Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories

Lying to the 9/11 Commission

I've removed this[1] from the article for the following two reasons:

• First, it's a WP:BLP violation. We shouldn't be using the term 'lying' in Wikipedia's voice. Yes, I know that the person who wrote the Toronto Globe and Mail article used those words. But we shouldn't do that here. Yes, it can probably be rephrased and possibly fixed, but there's a second issue which makes the BLP concerns moot.
• I haven't read the book but after reading the cited source, Farmer's thesis doesn't seem to have anything to do with conspiracy theories at all. Yes, there's an offhand reference to conspiracy theories towards the end of the cited source. But if you look at that carefully, the Toronto Globe and Mail article is disagreeing with Farmer saying that he goes too far, and compares his Farmer's methodology with the conspiracy theorist's methodology. Big difference. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I put it back. I don't see how it's a BLP violation or how it's in Wikipedias voice when it specifically attributes what is said to the source. I do agree though, that the cited source should be Farmers book and not an article about it. I think this is notable and, ironically, could be the one section of this article that isn't completely nutjob. (No offense intended to the nutjobs...:) Mystylplx (talk) 03:50, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

• Can we please follow WP:BRD? It was boldly added it and I reverted it. We should discuss it on the talk page before adding back to the article.
• It's a WP:BLP violation because we are accusing a living person of lying. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material. Please do not do this again.
• Second, neither Farmer's book nor the cited news article seem to have anything to do with 9/11 conspiracy theories. We seemed to have found a source about Farmer's book which compared Farmer's methodology to that the methodology of a conspiracy theorist (which one they do not say) and seem to have concluded that it has something to with 9/11 conspiracy theories. The news article also compare's Farmer's methodology to Columbo. But that doesn't mean Farmer's book is about Columbo. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

See What bold, reverse, diuscuss, is NOT.. Also this. And third, Farmers book ( at least the parts quoted) most certainly are about 911 conspiracy theories. It's not the standard fare for 911 conspiracy theories, crazy nuts with whacko theories, but it's a conspiracy theory in that he more than strongly suggests that Bush lied. And the source is not some nobody but was senior council to the 911 Commission--that's notable! AND a WP:RS if there ever was one. This is a no-brainer. This article is about 911 Conspiracy Theories and this may be the one and only one that has some real credibility to it. The BLP argument is nonsensical--read WP:BLP. It's sourced to a reliable (very reliable) source and is characterized as his words, not Wikipedias. And it CLEARLY deserves space in an article about 911 conspiracy theories. It's not even a close call. Mystylplx (talk) 05:54, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Essentially this was added by one editor. Reverted by you. Then re-reverted by me. This isn't even really covered by WP:BRD. But the BLP claim is nonsensical. BLP doesn't say we can't publish any information that might be controversial period--it says we don't publish it unless there's a reliable source. And again--Senior Council to the 911 Commission John Farmer, Jr.. Mystylplx (talk) 06:06, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

OK. By no stretch of the imagination is this a BLP violation. That's completely imaginary and irrational. It's not even a close call. See wp:blp for more info. ::::::According to that policy it must adhere to :

Neutral point of view (NPOV)

Verifiability (V)

No original research (NOR)

This certainly fits that criteria. So I'm wondering what's going on here. There's no way, shape, or form, in which this violates BLP. That's pure fiction. Yet it's been reverted twice as a BLP violation.... What's the real story? I'm certainly no 911 truther or POV pusher, so clue me in? What's the deal? Mystylplx (talk) 06:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, it is a clear WP:BLP violation. It accuses a living person of lying. Unless there is actually a relevant court ruling to that effect, (see Bill Clinton), it's controversial. That, therefore, requires a reliable source. Farmer, himself, and his source, are not reliable for that purpose; it has to be from a reliable publisher. I see no evidence of that, here, although it might be the case. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to bed soon, but I wanted to try to answer at least one of your questions before I do. Now that I know what angle this is coming from, there are two forms of CT:

• LIHOP ("Let it happen on purpose") – That key individuals within the government had foreknowledge and let them happen anymay
• MIHOP ("Make/Made it happen on purpose") - That key individuals within the government planned the attacks and collaborated with, or framed, al-Qaeda in carrying them out.

We seem to inventing a third category of CT that the government tried to cover up its incompetence after the fact. This is not a conspiracy theory. Legitimate criticism of the US governemt regarding 9/11 doesn't belong in this article. It should go in some other article. In my absense, it appears that somehow the article shifted focus to include any criticism - whether conspiracy theory or not. I see that there's now a section for "Non LIHOP/MIHOP". I doubt if such a thing even exists. It should probably be deleted. Going to bed now. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 08:04, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

@Arthur Rubin With all due respect I think you're just making stuff up. I've read and re-read wp:blp and I see nothing in there about requiring a court order. Farmer is certainly a reliable source.

@A Quest For Knowledge, I see what you're saying and you might have a point, but I do think a conspiracy to cover up incompetence is still a 911 conspiracy--it's just not the standard whacko conspiracy theory that one normally thinks of when using the phrase "911 conspiracy theory." Mystylplx (talk) 16:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Mystylplx: There's a world of difference between wacko conspiracy theories and real conspiracies. Watergate was a real conspiracy. Aliens landing at Roswell is not. We shouldn't lump the two together. I'm not saying that Farmer can't be included somewhere in Wikipedia, but this isn't the right article. This article is only about the crazy stuff. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:13, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

That's where I disagree, or at least I don't think it's necessary that this article be "only about the crazy stuff." This is similar to your LIHOP-- just without claiming that it was "on purpose." The section could even be expanded a bit with this from CBS news and plenty of other sources that go into what the Bush administration knew and what was (and was not) done about it. It seems to me this article is the appropriate place for stuff like that as I doubt it's feasible to start a new article titled Non-whacko 9/11 conspiracy theories. Mystylplx (talk) 18:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems like the place to mention it would be Criticism of the 9/11 Commission. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

It isn't criticism of the 911 commission... Mystylplx (talk) 18:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

But I do see September 11 attacks advance-knowledge debate where it would be appropriate. Mystylplx (talk) 18:52, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not clear to me based on the news article who exactly is making the accusation of lying. The author of the book is John Farmer. The author of The Globe and Mail news story is Peter Hart. We can obviously tell that Hart uses that word. But just because Hart used it, doesn't necessary mean Farmer did. Does anyone have access to the book? Does Farmer actually use this word? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

"almost entirely and, inexplicably, untrue.” is in quotes. That usually means it's a direct quote. If the word "lie" is the stumbling block it could be rewritten without that word. Mystylplx (talk) 19:26, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, although Farmer is an expert, we cannot use his word to support a controversial statement about a living person. On the other hand, if The Globe and Mail is considered a WP:RS, and it quotes Farmer, we can use it to support that Farmer said it was a lie. I'm not sure that "Farmer wrote that the Bush Administration statements were false." is sufficiently distinct from gossip that it's usable, but we must make it clear that that is all we are saying. We could remove the "Farmer wrote" clause only if Riverhead Books is a reliable publisher, regardless of any individual reliability Farmer might have. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:21, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm really confused on where you're coming from on this. First of all "if The Globe and Mail is considered a WP:RS"??? It's the New York Times of Canada. Second, I don't think anyone wants to remove the "Farmer wrote" clause. The whole section is on what he wrote. Mystylplx (talk) 20:44, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the word 'lie' is a huge stumbling block. We don't call people liars. A direct quote is better. But it still doesn't have anything to do with this article. If it helps, think of conspiracy theories as sort of like urban legends. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:17, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

There's already this, this, and this, none of which are really whacko. And Conspiracy theories needn't be urban legends--there have been lots of conspiracy theories that turned out to be true. See The Dreyfus Affair and MKULTRA as two examples. Just because the allegations in this case come from a credible source doesn't mean it's not a conspiracy theory. The idea that the Bush administration was... disingenuous? about the events leading up to 911 seems to me to fit well on this page. Mystylplx (talk) 23:07, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like we need a citation to a reliable source that says this is a conspiracy theory. Tom Harrison ^Talk 11:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

What's the difference between a cover-up and a conspiracy? If the Bush administration is trying to conceal information from the public, that's a cover-up. Conducting a cover-up is a conspiracy to mislead the public. Ghostofnemo (talk) 17:27, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

No it is not. The two words do not mean the same thing. A conspiracy requires a minimum of two or more persons. A cover-up can be conducted by one person. Even if a cover-up is conducted by multiple persons, the two words emphasize different things, even if a given act can be both. Nightscream (talk) 17:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Unless Bush is able to conduct the cover-up by himself, it's a conspiracy. Ghostofnemo (talk) 20:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

YouTube video in Pentagon section

The video does not contain a single frame showing a plane. And what are the technical specs of the camera making the recording? How many frames per second? The passing car suggests a pretty low frequency. Why is this video included in this article? Is this video supposed to support 9/11 conspiracy theories? ♆ CUSH ♆ 00:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Which citation is it? Nightscream (talk) 10:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

What is it that you ask? There is only one video. ♆ CUSH ♆ 19:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Susan Lindauer shoot down

Susan Lindauer is asserting a youtube video that she had been told at some point that Flight 93 was shot down and that the pilot who shot it down was / is held in Florida somewhere. I'm planning on looking into her article and am curious if anyone has come across any other statements / theories like this ... or has seen the evidence / names she promises to provide in this video.--Senor Freebie (talk) 07:19, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Susan Lindauer was found incompetent to stand trial twice, and is pretty well known for delusional thinking and other wingnuttiness. I'd take anything she says with a big grain of salt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.135.91 (talk) 01:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

"Reichstag fire" motive deleted as POV?

How is this POV? "Parallels have also been drawn between the 9/11 attacks and the Reichstag fire, raising the possibility that the 9/11 attacks were used as an excuse to undermine civil liberties and democracy." Refs: http://www.alternet.org/rights/78182/?page=1 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/07/18/politics/main3069391.shtml http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/2011/12/28/a-tale-of-two-cities-weimar-and-washington/ Here is the diff of the deletion: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories&diff=468806942&oldid=468805399 Ghostofnemo (talk) 19:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

First line of WP:NPOV: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." The Reichstag fire comparison is a common theme in 9/11 conspiracy theories. Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't we need a source connecting this to 9/11 conspiracy theories? Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

NOTE: This is A Quest For Knowledge on a public computer. I'm not logging into a computer that might not be secure.

