Jump to content

Talk:9/11 truth movement

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 Arydberg (talk | contribs) at 01:44, 3 September 2016. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:September 11 arbcom

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


Comment moved from article to talk page

When you type in "truther" or "truth movement" in wiki it gives you "9/11 Truth movement". In my interactions with a few truthers those terms should be used more broadly to reflect the many conspiracy theories and beliefs the movement and people who believe in it have, and possibly make "9/11 Truth movement" a subsection but by no means the main subject associated with truthers and truth movement. Seems to me what is also missing are more specifics for each claim made by truthers, in order for everyone to pursue fact-based analysis and decide for themselves. Truthers often use pieces of information and connect them in ways that to me seem questionable, yet there is no method in wiki I know of that captures and articulates the details necessary to prove or debunk claims so that truth can be made known and false claims can be dispelled. Posted by Worldwide2 at 11:40, July 12, 2012


Film: "In Plane Sight"

  • [Dave von Kleist's] 911: In Plane Site (2004) [1]

deleted by "The Original Wildbear," who wrote "In Plane Site is conspiracy theory garbage; little or nothing historically correct about it. Leave it off this page, please."

(1) Assuming (at least for the sake of argument) that above judgement/opinion is true, is this a good reason for non-inclusion (as opposed to, say, (properly referenced, of course) addition of this opinion)? Note that the section is not titled "recommendable films..." or some such. As to "conspiracy theory..." - this is how the article starts.

(2) "...garbage; little or nothing historically correct..." seems rather vague (close to name-calling). Can you point out - best by adding to http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0454587/goofs - specific errors/falsehoods?

-- Wda (talk) 07:22, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wda. Addressing your question (1) from above: The 9/11 Truth movement can mean different things to different people, and sources can be found to define it in different (and opposing) fashions. It can be defined as serious and intelligent people making a serious call for investigation into a criminal matter, or it can be defined as a bunch of conspiracy theory wackos spouting fanciful imaginings, or it can be defined as a mixture of both (which is probably closest to reality). The nonsensical stuff has a tendency to obscure and distract from the serious side of the matter, to the extent that many people are not even aware that a serious side exists. (See current news articles about evidence of high-level Saudi involvement in 9/11 as an example of inadequately investigated matters related to the 9/11 crime; plenty of reliable sources for that are available.) Wikipedia can help its readers understand the difference between serious calls for investigation and fanciful conspiracy theories by directing the matters to the appropriate article. Fanciful conspiracy theories would best be placed in the 9/11 conspiracy theories article. Keeping the nonsensical conspiracy theories to a minimum (or totally absent) from the 9/11 Truth movement article would be appreciated and helpful for readers to understand what the (rather loosely defined) movement is about at its core.
Addressing (2) above: admittedly, declaring 911: In Plane Site to be nonsense is a judgment call, by myself and others who have seen it, some of whom have reviewed it on IMDB. It is hypothetically possible that everything in 911: In Plane Site is true, though I regard that as very improbable. This production does not appear to be consistent with what is known about the event, and rather appears to be catering to those who like to grasp at straws in support of fanciful conspiracy theories; hence it appears to me to be an item better suited for the 9/11 conspiracy theories article, if it has to appear anywhere. Wildbear (talk) 08:18, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! In Plane Site does seem to meet WP:MOVIE and has its own WP-page. Even if some (or all) of its claims were untrue, it very probably helped put "9/11 Truth" into the minds of many people, esp. since it was on of the earliest attempts. It is thus undoubtedly part of (what i'd consider) the "9/11 Truth Movement". Please name some (of what you consider) "Fanciful conspiracy theories" advanced by this film! -- grts fro VIE Wda (talk) 11:04, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is a lot which could be said, but recognizing that this talk page is supposed to be about improving the article and not about the article's topic, I'll try to keep this as brief and direct to the point as possible. It has been a long time since I saw this film - probably more than 10 years, so I will rely on IMDB reviews to jog my memory on some of the "fanciful conspiracy theories" it contains. "Missile hit the Pentagon", "missing debris from the plane that hit the Pentagon", "flashes of light" and "pods under planes" are mentioned. While perhaps not impossible, none of these conjectures appear to be well supported by the known evidence about the matter. The movie may have touched upon some more serious matters, but in associating anything serious with the previous deeply speculative "theories", it has effectively poisoned the well for more serious issues. Some individuals may have taken this as their introduction to the 9/11 Truth movement; my sense from reading the communications of people on this topic (over a decade or more) is that conspiracy theory movies like this one have done more to turn people off to the 9/11 Truth movement than to bring them to it. If my observation is correct, (and I accept that it is contestable) then by being more unhelpful than helpful to the 9/11 Truth movement this movie would be better placed in the 9/11 conspiracy theories article. Wildbear (talk) 05:15, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In Plane Sight was one of the earlier conspiracy documentaries and IMHO that is one of its few good qualities. Despite being sensationally speculative and semi-exploitative I still believe it deserves mention, as do all of them good and bad - with qualifiers. Some may have low production values or may be tediously long but feature valuable content. Some may be intentionally or unintentionally far fetched and/or misinformation. These issues are not new to controversial subjects and history from JFK to OJ to OKC etc. It seems to me that there must be some sort of system that exists or needs to be developed or a very least tables charting factors and review ratings would be appropriate. Even including or linking to a list of the "rejected" projects would at least present all sides, even those I disagree with. I really wish every wiki page featuring history would have a paragraph on alternative perspectives, perhaps even linking to full articles like this one. JasonCarswell (talk) 10:00, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ 911: In Plane Site @ IMDb


