Jump to content

Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:9

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 110.34.0.242 (talk) at 15:09, 15 May 2014 (→‎?'). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former good article nominee9/11 conspiracy theories was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 29, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
June 3, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
August 12, 2006Articles for deletionSpeedily kept
Current status: Former good article nominee

Template:September 11 arbcom

This is not a forum for general discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories.
Any such messages will be deleted.

Toolbox

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2014

Under sub-section 4.4 Flight 93, the third paragraph states "According to some theories, the plane had to be shot down by the government because passengers had found out about the alleged plot." It should be noted that this, and many other theories shown in this article, only supports the notion that the government definitely had a hand in the terror attacks. Therefore, it should be amended to include a parallel view of the conspiracy theory in which the U.S. government in no way orchestrated or helped to orchestrate the events that took place on 9/11, in order to place balance in the article. The theory that the U.S. air force did authorize a fighter jet to shoot down the airliner, but in order to protect the lives of many more Americans than were on Flight 93, would be an ideal addition. A proposed revision would be: "According to some theories, the airliner was to be shot down by the U.S. air force because passengers had found out that the government was orchestrating the attacks. A parallel theory is that the government authorized the take-down to prevent a fourth terror attack (there had already been three confirmed attacks - the Twin Towers and the Pentagon)." I believe it is fair and balanced. Dudeman656 (talk) 05:53, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. While Wikipedia does try to lend equal weight to all theories, those theories must come from reliable source material. Simply putting forth a theory yourself without supporting references is considered original research, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. --ElHef (Meep?) 16:40, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

?'

"The civil engineering community accepts that the impacts of jet aircraft at high speeds in combination with subsequent fires, not controlled demolition, led to the collapse of the Twin Towers."

Really? Who's the "civil engineering community"? The source linked to this statement just shows the personal opinion of Bazant. When did Bazant become representative of the "engineering community" to speak in the name of them? Dornicke (talk) 20:25, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you can suggest more references?--MONGO 22:35, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest a real reference. The one presented in the article is just personal opinion. Dornicke (talk) 16:29, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to add one...or more...--MONGO 18:16, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No. I think the sentence should be removed unless those interested in keeping it find a real reference. Dornicke (talk) 18:34, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not phrased well, but the overall gist is correct. And it's not just Bazant's "personal opinion" that the collapse was due to the airliners. The statement could use rephrasing here, but the citation is valid. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:52, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There has been absolutely nothing published supporting any WTC demolition theories in any actual Civil Engineering journal. There's a bit of a problem with fringe theories in that the actual academics tend to ignore them, so it's a bit difficult to find citations that say that they reject them. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 07:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd love to see you prove that claim about "absolutely nothing published". HiLo48 (talk) 07:47, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Me too. I'd also would love to see a reliable source for the sentence "The civil engineering community accepts that the impacts of jet aircraft (...) led to the collapse of the towers." And I don't see such a reliable source - that sentence WILL BE REMOVED. I'll wait 48 hours. Dornicke (talk) 21:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The source already in the article states that the mainstream description of the collapse is, "generally accepted by the community of specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering." The publication is the Journal of Engineering Mechanics. I think the article fairly summarizes this group as the "civil engineering community", but of course there is always room for improvement. Please do not remove cited content, however, and you may want to check your caps lock key. VQuakr (talk) 23:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The source in the article only shows the personal opinion of Bazant. He's the one saying that such a "engineering community" accepts the official explanation. If you want to keep that sentence and reference, you need to fix it ("according to Bazant, the "engineering community bla bla bla"). Otherwise, it needs to be removed. And it will. Dornicke (talk) 15:58, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dropping ultimatums isn't exactly helpful. Especially since you could rephrase the sentence as you suggested, instead of demanding others do the work for you. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to provide a referenced argument besides your own opinion and maybe you can then get others to agree to changes.--MONGO 16:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, MONGO, I don't have to provide a "referenced argument", and I think you need to improve your reading skills and review the project policies. Anyone with two functional neurons is able to see that the reference does not support the sentence in the text. THAT is the issue. I dont't have to provide anything. On contrary. If you want to keep that sentence, YOU must replace that reference for a another one that supports what is written on the article. Otherwise, it will be removed, in accordance to the project guidelines. I have to do nothing. Dornicke (talk) 17:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Article reasonably summarizes the source, which is reliable. If you disagree, WP:RSN is thataway. You still need to check that sticky caps lock key. VQuakr (talk) 19:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, the article does not summarizes the source. The source is indeed reliable, but it doesn't support the text in the article. As I said, I do not have to do anything. IF YOU want to keep the sentence, fix it. Otherwise it will be removed. Period. Dornicke (talk) 19:57, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then why don't you trot out a source that confirms the opposite. Attacking a source or a statement is one thing, but without any evidence explaining why the source is wrong, you're just blowing hot air into a plastic bag. You think there's something there, but everyone can see right through it. JOJ Hutton 21:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How is the statement not aligned with the core content policies of verifiability, no original research, or neutral point of view? (see also; content guideline on fringe theories) — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 22:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then why don't you trot out a source that confirms the opposite. - Because I don't want to, because I don't need to, because I didn't say that we need a source that confirms the opposite - in fact, I have no idea of why you came to the conclusion that I was looking for a "source confirming the opposite".
How is the statement not aligned with the core content policies of verifiability, no original research, or neutral point of view? - The statement is the personal opinion of a single person. It is being used to reference the statement that "the civil engineering community" rejects other explanations. If you want a reference to that statement, you need to present a source that confirms it. The present source only shows the opinion of a single person - not the "engineering community". But it is being used in reference to the "engineering community". The source is false. Dornicke (talk) 20:57, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Censoring Dornicke for his reasonable request is illustrative of your weak argument. I suggest flagging this article as biased or controversial. As Dornicke correctly points out, one man's quote is not illustrative of the entire engineering community. Even the title speaks to the inherent bias of this article. Reasonable skeptics can appreciate the logic presented above. Those without the facility of critical thought can cling to their beliefs, but it has no place here. Censoring him for engaging you politely on this talk page only serves to further highlight your biases.
At a certain point, Wikipedia will jump the shark and join the dustbin of irrelevant infotainment media. The demarcation point will vary from individual to individual, but as the process continues the probability of you meeting it will also increase. Perhaps even those who have censored Dornicke may find themselves on the other side of that line at some future juncture.
It is for the above reasons that we operate within the bounds of logic when discussing. No matter how firmly attached some editors may be to the 9/11 narrative, the use of logic and rational dialogue must remain sacrosanct.
As it stands Wikipedia's policies are an arbitrary set of rules which are applied where it suits senior editor's opinions. It is nothing new for me to say this; It is written across the web and known to most who have examined talk pages. Editors can comfort themselves within their circle of believers, but elsewhere a consensus is forming about the arbitrary nature of Wikipedia's rules.
By selfishly clinging to your beliefs and by discarding rational dialogue, you not only retard the growth of this resource, but you also threaten to destroy it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.93.73.206 (talk) 18:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to climb down from that soapbox any time now. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Snark is a poor substitute for a cognizant reply. As I recall, it is written somewhere in Wikipedia's set of subjective standards that editors should engage with good faith. Characterizing my thoughts as 'speaking from a soapbox' does not refute what I have said. To the contrary it serves to illustrate how you find yourself above Wikipedia's policies when defending the institutional position. It is another prime example of your refusal to engage in a rational dialogue. Your petty sniping only reinforces what I have presented.
Feel free to approach the discussion with the tools of logic, although I expect you will not. For myself, at least I can say that I have endeavored to engage in a discussion within the bounds of reason and under the terms of good faith. That said, it will not surprise me in the least if you choose to follow up with more name calling. Par for the course... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.252.12.32 (talk) 04:52, 15 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.63.243.5 (talk) [reply]
We're not here to refute what you say or to engage in a debate "with the tools of logic," this is not an Internet forum. As the notice (backed up by policy) says at the top of this page "This is not a forum for general discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories. Any such messages will be deleted." Per WP:5P we're here to document what the mainstream media and reputable scholarly community have to say about the subject, with proportional representation of alternate and fringe points of view, describing them as such according to mainstream media. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox: you're the one calling folks "selfish" and "snarky." Acroterion (talk) 14:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. You misconstrue what I have said. I am not proposing a debate about 9/11. I am suggesting that one man's opinion is not illustrative of the larger engineering community. I am pointing out the obvious in that this article is biased (see title) and should be tagged appropriately. Given the differing viewpoints, controversial would also be appropriate. If by putting this in context you feel that I have been soap-boxing, you are entitled to your opinion. However dismissing my comments out of hand by labeling them as 'soap boxing' is not the same as engaging in good faith. I hope you can appreciate this distinction.