The content you added has several problems:

1. The Reichstag fire is rarely (if ever) mentioned in secondary reliable sources in connection to this topic. When we give prominence to minor aspects of a topic, it's against undue weight. This might belong in the body, but not the lede. (More about this below.)
2. The lede should summarize the article. If you want to add new content to the article, start at the body and work your way up to the lede.

But even still, we already have a representative example of historical precedents (Operation Northwoods). Do you want to replace Operation Northwoods with the Reichstag fire? I'd rather stick with Operation Northwoods. It seems to be cited more frequently in the literature than the Reichstag fire.

But let's discuss the elephant in the room. You only add material to the article which bolsters the CT's POV. I never see you add material that goes against CTs. This is called tenditious editing and if it continues, I'll look into having you topic-banned. 67.107.55.130 (talk) 20:38, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Since the title of this article is "9/11 conspiracy theories" I think factually representing those theories is appropriate, and that deleting those explanations, and the supporting reliable sources, borders on censorship and vandalism. Ghostofnemo (talk) 10:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

We rarely see this topic discussed AT ALL in the mainstream press, but I did in fact include a CBS News story involving a U.S. Congressman who discussed this exact topic http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/07/18/politics/main3069391.shtml however it was still completely deleted (instead of being moved)! Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

"Since the title of this article is "9/11 conspiracy theories" I think factually representing those theories is appropriate..." Okay; what's the reliable source that the stuff about the Reichstag fire is an element of 9/11 conspiracy theories? Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

All three of the cited references compare the two. Ghostofnemo (talk) 17:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

If you do a web search on "9/11 Reichstag fire" you'll see all kinds of primary source material. Ghostofnemo (talk) 17:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

None of the references cited appear to mention conspiracy theories. No doubt there are primary sources - Peter Dale Scott, and others - that say 9/11 was just like the Reichstag fire. This article is (is supposed to be) about 9/11 conspiracy theories, not about "what really happened" on September 11th. What we need are good reliable secondary sources that say comparisons to the Reichstag fire are an element of 9/11 conspiracy theories. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

German Protestors Marked 9/11 by Denouncing "Inside Job," "Reichstag Fire" "The '9/11 = the Reichstag fire' equation has long been a preferred trope of Germany’s homegrown brand of 'trutherism'". There are more than 100,000 sources claiming the link is significant. This WP article is about the conspiracy theories and care should be taken not to limit it to what the mainstream media choose to publish. Wayne (talk) 21:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

"We rarely see this topic discussed AT ALL in the mainstream press" Exactly! You're giving more weight to something that is rarely mentioned in secondary reliable sources. This is the very definition of WP:UNDUE. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

This article is not 911 conspiracy theories in the mainstream media. Do we delete the incontinence article because the mainstream media rarely discusses the topic? You are cherry picking WP:UNDUE. Quote: "In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space." UNDUE is a guideline intended to avoid giving undue weight to a belief, not to avoid acknowledging the existence of that belief. Wayne (talk) 02:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Nobody is saying that this article should be deleted. Nobody is saying these conspiracy theories don't exist. 9/11 conspiracy theories are already covered in-depth in this article. Here's the thing: WP:NPOV applies to all articles, even articles on fringe theories. Yes, we should explain the fringe viewpoint, but we also need to explain the majority viewpoint. One of the problems with Ghostofnemo's edits is that they only present the fringe viewpoint. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The title of this article is "9/11 conspiracy theories". A fringe argument would be that shape-shifting aliens were responsible. Comparing the 9/11 attacks to the Reichstag fire is not a fringe theory for the topic of this article. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

This topic is already a fringe topic. We stick to the notable conspiracy theories, not to every theory postulated. The 9/11=Reichstag Fire angle is the fringe of the fringe. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with including the comparison if there's a good source for it. And frankly, I think that Zeitgeist is a notable source for such a claim (assuming the comparison was made in the film.) We're dealing with a conspiracy theory, and a movie which is about the most prominent conspiracy theory "documentary" in history. If it makes such a claim, it's notable for purposes of the 9/11 CT.

Please don't mistake my defense of the inclusion with my support of the theory. I give as much credence to the 9/11 CTs as I do to the moon landing hoax claims, or the belief that Jewish space aliens are controlling the global economy through RFID chips implanted in bicycle accessories. But, the fact is, Zeitgeist is a NOTEABLE source (as opposed to reliable...of course it's not "reliable," in the sense that it's 2 hours of nonsense, but that's besides the point). If there was a scholarly, objective article written by Michael Shermer noting that Zeitgeist made this claim, we would all agree it's a reliable source, right? Well, do we really need a third party pointing out that the film made this claim to make it notable? (To be clear, I don't specifically recall whether Zeitgeist made this claim; but, if it did, I would say it may deserve mention in this article.)JoelWhy (talk) 14:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Zeitgeist's notability is questionable, and it's certainly not a reliable source for this. Especially if it's just a passing mention. What we need are third-party reliable sources that discuss this Reichstag Fire comparison, before including it. And frankly, I'm just not seeing them. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

As a side-note, calling Zeitgeist "the most prominent conspiracy theory 'documentary' in history" is pretty silly. Any number of Kennedy assassination & moon hoax documentaries would like a word with you. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, perhaps that was a bit hyperbolic. However, it's unquestionably notable. You've got discussions about the movie in The New York Times, Skeptic magazine, Scientific America, Skeptoid, Slate, and The American Spectator. In any case, if the Reichstag comparison is only mentioned in passing, I agree it's insufficient to use it as the sole source for including it in the article.JoelWhy (talk) 15:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I remember watching the movie years ago and the Reichstag being mentioned as a comparison. From my recollection, the source I provided lays out basically what was said in the movie. The reference to "homeland security" is something that particularly sticks out in my mind as having been in the movie.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Quest, Devil's Advocate has found a reliable source sourcing this claim. I just don't see any legitimate reason to remove it. It doesn't really matter how preposterous the claim is (seriously, if we refused to deal with preposterous claims, this page simply wouldn't exist;) he's got a reliable source making the claim, in addition to a notable "documentary" mentioning the same. I think it deserves mention in the article.JoelWhy (talk) 13:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Just because something can be verified doesn't necessarily mean it belongs in an article. All policies have to be considered, especially WP:NPOV. The problem with this edit is undue weight. The fact is that this is rarely mentioned in secondary reliable sources. Even Ghostofnemo concedes this: "We rarely see this topic discussed AT ALL in the mainstream press"[2] A Google News Archive search gives me 6,000 hits on 9/11 conspiracy theories.[3] When I add Reichstag fire to the search terms, I only get back 7 hits (not all of which are reliable sources).[4] When literally 99.9% of sources don't think this is significant enough to report on, it probably isn't. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0707/Reps_Cantor_Wamp_want_reprimand_for_Rep_Ellison.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1557447/Bush-like-Hitler-says-first-Muslim-in-Congress.html

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/german-protestors-marked-911-denouncing-inside-job-reichstag-fireJoelWhy (talk) 14:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The first two of those don't mention 9/11 conspiracy theories, and the third (Weekly Standard) is the single source already mentioned. 9/11 conspiracy theories are exactly and only what the reliable sources say they are. We are not supposed to sift through conspiracist literature to synthesize our own in-house list of the elements of the theories, and then find news reports that mention those elements. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Alright, fair enough.JoelWhy (talk) 21:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I put up an article from the Nation, a prominent news magazine, that spends two paragraphs laying out this comparison and uses it as a segue into broader discussion on the 9-11 conspiracy theories. This is much more attention than that given to the Maine, Tonkin, and Mukden comparisons among others. It is not mentioned as much as Northwoods or Pearl Harbor, but it is certainly mentioned significantly. On AQFK's talk page I provided a list of cases where it is mentioned (one was from AQFK's search for articles). While most of the mentions were trivial by themselves, the fact that it is so regularly repeated in the sources even as others are not suggests it is recognized by reliable sources as a more significant comparison.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

AQFK, stop distorting what Nemo said like you did at DRN. He was clearly saying the 9/11 conspiracy theories themselves are rarely discussed. You continue to misrepresent his comment as referring to this specific material, which is simply untrue.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

DA: So, in a discussion about WP:WEIGHT, you're claiming that GoN was actually talking about notability - something absolutely nobody else was talking about? Yeah, that makes sense. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Nemo can tell you himself that you are wrong if he likes, but I think it is obvious from the context that he was saying the 9-11 conspiracy theories are rarely discussed at all and so mentioning WP:UNDUE to leave out a specific claim about those theories that does get a significant mention in reliable sources is misusing the policy.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of "new Pearl Harbor" line

If you think this belongs somewhere else (not with the line discussing possible motives in the opening paragraph) then why not move it where you think it belongs instead of completely deleting it from the article? Diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories&diff=469103181&oldid=469102671 Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

If it belongs anywhere, it's in the motives section. And, lo and behold, there it is! SK (talk) 11:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize that "Pax Americana" was Latin for "new Pearl Harbor". Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

A better heading for that section might be "Neoconservatives and global hegemony" or something like that. Ghostofnemo (talk)

Looks like a good delete. Our job here is to try to present a neutral article. The change only contains the CT's POV. There appears to be no attempt to explain any other POV but the CT's. That's not what neutrality is at all. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Lede no longer explains majority viewpoint

I just noticed that the lede is terribly unbalanced. It no longer explains the majority viewpoint. I checked with previous versions:

• Febuary 2011
• March 2010
• November 13, 2009

And all three contained a short, 2 sentence paragraph containing the mainstream viewpoint. Does anyone know who or why this was deleted? Was there even a discussion? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

This was awhile ago but what I remember is the lede was ballooning and another editor said in their edit summary something along lines of this has gotten out of control. So I changed it with the goal of making it much more concise and focused. Don't remember any big discussion or anybody reverting my changes off hand.