Absent Issues

Whether one man kills ten people or 19 men kill 3000 people, those are extremist individuals committing crimes. 19 men is not an army. There was no declaration of war by government bodies or standing armies. It was a crime that was spun into two national wars and a global war on terror. Truthers say it was a crime with motives before it was a war of ideologies. Characteristics > Views = The MOTIVES are far too simplistic (war pretext and power consolidation) and/or missing (sooo much wealth was made, derived, moved, and stolen. ( view: The Corbett Report's 9/11 Trillions: Follow The Money http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3xgjxJwedA with documentation reference: https://www.corbettreport.com/episode-308-911-trillions-follow-the-money/ ) The second sin is the COVER UP that continues with Obama refusing to dwell on the past preferring to look forward, something no one would say to a serial killer, mass murderer, or war criminal. If the buildings (especially 7) failed so spectacularly that day then engineering safely laws would need immediate radical revisions yet none were made. I won't go on... While 3000 died that day, three times that number of first responders died yet have been denied the care they deserve. I don't know where that fits in. And lastly missing is the RHYMING HISTORY. History doesn't just repeat in Star Wars. Themes echo throughout political, economic, elite, military, and covert histories. False flag events, Pearl Harbor, Northwoods, Gladio, JFK, Tonkin, 93 WTC bomb, Oklahoma City, and events since 9-11. All of this also applies to 9/11 conspiracy theories. JasonCarswell (talk) 11:51, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Revising "Absent Issues" Muted Views, First Draft FAIL 2016-08-19

I'm not done, but here's a start for today's [2016-07-20] dissection regarding Characteristics > Views > 1st Paragraph >

As is:

Some within the movement who argue that insiders within the United States government were directly responsible for the September 11 attacks often allege that the attacks were planned and executed in order to provide the U.S. with a pretext for going to war in the Middle East, and, by extension, as a means of consolidating and extending the power of the Bush Administration."
With these citations that seem wrong (expired articles link to the homepage):
* Grossman, Lev (September 3, 2006). "Why the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Won't Go Away" . Time.
* Harvey, Adam (September 3, 2006). "9/11 myths busted" . Courier Mail (The Sunday Mail (Qld)).

Revise with:

Some within the movement who argue that insiders within the United States government were directly responsible for the September 11 attacks often allege that the attacks were planned and executed in order to provide the U.S. with a pretext for going to wars for profit and plunder[1] in Afghanistan[2], to purse alleged 9-11 terrorist Osama Bin Ladin[3], Iraq[4] despite no "imminent threat" from Saddam and an unjustified intelligence case[5], and expanded regional turmoil[6][7] rather than Saudi Arabia[8][9][10].
"The disastrous legacy of the Iraq War extends beyond treasure squandered and lives lost or shattered. Central to that legacy has been Washington's decisive and seemingly irrevocable abandonment of any semblance of self-restraint regarding the use of violence as an instrument of statecraft.[11]"

