain your reasoning specifically. If not, then please answer my original question. CB Brooklyn 21:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a structural engineer nor do I have the available facts regarding WTC 7. However, your videos do not match in a critical way that invalidates the causality of your "squibs". Delay from what? It's clear that even in your posted videos, there IS a delay between the detonations and the collapse, so if anything, that's an argument that it couldn't have been CD. --Mmx1 05:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You need to do some research on conservation of momentum, it has nothing to do with squibs. I'm not a structural engineer either but I can certainly see that WTC 7 was professionally demolished. All that is needed is common sense. Buildings do not (and have never) collapsed in that manner from anything other than a controlled demolition. And how do we explain the reports of partly evaporated steel in the rubble? (see Jones' paper for the info). CB Brooklyn 06:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have had training in physics. When you talk about squibs, you are implying that conservation of momentum is the reason for the delay between the explosions and the actual collapse. Well, that's clear in the videos you provided....the squibs from the explosions come before the collapse and there's a second delay. What's the "delay" measured from in WTC 7? There are no major squibs, only small puffs resulting from structural members failing. If the "partially evaporated stee" is a reference to the sulfites found, there's still no indication when those sulfites entered the steel - as a manufacturing defect, during the fire in the Towers, or during the smoldering on the ground.--Mmx1 06:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am talking about the near freefall speed of the collapse, not squibs. There's no reference to sulfites regarding the partly evaportated steel. But even so, one cannot simply claim a manufacturing defect. That is silly and unscientific!! Evidence must be shown. Here's another question: do you see the similarities between the collapses from implosionworld and WTC 7? CB Brooklyn 06:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the collapses were not "near free fall." -- Huysman^talk^| ^contribs 17:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you are bringing up a red herring. Whether it is classified as "near freefall" or not does not matter. The fact that 10-15 seconds is close enough to freefall speed to make the government theory impossible. In any event, since you think the Towers and WTC 7 would be able to collapse at that speed without prepositioned explosives, kindly cite a scientist explaining and calculating how the government's theory does not violate Conservation of Momentum. (See Dr Jones' paper section 9, and Dr Wood's paper for info on how Conservation of Momentum.) CB Brooklyn 21:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, saying that the reason you can't explain how the vertical columns failed simultaneously is because you're not a structural engineer, is a copout... CB Brooklyn 06:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your out-of-hand dismissal of the CNN interview I cited was also a copout. He was reporting on scientific findings. Please address it properly. -- Huysman^talk^| ^contribs 17:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Show me an actual report and not some interview where he just says what he wants the audience to hear and I'll take a look. CB Brooklyn 21:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are no structural engineers, architects, demolition experts, materials specialists, or seismologists who posit bombs in the towers. -- Huysman^talk^| ^contribs 18:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps because they don't want to lose their jobs, of worse. Check these reporter video clips: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]

Here's videos from CNN. Why did CNN mute the word explosion on the 2nd video? [13] [14]

FDNY FIRE MARSHAL: "I thought it was exploding, actually. That’s what I thought for hours afterwards, that it had exploded or the plane or there had been some device on the plane that had exploded, because the debris from the tower had shot out far over our heads"

FDNY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER: "I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down."

Q. "Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was?"

A. "No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw"

CB Brooklyn 21:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is that these "revelations" are really nothing of the sort. Wired News ran an article on September 27th, 2001 in which the very same FBI spokesperson, Rex Tomb, explained that they only mention crimes that a person has been indicted for on their most-wanted list.

Considering that we're talking about the FBI's 10 most wanted list, whether the information would improve the likelihood of a suspect's capture is exactly the point. They don't list every indictment against Osama bin Laden. They say that he is wanted for a few specified attacks and is suspected of involvement in others which are not specified, but obviously include 9/11.

I'm still somewhat skeptical of the article being refered to. I've read several articles now in which Mr. Tomb is quoted as saying the 9/11 charges aren't on bin Laden's poster because he hasn't been charged with them, though he remains a suspect. I've yet to find an instance where he (or any other FBI official) actually stated that there was a lack of evidence to do so. This is somebody who's been handling this issue since 9/11, and he's never deviated significantly in his response. Also, how much faith can one put in an author who can't even quote himself properly? In his third paragraph, he quotes himself asking “How this was possible?” Also, the author, Ed Haas, is clearly heavily biased against the media and the American government. Joel Blanchette 20:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would intercepted communications fall under the hard evidence monkier? Back to the matter at hand if you can get another link or transcript of Mr. Tomb's remark I would think we could put this under "Other Points of Interest" for now. In the long run since the article is being split up I think we might need a page just for people who question the official story but do not offer any specific alternative theory. 02:06, 7 June 2006 (Ed Kollin)