This is a 9/11 CT's article not a mainstream viewpoint article. The lede's goal should be to describe what 9/11 CT's are and briefly explain them. The "mainstream" POV is not ignored, it is described in part of the very first sentence and the very first section both describes and explains the mainstream POV. In the same vain why is 1/2 of the first paragraph about polls? If it has to be in the lede it should be a short sentence but I don't see the need for it at all as they are a reaction to the CT's not the theories themselves. While not absolutely necessary it is probably ok that motives are there because they are the alleged cause for the alleged chain of events, but again just one sentence saying proponents cite various motives is all that is needed. Edkollin (talk) 00:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Not to bog down in semantics, but this is a mainstream-viewpoint article - that's the only kind of article we have. It describes (should describe) the mainstream view about 9/11 conspiracy theories by presenting what the reliable secondary sources say about 9/11 conspiracy theories. To do that well, we have to say briefly what happened on September 11. To the extent that this article has developed as a pov fork of September 11 attacks, it needs to be corrected. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

@Edkollin: There was no discussion probably because nobody noticed the change. I know that I didn't notice it until a couple days ago. All articles are mainstream articles. Yes, because this is an article about 9/11 conspiracy theories, we should explain what those theories are, but we still should do it from the perspective of the mainstream viewpoint. As for the polls, I agree that it doesn't belong in the lede. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Lede before reorganization

"On the morning of September 11, 2001, al-Qaeda crashed United Airlines Flight 175 and American Airlines Flight 11 into the twin towers of the World Trade Center, and crashed American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon. The impact and resulting fires caused the collapse of the Twin Towers and the destruction and damage of other buildings in the World Trade Center complex. The Pentagon was severely damaged by the impact of the airliner and the resulting fire. The hijackers also crashed a fourth plane into a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania after the passengers and flight crew attempted to regain control of the aircraft.[1][2] Published reports and articles by the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the magazine Popular Mechanics, and the mainstream media accept that the impacts of jet aircraft at high speeds in combination with subsequent fires, rather than controlled demolition, led to the collapse of the Twin Towers.[3][4] Zdeněk Bažant and Mathieu Verdure, writing in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics, propose that collapse can be triggered if the total internal energy loss during the crushing of one story exceeds the kinetic energy impacted to that story.[5]

The 9/11 Commission Report disclosed prior warnings of varying detail of planned attacks against the United States by al-Qaeda. The report said that the government ignored these warnings due to a lack of communication between various law enforcement and intelligence personnel. For the lack of inter-agency communication, the report cited bureaucratic inertia and laws passed in the 1970s to prevent abuses that caused scandals during that era. The report faulted the Clinton and the Bush administrations with “failure of imagination”. Most members of the Democratic and the Republican parties applauded the commission's work.[6]

Proponents of various 9/11 conspiracy theories, which are, according to the director of the Anti-Defamation League’s civil rights division, Deborah Lauter, in many cases antisemitic,[7][8] offer versions of the events that differ from what is described above. Conspiracy theorists say this is because of inconsistencies in the official conclusions or some evidence that was overlooked.[9][10][11] Researchers say motives for constructing conspiracy theories include the desire for financial gain, scapegoating, and a psychological need for a satisfying explanation.[12]

The most prominent conspiracy theory is that the collapse of the World Trade Center and 7 World Trade Center were the result of a controlled demolition rather than structural weakening due to fire.[13][14] Another prominent belief is that the Pentagon was hit by a missile launched by elements from inside the U.S. government[15][16] or that a commercial airliner was allowed to do so via an effective standdown of the American military.[17][18] Motives cited by conspiracy theorists include justifying the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and geostrategic interests in the Mideast, including pipeline plans launched in the early 1990s by Unocal and other oil companies.[19]

Polls worldwide show substantial minorities believe Al Queda was not responsible for the attacks and a slight majority of Americans find fault with the 9/11 commission and U.S governments investigations of the attack[20] [10][21]"

An editor made a change noting in his edit summary that "this is unbelievable". I agreed because the first half was just describing the "mainstream" version 9/11 attacks and repeating what was in the mainstream section. I also felt having an agenda organization in the lede describing the theories as in many cases anti Semitic made the lede not neutral. When I was done the lede looked similar to now without the last paragraph that was just added. So in my POV it was a radical change and the last thing that I expected is that my changes would not be noticed.

I agree it is a mainstream article that why I think too much time weight is given to motives and polls.

Tentative Proposal/rough draft sans citing and links.

"9/11 conspiracy theories are theories that disagree with the widely accepted account that the September 11 attacks were perpetrated solely by al-Qaeda using hijacked planes as missiles creating fires that weakened the structures of the Twin Towers and World Trade Center 7 causing their collapse.

The most prominent conspiracy theory is that the World Trade Center buildings collapse was caused at least in part by controlled demolitions. Other prominent theories state that the Pentagon was hit by a missile launched by elements from inside the U.S. government instead of a hijacked plane or that the American military stood down.

Proponents of the conspiracy theories believe there have been inconsistencies in the official conclusions and that evidence were overlooked. Justifying subsequent military action and profit are among the various alleged motives cited for the alleged conspiracies. Scientific, government and media critics of the theories have stated that the theories are scientifically invalid and proponents have been affected by conspiracism.

This answers the consensus for a mainstream point of view (I believe it is a bit more mainstream POV then what exists) while keeping the who for the detail sections. It is a rough draft and thus inelegant.Edkollin (talk) 00:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

ZDF Online Poll

Under the History section, the results of a "ZDF online poll" are included. The results of this poll should should be removed. An online poll is a completely unscientific poll you can find on virtually any website. Per the article, ZDF ran a "documentary" advocating that 9/11 was an inside job, and then had a poll asking people if they though 9/11 was an inside job. The results of this poll were hardly shocking (and, again, completely unscientific.) JoelWhy (talk) 14:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed Edkollin (talk) 02:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I concur. Toa Nidhiki05 02:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Incredible Lie

The article says " One allegation that was widely circulated by e-mail and on the Web is that not a single Jew had been killed in the attack " This is a completely lie, and pretty stupid. The real allegation said that not a single Israeli died, which was probably true (I dont know). NY have 1000s of jews. That zone, also. Who knows that not a singe jew had died ? Add the Pentagon, the other plane, and for sure jews had died. The real allegation was that not a single Israeli died. Keep that not a single jew died, in this article, is a conspiracy theorie, itself - and propaganda. Replace it , and make it clear the response. Thanks and dont delete this - Paulsefa

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.154.57.149 (talk) 02:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC) 

Read the Snopes.com article addressing this. Notice how one of the chain e-mails from 2001 states "It has been confirmed by the US government and the FBI that at the time of the accident, there were 4000 Jews who MIRACULOUSLY never came to their work at the World Trade Center building at the time of the accident. This means Jews knew and were prewarned..." http://www.snopes.com/rumors/israel.aspJoelWhy (talk) 17:32, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

9/11 conspiracy theories are not denialism

I totally understand if people don't believe in the theories, I don't completely believe in them, I'm undecided; but to say 9/11 Truth is denialism, you know, putting it in the same category as the Flat Earth Society and Holocaust denial, in my opinion, is ridiculous. If you didn't notice, the 'criticism' section of this article says virtually nothing about criticizing the claims that 9/11 truthers make. So what if Popular Mechanics accepts the official story? Do you really think any mainstream publication is going to deny what the United States Government says? No of course not.

I think criticism of the official story of September 11 and skepticism of Bin Laden's involvement is not denialism, but true skepticism in action. Not just blind defence of the establishment.

Thank you for reading this.

Abootmoose (talk) 17:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

The people who believe in holocaust denial, moon landing hoax, and/or the belief that aliens landed at Roswell make the exact same argument for their pet theory. However, when you have a belief that is soundly contradicted by the evidence, it squarely falls within the category of denialism.JoelWhy (talk) 17:28, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I think there is a serious problem if you think 9-11 conspiracy theories are equivalent to any of those theories. The problem with the term denialism is it implies that something about the official version is beyond question, which would be true for some things related to 9/11 conspiracy theories, but not all. Any category with the pseudo- prefix creates a similar problem in stating the account is false. Just because a theory is fringe does not mean it should be regarded as false. The conspiracy theory and fringe theory categories are perfectly fine. I also think the conspiracy theories involving Jews categories are inappropriately prejudicial. What I would support is the 9/11 CT category, the CT category, and the fringe category.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I do think 911 conspiracy theories are roughly equivalent to those others. They all attempt to deny the reality of something that happened, or assert the reality of something that didn't happen. They all have complicated rationales that don't hold up under scrutiny. They all cherry-pick evidence and make false claims. The main point is that none of them are accepted among reliable sources, and what we do here is report on what those reliable sources say. Mystylplx (talk) 18:19, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

What I understand is that there are people who think all fringe views are the same and regularly lump them together, but it just isn't accurate. Someone who seriously thinks the earth is flat would not be the intellectual equivalent of someone who thinks the government knowingly allowed the 9/11 attacks to occur. One requires a complete rejection of known facts, the other only requires skepticism about the statements of living people.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand that, and to be honest I wouldn't put the LIHOP theories in the same category as moon hoaxers and flat earthers. Those theories actually have some sound basis. But unfortunately those comprise the minority, or at most a very quiet majority, of 911 conspiracy theorists. Mystylplx (talk) 20:46, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I've always had the feeling that LIHOP isn't a real theory, that it's just a gateway conspiracy theory to get people to listen to the more insane CTs. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about that. We know that they knew an attack was imminent. We know that when the same thing happened during the Clinton administration he jumped on it with both feet, held daily special meetings bringing together the heads of the various intelligence agencies, etc., and that Bush, by contrast, didn't hold one single extra meeting. That much is on the public record. From there LIHOP is an obvious speculation. I've had the thought that it's the other way around--that the MIHOP theories were a smokescreen, intentionally or unintentionally, that did a good job of keeping the public's attention diverted from the above facts. Either way though, it's the MIHOP theories that are the bread and butter of 911 truthers and those theories certainly count as denialism. Mystylplx (talk) 21:21, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not here to make judgments of fact or fiction. The mainstream view is, in many ways, a very good theory. A position disagreeing with that mainstream view is not inherently denialist. A MIHOP theory isn't inherently less reasonable than a LIHOP theory. Talk about remote-controlled airliners and cruise missiles is certainly bordering on it, but ultimately the evidence does not sufficiently establish that this did not happen for us to treat it as a denial of fact. However, a MIHOP theory can take on other ideas and exclude those more questionable ones as many have.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

None of the MIHOP theories I have heard are even remotely possible. All of them, in their various ways, are on the level of the hologram planes version, just not so obviously so in some cases. Mystylplx (talk) 21:47, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

That is because you have little imagination and apparently little relevant scientific knowledge. The controlled demolition theory far better explains what was observed than the NIST conspiracy which is frankly scientifically impossible. As regards the logistics of carrying it out, here is a hypothetical scenario demonstrating how it might be carried out with only a few people being aware of exactly what was going on. I imagine those so inclined can think of other ways. Devils Advocate1000 (talk) 16:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

That's not what the experts say. Mystylplx (talk) 17:27, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

9/11 conspiracy theories definitely fall under the category of denialism. AFAIK, there are few, if any, historians would believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories. Also, I find Abootmoose's statement that "Do you really think any mainstream publication is going to deny what the United States Government says? No of course not." to be ironic. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I would really like some more opinions on this. I agree, it is a fringe theory, though a very popular fringe theory. Calling it denialism is just plain wrong though. I admit, there are holes in the 9/11 truth theories - but do you really, honestly believe the 9/11 commission report is perfectly satisfactory, and that the US government had no idea what was going on? People like you guys who want to label this denialism, and also classify it as an anti-Jewish conspiracy, when the Jewish thing is just ONE of many many inside job theories, are very biased. I am a skeptical person. I don't buy 9/11 truth entirely. But at the same time, I have read tons about 9/11 and there are many, many things that do not add up about what we are being told.