I believe Wikipedia left out another Wikipedia reference for this article on conspiracy theories

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Impact_Demonstration Qui Tam Relator 20:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:CIRCULAR explains why we do not use Wikipedia as a source for content within Wikipedia. VQuakr (talk) 05:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Random unreliable sources

Why are editors to restoring content sourced to random blogs of non-professionals, and other unreliable sources? Q6 at the top of this page is being ignored. Such as:

  • Gordon Farrer, a tech editors blog
  • Charlie Brooks's (comedian) blog
  • Charlie Skelton's blog
  • Paul Zarembka's book THE HIDDEN HISTORY OF 9-11-2001:
  • 911truth.org
  • 911review.com

Talk about ignoring Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Fringe theories.--Theamazo (talk) 20:20, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That (Gordon Farrer) is an editor of the Sydney Morning Herald. It is a RS. It falls into WP:NEWSBLOG. Describing it as a blog subject to removal is entirely inappropriate. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:25, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The second is not Charlie Brooks it is Charlie Brooker. Brooker is a columnist for the Guardian newspaper. Since the section is in "Media reaction" it is entirely correct for a columnist's reaction to be included. Guardian is generally regarded as RS. It is not a blog. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:31, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's a Theguardian.com#Comment_is_free opinion piece. Opinion pieces are not published as part of the main print, so less of a 'media reaction', more of a personal 'journalist reaction'. Again, how Brooker's views on conspiracy theorists mindsets is relevant or reliable here evades me.--Theamazo (talk) 20:41, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it is opinion, but it is not Random unreliable sources. It is, in fact, properly sourced as Brooker's opinion to a RS (The Guardian). If you believe the Guardian is not RS for the ref you have the option of taking it to WP:RSN. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:9/11_conspiracy_theories&oldid=608697978"