References

  1. ^ Weigley, Samuel (2013-03-10). "10 companies profiting the most from war". USA Today. USA Today. Retrieved 2016-08-19.
  2. ^ Walsh, Nick Paton (2016-02-25). "Afghanistan war: Just what was the point?". CNN. CNN. Retrieved 2016-08-19.
  3. ^ Schone, Mark. "9/11 Perpetrators: Where Are They Now?". ABC News. ABC News. Retrieved 2016-08-19.
  4. ^ Castle, Stephen (2016-07-06). "Analysis: Britain's Iraq War Inquiry". New York Times. New York Times. Retrieved 2016-08-19.
  5. ^ Hunt, Peter (2016-07-06). "Chilcot report: Tony Blair's Iraq War case not justified". BBC. BBC. Retrieved 2016-08-19.
  6. ^ Dodge, Toby (2013-03-16). "Decade of regret - Iraq: From War to a New Authoritarianism". The Economist. The Economist. Retrieved 2016-08-19.
  7. ^ Chulov, Martin (2015-10-25). "Tony Blair is right: without the Iraq war there would be no Islamic State". The Guardian. The Guardian. Retrieved 2016-08-19.
  8. ^ Scarborough, Rowan (2016-07-19). "Saudi government funded extremism in U.S. mosques and charities: report". The Washington Times. The Washington Times. Retrieved 2016-08-19.
  9. ^ Cevallos, Danny (2016-08-19). "Suing Saudi Arabia over 9/11?". CNN. CNN. Retrieved 2016-05-26.
  10. ^ Lionel, Lionel (2016-07-19). "Saudi Arabia's Behind 9/11 So Sue Them!". YouTube. Lionel Nation / Lionel Media. Retrieved 2016-08-19.
  11. ^ Bacevich, Andrew J.; Boot, Max; Kirkpatrick, Jeane; Ignatieff, Michael; O'Hanion, Michael; Masters, Jonathan (2011-12-15). "Was the Iraq War Worth It?". Council On Foreign Relations. Council On Foreign Relations. Retrieved 2016-08-19.

~ JasonCarswell (talk) 17:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I improved this paragraph revision today by incorporating the listed links, a month later with no comment, so I will add it to the main page soon since there are no comments or objections. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 02:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Revising "Absent Issues" Muted Views, Second Attempt PENDING

I finally learned after a month of silence on this talk page before I inserted it, that the above first attempt had a bad case of the synthies WP:SYNTHESIS aka WP:ORIGINALSYN. This revision certainly holds no surprises but, if I understand correctly, this will be tricky because: mainstream media doesn't report well on the truth movement, these common issues need to mentioned in conjunction with the truth movement and/or truthers. So now we need to find which are good and which need better sources. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 07:03, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The defenders won't help modify so I'm doing this the best I can. Of the three paragraphs below, the first is what is on the page today (2016-08-20). The second is very close to what I proposed a month ago then submitted but was rejected today (2016-08-20). These two as reference may have useful sources. The third is what could be, needing citations, and is open for discussion about it's content, it's precise wording, the sources, etc. On the third, suspicion of other countries involvement such as U.S. allies like Saudi Arabia, Israel, or others may go in another paragraph. The quote from the Council On Foreign Relations seems appropriate. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 07:03, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Characteristics > Views > 1st Paragraph > As is:

Many adherents of the 9/11 Truth movement suspect that United States government insiders played a part in the attacks, or may have known the attacks were imminent, and did nothing to alert others or stop them.[1] Some within the movement who argue that insiders within the United States government were directly responsible for the September 11 attacks often allege that the attacks were planned and executed in order to provide the U.S. with a pretext for going to war in the Middle East, and, by extension, as a means of consolidating and extending the power of the Bush Administration.[2][3]

With these citations that STILL seem to need work:

  1. BAD LINK - "Conspiracy theories: The Speculation" . CBC. October 29, 2003. Retrieved 2009-06-02.
  2. good link - Grossman, Lev (September 3, 2006). "Why the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Won't Go Away" . Time.
  3. BAD LINK - Harvey, Adam (September 3, 2006). "9/11 myths busted" . Courier Mail. The Sunday Mail (Qld).