Personally I find the Wiki policy of verifiability before truth BS. But, I don't own Wikipedia, so there's nothing I can do about it, unfortunately. If we lived in Nazi Germany (sorry to invoke Godwin's Law, lol) according to that policy we would have to accept Nazi references as legit because of their 'officiality' even if they were complete lies.

Wikipedia does not need to bow to authority and simply be told what they are heard. We just had a historical blackout of the site, to protest SOPA. How hard really is it to believe that the government that would consider such an oppressive law would commit something like 9/11? You guys tell me to get my tin foil hat off. I tell you to stop blindly waving your flag.

Six years ago, when the 9/11 truth movement was much stronger, and people hadn't had the idea that 'Mooslims did it' beaten into their head for a full decade yet, the editors here would not have insulted people who dare to question the 9/11 OS. (Because if you're a good American, you never question anything, right?

Frankly my issue is I just find the categorization insulting. Academically speaking, to label a group deniers is a HUGE charge.

Abootmoose (talk) 19:53, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

No one here is telling you to take off your tinfoil hat. Believe whatever you like. However, to post information on Wikipedia, you must follow certain rules and policies (e.g. reliable sources, etc.) There are a plethora of sites you can contribute to where claims can be made based on suspect sources. Wikipedia, however, is not one of them.JoelWhy (talk) 19:59, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

^Well personally, I would consider anything from the United States government in the past fifty years a 'suspect source' lol. America is not infallible, America is not God. Abootmoose (talk) 20:01, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Please see the Wiki page on Straw man arguments.JoelWhy (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

^Sorry, I just got a bit passionate. What I'm saying is what composes a reliable source is to large extent, a matter of opinion. Abootmoose (talk) 20:09, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps this will help: Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia. We write articles from the mainstream point of view. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

^Okay. But still, I think labelling 9/11 truth as denialism is insulting for one, and incorrect for another. Just because it's not the mainstream POV, doesn't make it a form of denialism. Denialism encompasses absurd, impossible claims. Even if you think a non-Muslim explanation of 9/11 is unlikely, it's definitely nowhere close to Flat Earth impossible. I think the 'pseudohistory' and the other pseudo tag are wrong too. They are what I call judgment categories. Abootmoose (talk) 20:20, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Flat earthers are an extreme version of denialism. I don't think anyone is saying that believing 9/11 was an inside job is the "same" as believing the world's scientists are trying to hide the fact that the earth is flat. However, denialism is a broad term encompassing a wide range of ideas. Believing that vaccines cause autism falls into the category of denialism. Clearly, such a claim is more believable (albeit equally unsupported by science) than that the earth is flat. The term is not intended to be insulting. It is simply noting that belief in such a claim involves a rejection of substantial objective evidence to the contrary.JoelWhy (talk) 20:36, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

But where is the proof that 1) Bin Laden was the mastermind of 9/11 and that 2) Bush and everyone else in our government were completely taken by surprise? Abootmoose (talk) 20:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

That is part of why I think 9/11 CTs in general should not be regarded the same way as various pseudoscientific claims. Many "skeptics" treat this like it is purely a scientific issue, when it really is more of a criminal question. Save for the fringe among fringe no-plane theories, most of what is mentioned by 9/11 conspiracists does not challenge any aspect of existing scientific knowledge or postulate any new scientific principle. A number of theories do not even seriously challenge the physical evidence, but focus more on motive, means, and opportunity. Given that even people involved with the 9/11 Commission have expressed suspicions of Saudi support it would be silly to have the conspiracy theories regarded the same way as claims about vaccines.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:32, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually all the MIHOP theories I've ever heard are patently impossible. Whether you believe in silent explosives or that hundreds of tons of nano-thermite were brought into the buildings (occupied 24/7) and secretly planted exactly where the planes would hit (yet somehow not set off by the exploding jet fuel) it's closer to believing the moon landing was a hoax than that vaccines cause autism. And as I said, it's the MIHOP theories which make up the bulk of 911 conspiracy theories. Mystylplx (talk) 21:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, when you blatantly exaggerate what conspiracy theorists claim you can convince anyone that it's impossible. You also are presuming that all MIHOP theories are about controlled demolition, which simply isn't true. There is more than one way to stage a terrorist attack, if you will. One would be the much-approved method of not actually staging it, but just insuring that it occurs. Like the Nazis did, you find someone you know wants to do something and then make sure he is miles more successful than he would be if you did not help. Call it glorified entrapment. Polling suggests there are far more people who subscribe to that sort of view, one of criminal facilitation, than controlled demolition. Does that really seem more outlandish than vaccines causing autism? It certainly isn't pseudoscientific.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think I'm exaggerating at all. Do a search on "911 truth" and the vast bulk of what you will find will be either explosives or nano-thermite (which would have required hundreds of tons, even according to Neils Harrit) Any MIHOP theories that aren't about controlled demolition are fringe even within the 911 "truth" movement. What polls are you referring to, because the odd mixture of MIHOP and LIHOP you are expressing is a new one on me and I thought I'd heard them all. Mystylplx (talk) 22:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

How is it that their opinions criticizing the official theory are treated with such skepticism yet their opinions about what their theories would require are given such weight? I look at the NIST report that says a hundred pounds of regular thermite might be sufficient to bring down a building column. As to the polls I am talking about, the ones I looked at were here on Wikipedia. Most reliable sources mention this idea of a government aiding the attacks in the context of a foreign power like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, or some alliance of them and other Muslim states friendly to the U.S. It isn't quite as common to mention the possibility of the U.S. being an active participant without going into the controlled demolition stuff, though there are certainly plenty of major sources alleging a cover-up of the connection to U.S. allies. All the same, these are generally regarded as conspiracy theories just like the claims of the Loose Change crowd, yet there is nothing pseudoscientific or denialist about them. I could get into a very long WP:NOTFORUM discussion about this, but the point is that there are many prominent MIHOP conspiracy theories discussed significantly in independent reliable sources that have nothing to do with remote-controlled airliners or nano-thermite so using the latter to impugn the former is inappropriate, even if the latter were pseudo-scientific in nature.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

"Isn't quite as common?" I challenge you to come up with one reliable source that even so much as mentions the theory you are expressing--that the U.S. Gov. facilitated the attacks, not merely allowed them to happen, and not a controlled demolition theory. Mystylplx (talk) 04:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The fact is, foreign involvement is mentioned quite a bit and when it comes to the Saudis or Pakistanis is treated as a conspiracy theory, especially since there are allegations about the U.S. government covering up their involvement. So we should not be categorizing the theories as they are categorized.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The fact is foreign involvement is barely ever mentioned at all in comparison to the overwhelmingly more common controlled demolition theories. I wouldn't call foreign involvement theories denialism as they are merely speculation without evidence rather than speculation that contradicts evidence... but those theories are the fringe of the fringe of 911 conspiracy theories. Mystylplx (talk) 15:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

It is barely mentioned in articles about the conspiracy theories for the simple reason that those articles tend to be about downplaying the theories. However, it is actually mentioned more in reliable sources than controlled demolition and generally regarded as more legitimate by them. I can direct you to a Vanity Fair article that had in-depth seven-page coverage on the subject of Saudi support.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be contradicting yourself--first you say it is barely mentioned then you say it is mentioned more? One Vanity Fair article vs 100's of articles? Mystylplx (talk) 19:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Another straw man. Bin Laden was not the mastermind of 911 (that was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed) and Bush was not completely taken by surprise. But it's irrelevant. It's not necessary that every single 911 conspiracy theory be an example of denialism to include that category. The bulk of them are examples of denialism. That's good enough for the category to apply. Mystylplx (talk) 21:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Precisely. And, if you don't like the vaccine comparison, there are plenty others to chose from. Did the Secret Service know in advance that JFK was going to be assassinated? Did the U.S. lay down its arms to allow the Japanese bomb Pearl Harbor? These all fall under the category of pseudohistory and involve denialism. Again, you're free to believe whatever you like. Wikipedia relies on "mainstream" media sources.JoelWhy (talk) 22:15, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

9/11 conspiracy theorists deny that the the official report is true. That's denialism. HiLo48 (talk) 21:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

It requires you to establish that the official report is true and is not just a widely-accepted theory.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a "mainstream" encyclopedia but an encyclopedia based on a consensus of reliable sources which by Wikipedia guidelines are "mainstream". Most of the time they will be the same but if Wikipedia were a "mainstream" encyclopedia this article would not have existed pre 2006 nor would thousands of articles on obscure topics exist.

Denialism is in its literal form not an insult but by far most people saying others are are mean it in an insulting manner and those who are said to be denialist take it as an insult.

"Six years ago, when the 9/11 truth movement was much stronger". Very questionable While some reliable sources have noted a decline since the election of Obama and the economic downturn you did not have "Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth" and similar organizations back then nor Alex Jones being interviewed by the likes of Salon and Rolling Stone. "editors here would not have insulted people who dare to question the 9/11 OS" well insulted people personally has and always been rare due to Wikipedia:Assume good faith there much more insulting and condensation towered the of the theories and even editor or two saying it was their job to promote Popular Machnics debunking of the theories something I believe would run into run into criticism today.