There would be no way of corroborating this story without contacting Rex Tomb, as the quotes are taken from a telephone conversation between Mr. Tomb and Ed Haas (aka The Muckraker Report). Mr. Tomb is a legitimate person, but I don't believe there's such a position as "Chief of Investigative Publicity" within the FBI. In fact, quickly searching the Internet indicates that his title is Unit Chief of the Fugitive Publicity & Public Affairs Unit. It's possible his title has changed, but the only reference to the title given by Mr. Haas is on his own site and on a blog that These might seem like trivial objections, but they do put into question the author's ability to accurately report a story. Joel Blanchette 20:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a "chat" page

Please, unless you're specifically discussing an improvement to this article, please keep it off the talk page. Thank you.--DCAnderson 21:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What information Mr. Schippers received

I have deleted "It is unclear exactly what warnings he is thought to have received" because the statement itself is unclear. Does it convey any specific verifiable facts? The next sentence says, "Mr. Schippers has said the information dated back to a 1995 warning that indicated a possible terrorist attack planned for lower Manhattan using a nuclear device." Mr. Schippers may be a nut case, or his informants imaginary or wrong, but that sentence does say, with a fair amount of exactitude, what warnings he is thought to have received.

O Govinda 19:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Alex Jones Video From June Chicago Conference

all 9/11 wiki editors should watch this 150MB video. CB Brooklyn 12:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As an example of bad research, bad analysis, lack of logic, leaps of conclusion, and general demagoguery?--Cberlet 13:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but assume that wiki editors will judge it for themselves. SkeenaR 15:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About half way through the video freezes. I ran it again to make sure it was not the connection and it stopped at the exact same place. 03:34, 11 June 2006 (Ed Kollin)

Jewish/Israeli conspiracy split

Fellow Wikipedians: I split this off to a new page because of the long article notice. The new page is 9/11 Jewish conspiracy. It is unchanged. The section on this page is jsut an abbreviated section, with fewer points and support (because otherwise, why split it off?) Scoutersig 03:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, a similar attempt at a fork just a few days ago was swiftly shut down by an AFD. -- MisterHand 03:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Jews and Israel should have been the article to split.--DCAnderson 04:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this was just deleted at AfD, it should not be recreated. Or is it something different? Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will you people stop trying to split the article? because of that we lost a lot of info from the article itself. And there are certain people who will not allow it. ILovePlankton 15:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We didn't lose any info. We reverted all the info back in, didn't we?--DCAnderson 15:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see what you mean.--DCAnderson 16:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:-). ILovePlankton 16:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First step in handling article length

Before splitting sections off, is there anything that anyone can see that can be deleted because either it is:

Not relevant to the issue.

or

Not helping the reader's understanding of the subject.

?--DCAnderson 16:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think we could remove this section "Did George W. Bush see the first plane hit?" It really doesnt do much for the article (people are going to get pissed at me for that aren't they? :P). I will look for more later. ILovePlankton 16:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello from a librarian. Re the suggestion at the top of the page that the article be broken into sections, there is a long section called "Government Foreknowledge". How about if we created a separate page called "9/11 Conspiracy Theories: Government Foreknowledge"? We could then leave the first paragraph of that section on the existing long page, with the cross reference, Main Page at "9/11 Conspiracy Theories: Government Foreknowledge". If people agree, I will perform the edit. --PureLogic 21:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. -- Huysman^talk^| ^contribs 22:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't this just done? The resulting pages were taken to AfD and deleted. Or am I misunderstanding the proposal? Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now there is such a page; 9/11 conspiracy theories foreknowledge. This task is finished. -- Huysman^talk^| ^contribs 23:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I did not realize that page existed -- probably because its word for word content is still on the main conspiracy page! If everyone agrees, I will move the headings below onto main pages, as each one in itself has been huge in the blogosphere. I will leave stubs for these on the original page:

Government Foreknowlege (Main article: 9/11 conspiracy theories: Government Foreknowledge

WTC complex (Main article: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories: World Trade Center)

The Pentagon (Main article: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories: Pentagon)

Flight 93 (Main article: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories: Flight 93)--PureLogic 00:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe (partly from experience) that many of these sections and sub-sections are considered "too short" or "too unsubstantiated" to be thier own articles; this leads to deletion of spin-offs and break-offs. However, if the page is ever to get any shorter, either information needs to be moved to a side project (unlikely) or deleted (unlikely). Scoutersig 23:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a consensus for this. There is just not enough reliable secondary-source information to support individual articles. Inevitably the page is mostly original research supported by citations to the conspiracist web sites. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can you say that the sections are unsubstantiated? They are full of references! If the content stands on the main page, then it stands alone by the same standard of consensus that it has achieved to date. We have been asked to break the page down, not delete its content as unsubstantiated. You can't have it both ways. So let's get on with doing what we have been asked to do!--PureLogic 01:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletions

Okay.....anticipating debate over these.