Characteristics > Views > 1st Paragraph > FAILED First Attempt (complete, actually submitted, and slightly different than the draft up this page):

Many adherents of the 9/11 Truth movement suspect that United States government insiders played a part in the attacks, or may have known the attacks were imminent, and did nothing to alert others or stop them.[1] Some within the movement who argue that insiders within the United States government were directly responsible for the September 11 attacks often allege that the attacks were planned and executed in order to shock the public into granting the Bush Administration means of consolidating and extending power[2][3] and providing the U.S. with a pretext for going to wars for profit and plunder[4] in Afghanistan[5], to purse alleged 9-11 terrorist Osama Bin Ladin[6], in Iraq[7] despite no "imminent threat" from Saddam and an unjustified intelligence case[8], and expanded regional turmoil[9][10] rather than Saudi Arabia[11][12][13].
"The disastrous legacy of the Iraq War extends beyond treasure squandered and lives lost or shattered. Central to that legacy has been Washington's decisive and seemingly irrevocable abandonment of any semblance of self-restraint regarding the use of violence as an instrument of statecraft.[14]"

Characteristics > Views > 1st Paragraph > Second Draft (needing citations):

Many adherents of the 9/11 Truth movement suspect that United States government insiders played a part in the attacks, or may have known the attacks were imminent, and did nothing to alert others or stop them.[1][citation needed] Some within the movement who argue that insiders within the United States government were directly responsible for the September 11 attacks often allege that the attacks were planned and executed in order to shock the public into granting the Bush Administration means of consolidating and extending power[2][3][citation needed] and providing the U.S. with a pretext for going to wars for profit and plunder[citation needed] in Afghanistan[citation needed], in Iraq[citation needed] despite no "imminent threat" from Saddam and an unjustified intelligence case[citation needed], and expanded regional turmoil[citation needed]. From a Council On Foreign Relations publication:
"The disastrous legacy of the Iraq War extends beyond treasure squandered and lives lost or shattered. Central to that legacy has been Washington's decisive and seemingly irrevocable abandonment of any semblance of self-restraint regarding the use of violence as an instrument of statecraft.[15]"

References

  1. ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference CBC-Speculation was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference Grossman was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference Harvey was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Weigley, Samuel (2013-03-10). "10 companies profiting the most from war". USA Today. USA Today. Retrieved 2016-08-19.
  5. ^ Walsh, Nick Paton (2016-02-25). "Afghanistan war: Just what was the point?". CNN. CNN. Retrieved 2016-08-19.
  6. ^ Schone, Mark. "9/11 Perpetrators: Where Are They Now?". ABC News. ABC News. Retrieved 2016-08-19.
  7. ^ Castle, Stephen (2016-07-06). "Analysis: Britain's Iraq War Inquiry". New York Times. New York Times. Retrieved 2016-08-19.
  8. ^ Hunt, Peter (2016-07-06). "Chilcot report: Tony Blair's Iraq War case not justified". BBC. BBC. Retrieved 2016-08-19.
  9. ^ Dodge, Toby (2013-03-16). "Decade of regret - Iraq: From War to a New Authoritarianism". The Economist. The Economist. Retrieved 2016-08-19.
  10. ^ Chulov, Martin (2015-10-25). "Tony Blair is right: without the Iraq war there would be no Islamic State". The Guardian. The Guardian. Retrieved 2016-08-19.
  11. ^ Scarborough, Rowan (2016-07-19). "Saudi government funded extremism in U.S. mosques and charities: report". The Washington Times. The Washington Times. Retrieved 2016-08-19.
  12. ^ Cevallos, Danny (2016-08-19). "Suing Saudi Arabia over 9/11?". CNN. CNN. Retrieved 2016-05-26.
  13. ^ Lionel, Lionel (2016-07-19). "Saudi Arabia's Behind 9/11 So Sue Them!". YouTube. Lionel Nation / Lionel Media. Retrieved 2016-08-19.
  14. ^ Bacevich, Andrew J.; Boot, Max; Kirkpatrick, Jeane; Ignatieff, Michael; O'Hanion, Michael; Masters, Jonathan (2011-12-15). "Was the Iraq War Worth It?". Council On Foreign Relations. Council On Foreign Relations. Retrieved 2016-08-19.
  15. ^ Bacevich, Andrew J.; Boot, Max; Kirkpatrick, Jeane; Ignatieff, Michael; O'Hanion, Michael; Masters, Jonathan (2011-12-15). "Was the Iraq War Worth It?". Council On Foreign Relations. Council On Foreign Relations. Retrieved 2016-08-19.