What is the proper forum to debate/petition Wikipedia's Reliable Source policies?. Edkollin (talk) 22:15, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if this is what you are looking for, but the reliable sources noticeboard is here. Mystylplx (talk) 22:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Know about that but your suggestion made me think that is probably a better place to ask my question. Edkollin (talk) 22:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone dispute that the most prevalent 9/11 CT involves the U.S. planting explosives to bring down the WTC buildings? I'm not asking whether you personally believe this, or whehter this is what your friends believe. But, if you search the internet for stories on 9/11 CTs, this is the most prominent story told. Well, this theory falls squarely under the Denialism category.

Moreover, the generally accepted theory explained in the official report is supported by a plethora of articles and studies which are independent of the official report. Therefore, the other theories involving a cover up, foreknowledge, etc, also are fairly categorized under the denialism banner. It's not an insult; it just indicates that it involves a theory not supported by the evidence.JoelWhy (talk) 14:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I dispute a great deal of what you are saying. Going against the mainstream does not inherently mean we should treat that view as "denial" and imply the mainstream view is the indisputable truth. A few lines from WP:FRINGE that are of interest here:

“ However, a lack of consideration or acceptance does not necessarily imply rejection, either; ideas should not be portrayed as rejected or labeled with pejoratives such as pseudoscience unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources. . . . By the same token, the purpose of Wikipedia is not to offer originally synthesized prose "debunking" notable ideas which the scientific community may consider to be absurd or unworthy. Criticisms of fringe theories should be reported on relative to the visibility, notability, and reliability of the sources that do the criticizing. ”

Given the prejudicial nature of terms like pseudohistory, pseudoscience, and denialism there should be reliable sources clearly establishing this as a "defining characteristic" of the theories per WP:CAT. Only denialism has any notable mentions that I can find, though mostly in "skeptic" literature so that does not take away from the way the category skews the article. Like I said, the regular CT categories (not the ones about Jews) and fringe category are acceptable.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

This is not a matter of the view being "mainstream" or "not mainstream". Creationism isn't pseudoscience because it's not "mainstream". It's pseudoscience because the science contradicts the claims being made. Similarly, the main CTs claimed related to 9/11 fall into the category of pseudohistory because the historical evidence clearly contradicts it.

As for the Jews issue, just Google "Jews" and "9/11", and you'll find a host of claims being made about how they were notified ahead of time, responsible for the attacks, etc. It's a prominent claim made, especially in the Middle East, but in the U.S. as well. There are many, many, many references acknowledging this.JoelWhy (talk) 21:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Editors can not the categorize something in an article because the editor concludes it meets the definition as described by Wikipedia. They can only do so if it is widely categorized that way by reliable sources. The old verifiable but truth thing. Right now it is most widely categorized as conspiracism. Edkollin (talk) 22:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

It's behind a paywall but here's a high-quality source which according to Google specifically mentions 9/11 CTs: How the growth of denialism undermines public health. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

In Salon there's The 9/11 deniers by Farhad Manjoo, which we already cite. Certainly this article should be included in cat:denialism. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Way to misrepresent and cherry-pick you two! I searched for that paper on AIDS denialism and the mention of 9/11 given in the search results says what I imagined it would. The paper refers to 9/11 conspiracy theories and appears to be making a connection between the people who espouse them and AIDS denialists. As to Salon, the headline says 9/11 deniers, but at no point in the actual article is the word "deny" or any variant even used and "denialism" certainly doesn't pop up. Maybe you don't understand. This is not a game of "find the source" where just one or two sources that sort of imply what you want to say is enough, though really any source that does not say what you want the article to say is rarely enough.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

There are indeed sources that say the conspiracy theories in certain circles focus on Jews, but this article is mostly about the ones not involving Jews. WP:CAT requires that it be a "defining characteristic" and that does not apply here. If "Jews are responsible in some versions" is enough then pretty much every conspiracy theory would have to be categorized that way.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Should I understand that the dispute is now about the "denialism" category and that most editors would agree the "pseudoscience" and "pseudohistory" categories can be removed?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

If anything there's a stronger argument for removing denialism than pseudoscience or pseudohistory. Mystylplx (talk) 19:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Wha!? Where did you get that idea? I am finding even fewer sources that refer to the 9/11 conspiracy theories with those terms.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

This is from your article, The 9/11 deniers. The article seems to actually give SOME credence to the more softcore truth theories, like the government permitted 9/11 to occur.

Kerrey was dismissive of the conspiracy theories as well. Asked about the possibility of a controlled demolition at the World Trade Center, he scoffed, “There’s no evidence for that.” But he also noted that, quite apart from what Avery and others in the “truth movement” have proposed, many legitimate mysteries still surround the events of that day. “There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version,” Kerrey said. The commission had limited time and limited resources to pursue its investigation, and its access to key documents and witnesses was fettered by the administration. “I didn’t read a single PDB,” Kerrey said, referring to the president’s daily intelligence briefing reports. “We didn’t have access to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed,” the mastermind of the plot. “We accepted a compromise, submitting our questions to him through the CIA. Now, that’s not the best way to go about getting your questions answered. So I’m 100 percent certain that [bin Laden] directed that attack, but am I completely comfortable saying there was no direct Saudi involvement, or that Saddam Hussein wasn’t involved in some fashion, or that the Iranians weren’t involved? I’m pretty close to 100 percent certain, but I’d be more comfortable if we’d interviewed Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.”

Am I the only person who thinks it's incredibly weird they were only able to talk to Khalid via the CIA? Or are you guys just too blindly patriotic to see anything strange and worthy of skepticism about 9/11?

Abootmoose (talk) 21:25, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

There's far too much use of this page as a forum. Those denying the truth of the official explanation are deniers, so it's denialism. Simple as that. Even if, one day, any of their theories turn out to have some truth in them, today they are denying. Let's stop using Wikipedia as a forum and playing silly word games. HiLo48 (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Just because you think it is denialism, does not mean it should be categorized as such. "Conspiracy theory" is itself often seen as a pejorative term so it is not like there isn't enough sourced demeaning of the subject to satisfy you. No need to double-down with your unsourced opinions.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, so the real problem is that YOU understand Denialism as a pejorative term. Is it? HiLo48 (talk) 22:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I imagine that anyone accused of denial would consider it pejorative, just like so many are cool with calling the controlled demolition crowd conspiracy theorists, but get their panties in a bunch over someone using the same term to describe those who adhere to the mainstream point of view. My "real problem" is that the term is not used sufficiently to be used as a category. That it also fosters a biased view of the subject just reinforces the need to remove it.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:49, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

And the problem there is that you used the word "accused". Putting someone in a category isn't an accusation. It's a description. And an accurate one. Why do you see it as pejorative? Where is the "accusation"? HiLo48 (talk) 03:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

If you wanted to add the antisemitism category to the Rick Sanchez article would you defend that by saying "I am only describing him as an antisemite, I am not accusing him of hating Jews"?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Who? Anyway, my post contained two questions and you only answered one. They were closely related, and you've avoided the other twice now. Why do you see it as pejorative? HiLo48 (talk) 17:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

No, actually I addressed all your questions.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. I didn't notice. What makes denialism pejorative? Do you have a source for that? I ask because that categorisation has to be literally true. HiLo48 (talk) 22:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Please understand that WP:NPOV does doesn't say that articles should be neutral. It says that editors should be neutral. If reliable sources call this a conspiracy theory, we so should we. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree, and I believe we should apply the same thinking to the denialism, pseudoscience, and pseudohistory categories.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Just a point here, did you intend to say NPOV doesn't say that articles should be neutral?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Here are three two more useful sources:

• Chapman, Jane (2009-08-24). Issues in contemporary documentary. Polity. p. 25. ISBN 9780745640099. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
• Rohleder, Poul (2009-09-29). HIV/AIDS in South Africa 25 years on: psychosocial perspectives. Springer. p. 129. ISBN 9781441903051. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

"There's far too much use of this page as a forum" - Yup. We should just shut up and be good Americans, right!? LOL Abootmoose (talk) 21:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Categories for 9/11 CT article

Should the article include the categories for denialism, pseudoscience, and/or pseudohistory?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose all pseudoscience and pseudohistory, Weak support denialism categories per WP:NPOV and WP:CAT. It has not been demonstrated that these terms are widely used in reliable sources as "defining characteristics" of the subject. A handful of sources are not sufficient. Similarly per WP:FRINGE any criticism "should be reported on relative to the visibility, notability, and reliability of the sources that do the criticizing" rather than based on whether a group of editors think the criticism is true, despite a lack of verification.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

After scouring through about 20 pages of search results for each term I have found at least some consistent use of the "denialism" definition, but I am still coming up empty on non-trivial mentions of pseudoscience and pseudohistory in reliable sources with even trivial mentions being rare.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support all, except marginal neutral on pseudohistory. The vast majority of reliable sources don't use these specific terms, about this subject, or anything else. However, no reliable sources object, and some do use the specific terms as defining characteristics for this subject. "A handful of sources are not sufficient" is not part of the criteria. — Arthur Rubin (talk) Sorry about not dating my !vote. The precise time doesn't seem important.