Removed statement that amateur 9-11 researchers believe evidence suggests foreknowledge - insignificant that these particular researchs believe this - after all, that's why they're "amateur 9-11 researchers". Maybe if the SEC or some other credible authority held this opinion it would be interesting.
Removed D.A. statement regarding Elgindy, $300k trust isn't large in the scheme of the options being traded that day and Elgindy is just a shady penny stock trader to begin with. He was cleared of the 9-11 allegations (but convicted on many other fraud charges), the D.A. statement was just a smear from the D.A. prosecuting him, and ignored by the Judge presiding the case (over unrelated matters) [15].
Removed reference to the "Lone Gunmen" episode - fiction preceding the events. Belongs, if anything, in the Lone Gunmen article.
Moved the entire Bin Laden tapes and videos section to Osama tapes, which I will tag to merge to Videos_of_Osama_bin_Laden. Both those articles are a mess, but the latter is cleaner and probably the best target for the merge. The tapes are of tangential relation to this page and only a stub is needed --Mmx1 01:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Mmx1 01:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has already been reverted. ILovePlankton 07:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Before deleting so much you should first discuss and make sure to have the consenus.--Pokipsy76 07:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted three small lines, the justification for which is given above. How about challenging the merits rather than defending the status quo? It's been established that the page is too long. The entire section about Bin Laden was poorly written, copied itself, and was largely inconsequential to the conspiracy theories. It wasn't deleted, it got merged to Osama tapes where it belongs. Write a paragraph about the conspiracy aspects of the tapes, but a detailed timeline of them does not belong here. --Mmx1 16:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have deleted a lot of things, and the problem is that before doing a massive deletion you should first discuss the merit. The fact that the article is too long doesn't give the right to delete what you believe to be "poorly written". The topic is controversial and your personal aesthetic taste is not a guideline develope it.--Pokipsy76 21:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More blather about procedure and not content. DO YOU DISPUTE THE REASONS FOR THE DELETION? There was no massive deletion, there were minor and inconsequential lines removed; plus the move of a large body of content (that appeard to be copy-pasted multiple versions) to an appropriate page. --23:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

As I have already said, I dispute the massive and weakly motivated deletion that has been done.--Pokipsy76 08:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the section on Griffin's view on whistleblowers, because I don't think we need 3 paragraphs devoted to one person's musings without citing any other opinions.--DCAnderson 18:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another Former High Level Government Insider Speaks Up

This should be placed in the main article as well. [16] CB Brooklyn 01:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested warnings: Problems with Mr. Woodring's statement

Theorists allege that Jeb Bush's executive order reflected foreknowledge of 9/11. In response, we have a statement from his assistant general counsel, Mr. Woodring, saying Mr. Bush had "taken . . . steps to deal with this terror attack."

I see two problems here.

First, the external link for Mr. Woodring's statement seems to lead to the wrong place: a transcription from a session of the 9/11 Commission where (unless I missed it, which of course is possible) his statement isn't mentioned.

Second, following the footnotes shows that Mr. Bush signed his executive order on 7 September, several days before the terror attack. That the order was a response to the attack therefore makes no sense.

For this second problem, I see two solutions: either (1) delete Mr. Woodring's statement or (2) add a sentence pointing out the contradiction.

Any suggestions from more experienced Wikipedians?

O Govinda 14:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it isn't supported, then delete it.--DCAnderson 16:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only source I've been able to find are conspiracy sites. The quote can be found here [17] and it seems that it was from a letter he was sending to concerned citizens. It also seems that an important qualifier was left out of our article, "Martial law is when military authorities control all civilian affairs, and military law, not civilian law, is followed. The civilian authorities in Florida are fully operational and fully in control." (Which, as a Floridian, I can vouch for.)--DCAnderson 17:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further consideration, I think we could safely ditch the whole "Florida Martial Law" thing because it doesn't seem we have any reliable sources who support it, it seems to be a long dead internet rumor, and it doesn't add very much to an allrerady bloated article.--DCAnderson 17:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]