Other "Absent Issues" demanding discussion:

~ JasonCarswell (talk) 02:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

How Can "Other Groups" Be Improved?

Because I thought it was low hanging fruit, and obviously a lot of people would like to see these listed I thought if I compacted the list it might not bother Acroterion so much. But he/she reverted it saying "please do not keep spamming links to all sorts of groups without discussion" when he/she has not bothered to discuss it here on this page. If these groups are not valid, we need to know why and/or how so we can or they can legitimize themselves. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 07:03, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted: Other truth groups include: Political leaders for truth, Religious leaders for truth, Commissioned and Non-Commissioned Military Officers for truth, Military, intelligence and government patriots question 9/11, Pilots for truth, Firefighters for truth and unity, Scientists for truth, Lawyers for truth, Medical professionals for truth, and Actors and artists for truth.

Consensus 9/11: The 9/11 Best Evidence Panel

Why was this section removed? JasonCarswell (talk) 12:45, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Imo it was removed giving a (mostly) er phony reason. I'll re-upload a slightly corrected version. Greetings from Vienna: Wda (talk) 22:13, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I, for one, would consider Consensus911's absence from a page on "The 9/11-Truth-movement" a defect and (certainly not the only one, by far (see "POV ???"); probably not the worst one (just one i do have an idea how to fix); but) definitely a shortcoming.
Ad "no evidence of notability" (1) C~911 may well meet WP:GNG / WP:ORG; (2) WP:N says, "Notability guidelines do not apply to content WITHIN an article [MY caps]"
Ad "POV promotion" - actually, most of my upload is cobbled together/summarized from the 3 refs given - please point out what exactly you consider "POV Promotion," and suggest different wording! --Wda (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworded the inappropriately in-Wikipedia's-voice claims that the site aims prove "the precise points which undoubtedly show that the official version is inconsistent, incomplete or misleading." I've also removed the detailed business about the Delphi method, which strikes me as a tangent, particularly the reference to BMJ which describes the methodology in medicine, not as it relates to 9/11. I'm still unconvinced that the group is notable, particularly if the best reference that can be found is Indybay. At least AE911 knows how to get press - isn't there something better that can be cited? Acroterion (talk) 01:41, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Delphi method was illustrative of relevant open scholarly processes over complex issues rather than tinfoil hat speculation. The presentation might be improved and it should be reintroduced. A few more lines are not overly verbose.
~ JasonCarswell (talk) 23:55, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this: [1], I would argue that Wikipedia itself cannot take a position as to whether some study or another study "proves" or does not "prove" something. Wikipedia can say that the authors of the study assert that such and such a thing is "proved" (if the authors in fact say that), or that such and such an authority asserts that the study "proves" such and such a thing. But, I don't think Wikipedia can take sides. Famspear (talk) 00:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anti Semantic Edits

@User:Famspear How is:

"with the objective to bring together, in an "Official Claims" vs "Best Evidence" format, to show that the official version is inconsistent, incomplete or misleading. The multi-lingual site limits its work entirely to demonstrating that the official account is false."

better than:

"with the objective to bring together, in an "Official Claims" vs "Best Evidence" format proving the official version is inconsistent, incomplete or misleading. The multi-lingual comprehensive resource site limits its work entirely to demonstrating that the official account is false."

How is the "multi-lingual" description better than the "comprehensive resource" description? Is there a description limit? It's not like I said it was fantastic. To show is to demonstrate or prove. Seeing is believing and I believe this is an effort to dilute by a thousand semantic edits. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 01:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read my comment and Famspear's farther up the page? Please try to keep discussion in one place. And what on earth is an "Anti-Sematic Edit"? Acroterion (talk) 01:17, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dear JasonCarswell: You're asking the wrong question. The question is not "which version of the text is better?". The question we are discussing is: "How should Wikipedia report what the source says while presenting the source material from a Neutral Point of View?".
Using the word "prove" in this context gives the false impression that Wikipedia itself concludes that the authors of the study have established the truth or validity of what the authors say, by evidence or demonstration. Whether the authors have "proved" anything or not, Wikipedia itself cannot properly claim that the authors have "proved" whatever the authors claim they have proved. Wikipedia itself cannot decide who is right or who is wrong, nor can it decide what has been proven or what has not been proven. Famspear (talk) 03:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a possibility:

".....with the objective of showing that the official version is inconsistent, incomplete or misleading. The contributors to the multi-lingual site attempt to demonstrate that the official account is false......"