Actually, WP:CAT does quite clearly address that here:

“ A central concept used in categorisation is that of the defining characteristics of a subject. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having . . . ”

So far no one has demonstrated that a single reliable source actually uses any of these labels.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's not true. Sources were provided in the discussion above. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

You provided two sources that didn't define the subject as denialism.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I provided one source (Tom provided the other): How the growth of denialism undermines public health. It's ironic that you deny this in a discussion about denial. BTW, please don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. If you don't like the sources that have been provided, you can do a Google search yourself. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with not liking them and I am not "denying" anything. The sources simply don't define the subject as denialism, the one above is referring to AIDS Denialism. Though behind a paywall, the search results indicate that the reference is to 9/11 conspiracy theories and only noting some common beliefs with AIDS denialists. Also, I did a Google search and save for a few "skeptic" articles nothing used the term denialism to define the 9/11 conspiracy theories.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support all - Already explained above. They fit the category definitions and are sourced. End of story. Toa Nidhiki05 01:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Uh, sorry, where are they sourced?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support denialism and pseudoscience The terms actually are in sources although it has been debated above. Also, they are not necessarily labels but instead useful navigational tools.Cptnono (talk) 01:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
• Weak support of psuedoscience only. While not many sources say pseudoscience directly there are many sources debunking the 9/11 CT's on scientific grounds. Weak support because I still would rather see more sources saying the word itself. Different from the denialism arguments which is just editors believing it fits the definition, one paper and one headline writer. With psuedohistory too early not really any sources. Edkollin (talk) 02:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support denialism and pseudoscience, per above. Seems a bit early for pseudohistory. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 02:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
• Strong support for denialism, weak support for pseudoscience, oppose pseudohistory. Denialism is clear, it's a textbook case as many have mentioned above. About pseudoscience, many if not all conspiracy theories use bad/anti/pseudoscience, that's one of the reasons they are called conspiracy theories. While it fits the criteria, I don't really see any source. The article for example is also not listed here. It's too early for pseudohistory which, if I understand correctly is more about long term evolution of societies. --McSly (talk) 02:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support the first two Pseudohistory is a word I've never used. In fact I don't think I've ever seen it before. Have to think about that one a bit more. HiLo48 (talk) 03:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support the first two though I do think pseudohistory also fits and am certainly not opposed to that one either. Mystylplx (talk) 03:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support denialism and pseudoscience; tend to agree with Edkollin about pseudohistory. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support all 9/11 conspiracy theorists clearly deny the reality of 9/11. Contrary to the claims made by a single editor, there are sources for all three: denialism psueduoscience and psuedohistory. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I suggest people see my response on AQFK's talk page regarding those sources. Also, again, the standard is that of reliable sources, plural, "commonly and consistently" defining the subject this way.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose all: The categories are more meant to judge the opinions of people in the 9/11 truth movement than they are meant for education. I also think since we are still fighting the so-called War on Terrorism, 9/11 can't really be considered a historical event since its effects are still being directly realized so that for reason alone, the 'pseudohistory' tag is unwarranted. I mean hell, the hole in New York City still isn't completely rebuilt over yet! 'Denialism' is an incredibly harsh judgment category that is imo only worthy of the Flat Earth Society and people who don't think Hitler killed anyone. I wouldn't even label Holocaust revisionists denialists, that's how harsh I see the term as being as an academic accusation. Nor would I consider global warming skeptics denialists, I would just say they are, like believers in the Steady State universe theory, in the minority and have the evidence against them. Contrarians, yes, but not deniers. The reason why is because scientific theories, while far more than the wild guesses Creationists believe them to be, are not factual, but simply explain things extremely well. Recent news is showing that even Einstein's theory of relativity might be proven wrong in some ways; so imo to go up against a theory is almost never denialism, since there's usually a small chance the contrarians might actually be correct.

I'm not completely convinced about the truther theories myself, I think the truth could fall anywhere in between the government's account and the more extreme versions of conspiracy theories; it's likely in the middle somewhere.

My opposition for these tags is that they are meant to confer a judgment on people who question the official account of the United States government, rather than trying to actually be educational. They are also trying to imply that 9/11 truthers hate Jews and the categories were purposely selected by the person who added them to compare people in the Truth movement to Neo-Nazis. IMO, unless that judgment is obviously warranted, such as say, calling David Duke an anti-Semite, which is extremely obvious and factual, judgment categories should be avoided as much as possible. Abootmoose (talk) 21:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose all: Pseudohistory because the topic is not historical. The others because they have little substance, they appear to be little more than a means of making personal attacks. For example, an insignificant number of sources are used to justify them while the same editors reject a large number of sources for the Reichstag fire comparison as being insufficient. The sources dont support that the pseudoscience and denialism categories are commonly applied. We do not have a one size fits all conspiracy theory, not all conspiracy theories can legitimately be placed in those categories anyway. Wayne (talk) 07:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Why not? As I see it, every person who doesn't like the official explanation is denying the truth of it. That's denialism. What's the problem with my logic there? HiLo48 (talk) 07:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

You could well say that every person who doesn't believe in global warming is denying the truth of it. That's not denialism. Thats personal interpretation of sometimes ambiguous data despite much of the evidence supporting the case. Foreknowledge, insider trading and other related conspiracy theories can not be disproven by the "official explanation". We also have the problem that some engineers have rejected NISTS computor simulations in a peer reviewed journal. It is indisputable that some kind of coverup was in place to hide incompetence (thats a conspiracy theory as well) and the 9/11 Commission said as much. Too many holes to allow us to generalise the theories. If you want a separate page for each theory then they could be categorized as appropriate. Wayne (talk) 09:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's a valid perspective. Unfortunately, I guess it both includes everybody all at once, and also allows individuals to say "Well, that's not precisely my view, so it doesn't include me". Tricky. HiLo48 (talk) 10:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Global warming denial is most certainly denialism and the Wikipedia article on climate change denial is in category denialism. Mystylplx (talk) 16:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support all for the reasons cited above.JoelWhy (talk) 15:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose pseudoscience and pseudohistory; support denialism. "Pseudoscience" refers to broad theories about the natural world. The 9/11 truthers may make incidental use of disputes about the melting point of materials or the like, but it's certainly not a defining characteristic of their work, which is mainly about a particular event, not about the natural world. "Pseudohistory" must relate to history, which for this purpose means more than just "something that happened in the past" -- I agree with Abootmoose and Wayne that this topic doesn't qualify, at least not yet. (No, I don't know exactly when it will cross the line.) "Denialism" requires only that there be a rejection of a generally accepted view of the facts. That's also an element of calling something a "conspiracy theory" so maybe Category:Conspiracy theories should be made a subcat of Category:Denialism. Until that happens, this article belongs in Category:Denialism. JamesMLane t c 20:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Isn't 9/11 a historic event? The article's topic is a false interpretation of an historic event. That sounds like pseudohistory to me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Obviously 9/11 is an event of historical importance. To me, though, "pseudohistory" has a connotation of not referring to current or recent matters. For example, consider the Bush administration's false claims about Iraq (WMD's, support for al-Qaeda, etc.). These were false statements about a matter of historical importance but I wouldn't call them pseudohistory. (Our article on Niger uranium forgeries isn't categorized under pseudohistory.) I call this a connotation of the term "pseudohistory" because I don't claim to know a bright-line test for when a current dispute passes into the realm of history. JamesMLane t c 21:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

History is anything that happened in the past. The attacks on 9/11 is an historical event today; and, it was an historical event on Sept. 12, 2001. Obviously, in many circumstances, whether an event has any historical importance may not become apparent immediately. And, our understanding of an historical event may change over time. But, the only bright-line test for when something becomes history is whether it's already happened.JoelWhy (talk) 22:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

JamesMLane said: "Denialism" requires only that there be a rejection of a generally accepted view of the facts. That's also an element of calling something a "conspiracy theory" so maybe Category:Conspiracy theories should be made a subcat of Category:Denialism. Until that happens, this article belongs in Category:Denialism.

I, Abootmoose (talk) 21:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC), say no, no, no. I completely, passionately disagree. Denialism is denying something that is absurd to deny. If denialism was defined as a rejection of the generally accepted view of the facts, than people who questioned the idea that the Earth is flat, prior to when we learned otherwise, would be the denialists, not the Flat Earth Society. Also, something being a conspiracy theory doesn't automatically mean it's incorrect, though the term is usually used as a pejorative in this day and age. You forget that some conspiracies, such as Watergate, turned out to be proven true. Actually, even the official explanation of 9/11 is technically a conspiracy theory since it revolves around the belief that Al-Qaeda conspired to blow up the WTC and destroy the White House and Pentagon. So to label ALL conspiracy theories would be far more intolerable than just labelling 9/11 ones alone. Bad, bad idea to bracket conspiracy theories into the denialist category. Abootmoose (talk) 21:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I strongly agree with one of your points, which I myself have made elsewhere -- that the "official" explanation of 9/11 could be characterized as a conspiracy theory in the sense that it involves a conspiracy. As the term "conspiracy theory" is actually used, however, it means a theory that (a) involves a conspiracy, and (b) goes contrary to a widely accepted view, and (c) is wrong, and (d) is not merely wrong, but absurdly wrong. No one would use the term "conspiracy theory" about the 9/11 Commission's report or about blaming Watergate on Republican operatives.

The conclusion I drew, but didn't bother repeating here, is that no Wikipedia article should have a title like "___ conspiracy theories", because those titles are inherently POV. I'd retitle them all. The category could be called "Unorthodox theories" or the like.

As for denialism, our article on Denialism says that it's "choosing to deny reality as a way to avoid an uncomfortable truth...." Thus, both Category:Denialism and Category:Conspiracy theories have, as an element of the definition, that Wikipedians have decided collectively that the views included in the category are false. As long as we have a Category:Conspiracy theories, therefore, it seems that everything in it would also fit under Category:Denialism. JamesMLane t c 06:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that is wrong. Being outside the mainstream is not the same as being false and it shouldn't be regarded as interchangeable.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you as a matter of seeking the truth. As a practical matter of how these Wikipedia categories are defined and applied, though, I'm saying that, for a theory to be admitted to either category, there must be a general feeling among Wikipedians that it's false and "outside the mainstream"/fringe/crackpot/absurd/etc. By contrast, if a theory is disputed but there's thought to be a colorable argument on each side, it wouldn't get into either of these categories.