That verbiage might be better, in that it is less likely to give the impression that Wikipedia itself is rendering a conclusion about whether the source has achieved its objective or proved its case. Famspear (talk) 03:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Backing up further - what reliable, independent sources talk about this particular group? If they exist, what do they? VQuakr (talk) 05:29, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We were all active on this page simultaneously and I hadn't caught up but I've waited until things calmed down a bit. I apologize for not keeping this within the correct section. I've moved it up. "Anti Semantic Edit" is a pun. I hope you know that. Not just you, I hope everyone gets it.
As Burning Man links to List of regional Burning Man events (not all cited by "mainstream media" yet nonetheless relevant to their "fringe" culture, (my apologies to the Burning Man community for dragging you into this)), it seems a List of 9/11 Truth conferences and a List of 9/11 Truth websites would be good rather than just deleting them.
Firstly, thanks for keeping me on my toes. I'm learning a lot about precision, deflection, diversion, obfuscation, and neutralization. I'm trying to tighten up my act as I learn about the deeper workings, policies and politics of Wikipedia. (I'll try to appropriately re-edit the other #Absent Issues section being "censored" after this.)
You did not answer my question about the comprehensive resource issue. I'd like to learn.
These semantics are important here. I can show a cat. I can prove a cat. I can show a theory. I can prove a theory. They weren't showing a movie, they were proving theories. "Proving to themselves"? "Show" neuters their effort. "with the objective of proving" is far better than "with the objective of showing".
The whole "Consensus 9/11" thing has been removed again. It's important to the 9-11 Truth movement as an event milestone, including the Delphi method, and that's a List of 9/11 Truth conferences is necessary if not here. It can be summarized here and expanded upon there.
Wikipedia can take sides and it does. "needs sourcing outside the conspiracy echo chamber" What about the mainstream echo chamber (media)? Journalistic objectivity is a great ideal that we must strive for but media bias is always present since the medium is the message. (Even essays and documentaries have points of views and agendas.) We know what the difference is between "official" stories which all too often assume and omit "assertions" and this page, why it needs to be "airtight", and whether efforts help or deflect.
Experts of the government-skeptical and counter-mainstream media 9-11 Truth movement are by their very nature outside mainstream media as experts in their own field. A cat is a better expert at knowing what it's like to be a cat than anyone else. Does anyone know, are there other catch-22 examples we can reference, learn from and apply here? "Historical views on expertise" (which does not cite any sources) states "expertise can also be understood as a form of power; that is, experts have the ability to influence others as a result of their defined social status. By a similar token, a fear of experts can arise from fear of an intellectual elite's power." Plato's "Noble Lie", concerns expertise - "In politics, a noble lie is a myth or untruth, often, but not invariably, of a religious nature, knowingly told by an elite to maintain social harmony or to advance an agenda. The noble lie is a concept originated by Plato as described in the Republic."
I hope this is good. I tried to be rational. I hope I didn't miss anything. Please let me know. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 13:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We write articles based on polices and guidelines such as WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV. Until you can concisely frame your reasoning for a proposed edit in the context of those, you're not going to make much progress here. You may want to review WP:GREATWRONGS as well. VQuakr (talk) 22:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know. My reading list just got longer. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 23:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This conversation is not over. (Though I seem to be talking to myself.) The whole "Consensus 9/11" thing has been removed without explanation or discussion (which also makes my semantic points moot). No one has adequately answered my questions. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 07:11, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

POV ???

much of this page is written in a way i cannot help asking if it is intended to describe the 9/11-Truth-movement, or if it tries to belittle/disparage/&c it.

To pick but one example: "Support for the movement is negligible from professionals in relevant fields, such as civil and aerospace engineering." - Now, if this is "written from a neutral point of view ... representing fairly, proportionately ... all of the significant views" (WP:POV) to describe a movement that -- despite dire threats (like "Who is not with us is with the terrorists.") and dire consequences (like being attacked, insulted, put down, called names, ... by the mass(stupidification)media &c. -- has (like not many other movements, if not uniquely) been endorsed/supported by numerous celebrities and well-renown people (amongst them e.g. (high)judges, MPs, former heads-of-state!), has spread worldwide, has been presented/discussed in Parliaments, has produced a plethora of books, and videos translated into more than 15 languages-- well, if this is NPOV ... then i am the queen of Saba's great-grandmother.

And i am certainly not the only one to think so. This has e.g. been pointed out by journalists, specifically naming this page as a "Musterbeispiel [textbook-examplar]" (for absurdly slanted POV). For one example (which i happen to have bookmarked; there'd probably be a lot more to find) see "Karl Reitter: Tabuthema 9/11" (2014, in grundrisse, ISSN 1814-3164). --Wda (talk) 22:17, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrities and well-known people are not professionals in relevant fields. The sole source you have presented fails WP:RS; anything else? VQuakr (talk) 00:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Opinions of public figures are not irrelevant. Politicians who are not "us", doctors, or scientists, but always try to tell us what we can and can't do with our bodies as if we're children. Celebrities may not be "us" but they, like politicians, often speak for us who cannot. If we are skeptical, they may voice the skepticism felt by many of the masses. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 01:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was pointing out your non sequitur. You started with a quote from the article, then changed subjects mid-paragraph. VQuakr (talk) 01:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot "or". I rearranged it but it's still an awkward sentence.
Just as there are lists of lists such as lists of atheists organized by profession and surname I'm working on a List of celebrity Truthers which may develop into Lists of Truthers organized into profession, surname, and perhaps their truths and/or skepticisms since there are so many doubts about so many things. It's a big project that could use help and patience. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 13:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A thorough reading of WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:FRINGE and WP:NOR would be advisable first. Acroterion (talk) 16:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Acroterion, you may have been within rights to delete some material from my user page but you didn't even read it. This television interview quote of a Roseanne Barr and Abby Martin in their own words, voices and images is relevant for a new List of celebrity Truthers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8txXzLdhH8 :
"You know we just have to keep laughing at the scorn and watch it die. It doesn't have any place left to go now. I think now it's like eating its own tail. I mean the whole Saudi Arabia, all royal family, 9-11, Bush [[[Bush family|family]]] - all of it. It's eating its own tail, and everybody's like "Truther!? You're a truther!" You know when idiots are calling brilliant people stupid, you've got a real problem." "I find it amazing this kind of pejorative term "truther" [is] for seeking the truth. And I mean that we've been saying Saudi Arabia was involved from the very beginning. We were called "crazy" and now look at how validated we are." "It's House of Saud morphs with House of Windsor works with the Vatican works with Rothschild. It's all one big friggin mafia scam. I mean I'll probably get assassinated or droned when I'm outta here, but it's all a scam. A tired effin scam."

If I am wrong please let me know how. Thanks. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 17:30, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, is there a proper place out of the way before acceptable release to collaborate and gradually build up a proper List of celebrity Truthers? For example, if the List of celebrity Truthers existed at least in title then we could discuss it in Talk:List of celebrity Truthers. Thanks in advance. I'm off to learn Sandbox. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 18:07, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion pieces such as the section you just linked (and quoted with wikilinks for some reason) above are primary sources and unsuitable for contentious information or determining levels of acceptance of a fringe theory. A small embedded list already exists at 9/11 conspiracy theories#Proponents. "Proponent" is more likely to be a palatable name than "Truther" (why are you capitalizing it?), but it seems unlikely that you'll find much support for such a list either way, IMHO. VQuakr (talk) 22:22, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It was a copy of part of a barely started rough draft. I wasn't sure if the the links were a good idea or not. Roseanne was running for president. I don't know that's worth her opinion. I still have to get through a lot of reading up on how to do this right.
I didn't know that "truther" was capitalized until I saw it on Wikipedia enough to notice, obviously mistakenly now. I wanted to be respectful. "As a christian..." deserves to be "As a Christian..." and no one says "As a religious nut job..." Christian is usually a good title. Truther is still a proudly held title by most of them. Many of them are proud to be skeptics and conspiracy theorists, conspiracy analysts, conspiracy historians, etc. but the word "conspiracy" still has pejorative connotations beyond those circles. "Proponent" is still deflective semantics again. To use "As a proponent..." in most conversations would follow "...of what?" and the answer is "conspiracies" which is not as nice as "truther". Con vs Truth. Criminal vs Saint.
~ JasonCarswell (talk) 00:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]


How Are These Missing?!