Anyway, I'm fundamentally unhappy with the very existence of Category:Conspiracy theories (because it has a strong connotation of falsity but some of them might turn out to be true). Therefore, I'm not going to invest time in any proposal to move it under Category:Denialism as a subcat. We can probably just let this aspect of the discussion die. JamesMLane t c 08:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Mention of Reichstag fire comparison

Should the section for "Suggested historical precedents" include the Reichstag Fire as a common comparison made by conspiracy theorists?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support This has been disputed above, on several user talk pages, and on DRN. Here is the last iteration of the insertion: [5]. As you can see the source used is from The Nation and spends two paragraph dealing with the Reichstag comparison and uses it as a segue to a general comment on 9/11 conspiracy theories and conspiracy theorists in general. On top of that source mentioning the comparison are the following sources: [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. The New York Post, Popular Mechanics, and Weekly Standard mentions are especially significant. The Post notes the comparison in relation to a comment by Keith Ellison and spends lot of time connecting it to conspiracy theories. Popular Mechanics cites an article on the conspiracist website Rense criticizing a piece on the conspiracy theories by suggesting Popular Mechanics was covering up the "truth" in the way German media are alleged to have done with the Reichstag. The Weekly Standard mention is significant because it attributes the comparison to David Ray Griffin who is known as a very prominent 9/11 conspiracy theorist. On top of this, there is the fact that the comparison is featured in the film Zeitgeist: The Movie as noted in a previous diff. What is most telling is the number of times when the Reichstag comparison is the only one noted, and noted significantly, as well as the fact it is consistently mentioned in other sources while other comparisons pop up much less often.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose if it is like this A simple mention should not be a problem. However, the additional commentary by Hayes comes across to me as needless bloat that reads like an attempt to win over minds to a certain viewpoint.Cptnono (talk) 19:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

It was meant to address concerns by another editor that the mainstream view of these historical events was not getting covered. Since Hayes also used the comparison to state a general criticism of conspiracy theories I thought it was worthy of mentioning.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

You have been provided with my reasoning for not supporting.Cptnono (talk) 19:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support i would say. It is a comparison that is made a lot. Abootmoose (talk) 22:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Per WP:UNDUE. This is rarely mentioned in reliable sources in connection to this topic. Conspiracy proponents point to numerous historical precidents including:
  • Operation Northwoods
  • The sinking of the USS Maine,
  • The Gulf of Tonkin incident
  • Pearl Harbor attack
  • The Gleiwitz incident

  and probably many more I can't think of off the top of my head. It's unrealistic to have an entire section devoted to each and every one of these claimed precidents. Instead, we should just pick one representative example. Currently, a representative example is already in the article, Operation Northwoods. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose I agree with A Quest For Knowledge that we should use one representative example. If people think the Reichstag fire is a better example than Operation Northwoods then I wouldn't be opposed to removing Operation Northwoods and replacing it with the Reichstag fire, but I would oppose adding it without removing Operation Northwoods. I think that section probably doesn't belong as it is barely pertinent to the topic of the article. Mystylplx (talk) 22:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Both should be included because they go to different ideas. Northwoods has its own unique significance to the conspiracy theories as does the Reichstag fire. The Maine, Gulf of Tonkin, and other real or alleged false-flag incidents are generally just given as random throw-away examples and at best deserve a brief mention all in one sentence. On the other hand Northwoods is used as a model for certain aspects of the conspiracy theories, while the Reichstag fire taps into a very different motive than any of the other examples. The Reichstag fire is prominently linked to the creation of Hitler's dictatorship and many conspiracy theorists see parallels between the Enabling Acts and the Patriot Act. Given all the major reliable sources repeatedly linking this unique comparison to the conspiracy theories it seems bizarre to suggest it shouldn't be mentioned at all or that somehow only one comparison should be mentioned when Northwoods is similarly significant.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what particular significance either one has. I'll concede the Reichstag fire is more similar in that it was a conspiracy theory about a false flag operation. My point was that this article is on 911 conspiracy theories, not on all the false flag conspiracy theories that have ever been. Both of those already have their own articles--their relevance to this article is dubious at best. Mystylplx (talk) 03:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Conditional support. The Reichstag comparison is potentially interesting to readers, is commonly made by conspiracy theorists, and occasionally noted in reliable secondary sources. As such, a brief mention of such a comparison, with specific attribution, would add to the article. Anything more than that is likely to be undue weight. I also disagree that we should pick only one representative example: indeed a sentence each on a range of examples (3-4?) far better illustrates to readers the nature of conspiracy theorists' beliefs than a paragraph on just one example. Geometry guy 23:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support: To rely on "rarely mentioned in reliable sources" is disingenious as WP:RS clearly says unreliable sources can be used for their own beliefs which leaves up with tens of thousands of websites on top of the dozens of accepted RS. The comparisons should be kept as brief as possible, a summary of the belief rather than any detail. Wayne (talk) 07:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

A better question is why is it relevant to this article? The fact that it is sometimes mentioned by conspiracy theorists is not enough. Another argument that is sometimes mentioned by conspiracy theorists is that no buildings have ever collapsed by fire before ... should we have a section on that and briefly mention every building that has caught fire and not collapsed (the conspiracy theorists sometimes mention them) or should we have a section on pyroclastic flows? The conspiracy theorists sometimes claim there were pyroclastic flows on 911, but that doesn't mean it deserves space in this article. The fact is there are hundreds of arguments and claims that are sometimes mentioned by conspiracy theorists, but that doesn't mean that each and every one needs to have its own section in this article. What we have done so far is to only mention the most prevalent aspects of the CT's and those that have been mentioned in RS's. If we start trying to bring in every single claim or argument conspiracy theorists have made this article will become bloated to the point of unreadability. Claims for historical precedents are among the more minor claims. The two examples I gave above are both more prevalent and if they don't deserve space in the article (and they don't) then claims of historical precedents certainly don't deserve space in the article either. Mystylplx (talk) 16:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

You are blowing things out of proportion. The most I proposed for the Reichstag fire comparison was a paragraph, that mostly focused on a reliable source using it as an example to criticize conspiracy theories. It is mentioned numerous times in reliable sources, several times in significant detail, so that justifies some inclusion. Other claims of false flag attacks like with the Maine and Gulf of Tonkin are not mentioned nearly as much so at best a short sentence mentioning these and others would be acceptable, though perhaps there should be a list page created for real and alleged false flag operations and we should send people there to look at most of the other incidents. What makes the Reichstag comparison significant is it is the only one commonly mentioned that involves a domestic political motive, while the others focus on foreign policy motives that are already covered well with Northwoods and the "new Pearl Harbor" mentions in the article. I should say it is not just sometimes mentioned either. David Ray Griffin is one of the lead 9/11 conspiracy theorists and he uses that comparison, Zeitgeist: the Movie includes this comparison in some detail, and numerous other conspiracy theorists cite this as a precedent. It is not only the frequency of the comparisons, but the depth of them that matters. Most other comparisons are throw-aways like I said. A single paragraph in an article this big is not giving undue weight to anything and there are plenty of sources to back up that it is a significant detail concerning the subject.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

A Google news archives search on "Reichstag fire 911" turns up 40 results. A search of the same news archive on "One Meridian Plaza Fire 911" turns up 240 results. One Meridian Plaza is one of those other buildings I mentioned that caught fire and didn't collapse that truthers like to point to. I think this illustrates my point very well. The entire section should really be removed, not added to. Mystylplx (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that there's a stronger argument to removing the section than expanding it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

@Wayne: The issue here is not verifiability, but weight. The Reichstag Fire is largely ignored by secondary reliable sources. If it's so important, why is it being ignored so much? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I tire of this tendency to use raw Google hits to try and argue weight and notability (keep in mind that Google News can bring up various non-notable or unreliable news sources, not to mention duplicate results, that are not generally useful for evaluating weight and notability). If you add a slash to "911" and make it "9/11" you get nearly 350 results, but that isn't even the point. The actual results you get are more valuable than just how many you get. Up above you can look over the sources I provided and see how prominent and significant the mentions have been. As to One Meridian Plaza, when I put that building's name in quotes so it will only bring up results that specifically mention the building I get 11 results in Google News Archives and only one major source appears to make any mention of it directly in connection with the issue you mention, a trivial mention at that.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Cptnono argues that the Hayes material is "needless bloat that reads like an attempt to win over minds to a certain viewpoint." It is such an attempt but is not bloat. We report facts about significant opinions, and NPOV calls for a fair presentation of each conflicting opinion, including the principal facts relied upon. The 9/11 theorists draw an analogy to the Reichstag fire (and I agree with Wayne that in this article we can use non-RS conspiracy theorist sources for information about what those theorists themselves maintain). The Hayes material (as per this edit) is a mainstream presentation of the opposing view concerning the analogy. We shouldn't get into detail about the Reichstag fire, but these two sentences aren't unduly long and are illuminating about the mainstream reaction to conspiracy theories. As for the question posed by A Quest For Knowledge above, the secondary reliable sources generally give short shrift to conspiracy theories; that's part of why we call them conspiracy theories in the first place. The Reichstag comparison would be undue weight in the article about the attacks themselves but is not undue weight in the article about the conspiracy theories. JamesMLane t c 21:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• 9/11 conspiracy theories are very notable and have received plenty of coverage by secondary reliable sources. A Google News Archive search gives me 6,000 hits on 9/11 conspiracy theories.[11] When I add Reichstag fire to the search terms, I only get back 7 hits.[12] When literally 99.9% of sources ignore something, that's a good sign of something that's not worth including. In fact, there's a stronger argument to remove this section from the article than expanding it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

For heaven's sake AQFK, I already explained to you before that your search terms exclude numerous probable results. Not every source will say "9/11 conspiracy theories" in those exact terms but will instead say something like "9/11 conspiracy theorists" or "conspiracy theories about 9/11" or maybe "9/11 Truthers" and those sources will not pop up in your search results. This is why raw google hits are never a good measure for these sorts of questions, because they can be so easily gamed to anyone's specific desires. It is especially irrelevant when you should already know that there are multiple major reliable sources not included in your results, given that I have explicitly linked to them here and on your own talk page as well as including some of those references in previous edits.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

And I already told you, my opinion that it's undue weight is based on the broad range of literature. It's unrealistic for me to ask someone to go read dozens or hundreds of articles. The Google News Archive search results are an nice way to easily judge relative weight. No, it's not perfect, but you haven't offered any other justification for this content. Yes, some of the search results aren't reliable or only contain trivial mentions, but a lot of them are reliable and provide significant coverage. Another way to judge weight is to look at tertiary sources but again, you haven't done this either. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and just to clarify, those are Google News Archive searches, not regular Google searches. WP:HITS doesn't apply. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

It always applies when you are only citing the raw hits from a search and not looking at the specific results. Actually, after my comment above I went and looked at the search results again and came up with several more major sources noting the comparison. That brings us to almost ten major reliable sources that I have provided here to back up the notability of the comparison, without considering those conspiracist sources I have noted that directly attest to its prominent use by 9/11 conspiracy theorists.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia:HITS doesn't saying anything about Google News Archive searches. As I already pointed out, there are literally hundreds, if not, thousands of reliable sources on this topic. A small handful of sources isn't particularly compelling. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Arguing that it does not mention "Google News Archive searches" is textbook wikilawyering. What matters are not how many sources are used but the quality of the mentions and the quality of the sources.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The biggest problem with Google search results is that the vast majority of hits are not reliable sources. Google News Archive Searches - while not perfect - largely resolves this issue by only returning a very limited subset of sources, many of which are reliable. Consider the following: a regular Google search for "9/11 conspiracy theories" returns a whopping 4,960,000 results.[13] By contrast, a Google News Archive search for the exact same search string, returns only 5,320 results.[14] Pointing out this huge difference is hardly Wikilawyering. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