Speaking of "negligible from professionals in relevant fields", how are these missing?

Issues with flight paths, speed and turbine limits, Ground effect (aerodynamics), and other stuff I know little about have been raised by professional groups. I knew about the first two and just Googled the others. I haven't read these sites yet but know those first two certainly deserve inclusion. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 00:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And maybe include:

~ JasonCarswell (talk) 00:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What reliable, secondary sources cover these groups in enough detail to show that they merit mention as discussed at WP:NFRINGE? VQuakr (talk) 00:34, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:NFRINGE: "For a fringe theory to be considered notable, and therefore to qualify for a separate article in Wikipedia..."
This is the article where these sources might apply if appropriately vetted and that's why I placed them on this appropriate talk page, if I am not mistaken.
~ JasonCarswell (talk) 00:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Given aspects of a fringe theory still need secondary sources written about them. Primary sourcing is not appropriate here because it doesn't let us judge levels of acceptance. VQuakr (talk) 01:36, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand but I'll try. Maybe this isn't the best example, but if you had a cat named Truther that said he was a cat (if cat's could talk), that wouldn't be acceptable without the veterinarian Dr. FoxNews verifying that it was indeed a cat. And the doctor has to have the highest credentials. Am I close?
Also, how was my stuff above under "Revising "Absent Issues""? It felt like I was on to something. I compiled it out of WP and was lazy so the citations aren't properly formatted but I figured you'd be checking them anyway and I'd fix them if I got a go ahead.
~ JasonCarswell (talk) 23:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]


List Proposals To Discuss

~ JasonCarswell (talk) 13:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Conspiracy theorists" is a pejorative term

Famspear, I see that you have taken a personal interest in my edits. I am sure life as a shill is very rewarding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ripleysnow (talk • contribs) 22:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Conspiracy theorists is an accurate description for people who advocate conspiracy theories. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:27, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And also see the arbitration sanctions note I left on your talkpage concerning appropriate conduct before you left the personal attack above and this one [2]. Acroterion (talk) 22:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Ripleysnow, "conspiracy theorists" is a pejorative term. So what? Wake up!
"Nazi" is a pejorative term, yet it is an accurate description of someone who was a member of the Nazi Party. "Convicted felon" is a pejorative term, yet it is used to describe people who are convicted felons. There is no rule in Wikipedia that prohibits the use material from reliable sources that includes descriptions of people with pejorative terms.
You're new here. I suggest that you read WP:V and WP:NPOV and WP:NOR.
A "shill" is "one who acts as a decoy". Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, p. 1069, G.&C. Merriam Co. (8th ed. 1976). I am not a "shill." See WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Yes, I have taken a personal interest in your edits. I'm an editor here. The whole point of Wikipedia is that anyone can edit anyone else's posts. If you don't want other people to take an interest in your edits, or you don't want your edits removed, then you probably aren't going to be happy here.
As noted by another editor, the term "conspiracy theorist" is an accurate description of someone who advocates conspiracy theories. Pay attention. Read the article. Learn something. Famspear (talk) 00:32, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Rich Sphere

Your text for the picture of the "iron rich sphere" leaves a lot more to be explained. Your statement "However, such spheres have been found to form when iron particles are affected by normal fuel fires" is not explained by the source.


1) The particles found at the WTC site were close to 100% iron spheres while those found in fly ash of your source are a combination of iron oxide and amorphous alumino-silicate

as described here: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016236106001906

2) Apparently the iron spheres were formed by being ejected in molten form from the building and were weightless during their free fall to the earth. They cooled enough during this fall to turn back to a solid.

Note lead buckshot was once made this way by being dropped from a high tower, In falling their weightless state caused them to become spheres and to cool during their descent. Lead of course is not used in shotgun shells any more.

3) "Normal fuel fires" is not a good description of the fire in a coal burning electric generating plant where the flames are fanned by huge blowers and the coal is atomized into dust before being burned. see: https://www.duke-energy.com/about-energy/generating-electricity/coal-fired-how.asp

4) Is the magazine skeptical inquirer (your source) a recognized source for Wikipedia? I was under the impression Wikipedia desired per reviewed journals as source material. Please clarify this for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arydberg (talk • contribs) 01:41, 3 September 2016 (UTC) Arydberg (talk) 01:43, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:9/11_truth_movement&oldid=737474961"