It is most definitely wikilawyering. Raw hits alone should not be the basis of an argument for notability or due weight period. Look at my response to Toa below on why 6,000 hits by itself means nothing.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, if you think that it's most definitely wikilawyering, then you should file a request to enforce sanctions. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong or immoral about wikilawyering. Policies matter. They articulate common ground and help us to work together in improving the encyclopedia, in large part by indicating what "improving the encyclopedia" means. However, they are means to an end, not an end in themselves, and every time someone quotes a policy it should be clear why the particular application of the policy in that particular case will make the article better. Geometry guy 00:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

What? Are you seriously saying I have provided "no other justification" than search results? I have provided multiple major news sources that directly mention this comparison, several doing so in significant detail.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I missed some but I count two that mention it more than a single time in passing, and neither of those goes into any significant detail. Mystylplx (talk) 05:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm not knowledgeable on this issue, so I let the debate go on - as it did, it became clearer to me that this isn't notable even in the fringe Truther community. I therefore oppose this in any way, shape, or form being put in the article. Toa Nidhiki05 22:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

How did it "become clear" to you that this is the case? If you are looking at AQFK's argument then you should reconsider. Here are the results you get when you search for "9/11 conspiracy Reichstag fire": [15]. Again, though, you should consider what major reliable sources actually say above all else. Sources like this one: [16].--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I should also note that AQFK doubles up on misusing search results by presenting the raw hits for "9/11 conspiracy theories" to compare to his search for "Reichstag fire" and using this to argue weight. The reality is that most results for "9/11 conspiracy theories" are completely trivial or merely commenting on x group or x person espousing them, without dealing much with the conspiracy theories themselves. AQFK would have you believe that because an article doesn't mention the Reichstag fire comparison when mentioning that some celebrity like Charlie Sheen or some middle eastern leader like Ahamadinejad is espousing conspiracy theories it means the numerous mentions that we do have are not enough to justify so much as a single sentence in this massive article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with that last point because I think that you and AQFK are both overemphasizing search results. The Reichstag comparison is a part of this body of thought -- not a huge part, but enough to warrant mention. The two sentences about the Nation piece give the other side and, beyond the specifics of the Reichstag comparison, are illuminating about the 9/11 conspiracy mindset in general. JamesMLane t c 04:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - it's putting the cart before the horse, and it's undue weight. The article should not be a soapbox making the cases pro and con synthesized from primary sources, but should be a neutral summary of how the reliable sources describe the theories. Based on the sources I've seen, there's no reason to elevate the Reichstag fire to prominence other than that some Truthers think it's compelling. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)\

On any other article, I'd agree with you -- but article is about the conspiracy theory. Everything in it is there only because some Truthers think it's compelling, or because it disputes something that Truthers think is compelling. JamesMLane t c 04:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to a brief mention, something along the lines of "Some conspiracy theorists believe the events of 9/11 were planned as a false flag operation in much the same way the Reichstag fire was commonly believed to have been planned by the Nazi's." But such a mention should be included in an appropriate place in the existing text--it doesn't need it's own section. Same with Operation Northwoods. Mystylplx (talk) 05:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

If we included the brief mention you suggest, would you agree with also including something about the opposing opinion, reflected in the Nation piece? JamesMLane t c 14:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure I understand. How can you have an opposing opinion on this? Do some people believe this event paralleled the Reichstag Fire? Yes. Clearly the Wiki article can't imply this is a view supported by any evidence. But, we're dealing with fantasies, here. The fact that people believe in certain fantasies is indisputable. I think the only think to discuss here is whether the belief is sufficiently notable to warrant a mention here.

Frankly, I'm fine with including it or leaving it out. If it's included, a brief mention is fine. This certainly doesn't warrant a lengthy discussion within the article.JoelWhy (talk) 14:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm coming here as an uninvolved editor per the RfC, so maybe I'm misunderstanding the details of the dispute. I thought the question was about having some passage like the following, which was added by this edit:

Parallels have also been drawn between the 9/11 attacks and the Reichstag fire incident in Weimar Germany, with conspiracy theorists suggesting that the 9/11 attacks were staged by the government to undermine civil liberties and democracy. Chris Hayes of The Nation described this comparison as "instructive" with regards to 9/11 conspiracy theories stating that, while suspicion towards the Nazis seemed reasonable and common, "the consensus among historians is that it was, in fact, the product of a lone zealous anarchist." Hayes added that benefiting from the event does not mean the Nazis caused it to occur and that this same reasoning applies to 9-11 and the Bush Administration.

My view is that this short passage does help the reader understand one aspect of the dispute over the 9/11 conspiracy theories -- some proponents' view as to the motive for the hoax, and some opponents' response. JamesMLane t c 18:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - Conspiracy proponents frequently liken their pet theory to notable moments in history that were (or appear to be) set up to manipulate the public. September 11 is no different. There does not appear to be any real movement or effort to associate the two events, just a few off-hand comments. That's not enough reason to include it in the article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Here are some of the sources that make significant or prominent mentions of it: [17] [18] [19] [20]. In addition one of the sources not David Ray Griffin as making the comparison and it has been previously noted, you can see the source in the edit history, that Zeitgeist: the Movie made this comparison and I can give you a source for that comparison being noted as in the movie if you like.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the main point is this article is on 911 conspiracy theories. The Reichstag fire is not a 911 conspiracy theory. It really doesn't matter how common or uncommon it is for 911 conspiracy theorists to attempt to draw comparisons, it's not a 911 conspiracy theory and is really not relevant to this article. Mystylplx (talk) 02:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

What matters is that the comparison is common for 9/11 conspiracy theorists when explaining what they think the conspiracy was about. They think it has relevance and a lot of reliable sources apparently think the comparison is also something worth talking about when discussing 9/11 conspiracy theories. Your opinion on its relevance does not determine its relevance. Only coverage in reliable sources can determine that.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The Reichstag fire is not a 911 conspiracy theory. And of all the reliable sources you've shown a grand total of two mention it more than a single mention just in passing. I wouldn't call that "a lot." Mystylplx (talk) 04:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not denying the comparison has been made. It's not notable with regard to Sept. 11 conspiracy theories; a few off-hand comments don't make for a serious attempt to associate the two. I've seen conspiracists liken many events to the Reichstag fire, because that event is commonly believed to have been a set-up by the Nazis. Any anti-government conspiracy eventually mentions the Reichstag fire, in an attempt to imply that "Event X" was a government attempt to sway the public.

For this to be notable, it would have had to create a stir in the media or at least be a central part of the Sept. 11 rhetoric. All we have here are some pretty off-the-cuff comments that aren't even the focus of the articles in question. That's not enough to justify dragging the canard into this article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Mentions of Reichstag fire

To try and cover more plainly what makes the comparison sufficiently significant to mention in the article I will lay it out here as plainly as I can.

1. Trivial mentions in a major reliable source do have some value in determining notability if such mentions are frequent in regards to a subject. Here we have four articles that mention the comparison only briefly: [21] [22] [23] [24]. Look at the kind of publications we are talking about. The Australian, The New York Times, and The Weekly Standard are all leading news publications. The New York Sun is less significant, but still merits a mention. While all of these sources mention the comparison with others, the other comparisons are each only mentioned in one of those sources. More important is how they are mentioned. In The Australian it is brought up in the second paragraph of the article in describing the beliefs of the conspiracy theorists. The prominence given to this mention and its use in describing the views of conspiracy theorists makes it of significant note. All the other sources attribute it to some group of conspiracy theorists or individual conspiracy theorists. In that we have another significant mention from The Weekly Standard where David Ray Griffin is mentioned as making the comparison in one of his books. Him being a notable conspiracy theorist and this a major source noting his use of the comparison makes a seemingly trivial mention much more significant. Another mention is in The Washington Post behind a paywall: [25]. That is more in line with the Sun and Times mentions of the comparison, but is yet another added point of notability.
2. Mentions in conspiracist sources provide some additional insight into how common this type of comparison is relative to others. Perusing through the following sources shows that, while other comparisons are sometimes made, the Reichstag fire comparison is the most common save for mentions of Northwoods: [26] [27] [28] [29]. One of the instances where this comparison is made that was included in a previous attempt to insert the comparison refers to Zeitgeist: the Movie. The following source was provided: [30]. You can go down to page 216 of the PDF to see where it details the comparison to the Reichstag. The Other McCain, a blog by Robert Stacy McCain, mentions this comparison from the movie here when talking about Jared Lee Loughner, blaming left-wing rhetoric supposedly exemplified by the movie as motivating Loughner's actions. The comparison's inclusion in Zeitgeist adds more to its prominence in the conspiracy theories.
3. The comparison has also been used in connection with a major news story concerning Keith Ellison. Here are a few samples of the coverage on that issue: [31] [32] [33]. Notably in the New York Post article it says Ellison "parroted a comparison made by 9/11 conspiracy groups" and the article describes allegations about the Reichstag fire while noting its relevance to the conspiracy theories. The other two news pieces cover it as echoing conspiracy theories or implying a conspiracy. Other news stories also reported on the dispute by mentioning the conspiracy theories. Hand's remark about it needing to "create a stir in the media" would appear to be satisfied by the reporting around that event.
4. Finally we have those mentions in major sources concerning the conspiracy theories that go into a little more detail. First is a mention in Popular Mechanics. There it is cited as one of the responses to a Popular Mechanics article on the conspiracy theories where the magazine's report is associated with the way claims of Nazi complicity in the Reichstag fire were allegedly treated in German media at the time. Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts includes that article with the comparison. An article in the Weekly Standard mentions this comparison as well, though attributing it to a specific brand of German "trutherism" with the comparison being noted in the headline of the article. Then we have the article in The Nation that I have noted several times. Once more, the amount of attention given to the comparison in a major reliable source is what vests it with more notability than the typical comparison made by conspiracy theorists. We also have a significant mention in a book by Jonathan Kay here: [34]. Most importantly is the source says the comparison is "almost as frequently cited as Nortwoods" in conspiracist literature.

I do not see any evidence that any comparison save the Northwoods one has gotten the kind of attention that the Reichstag Fire comparison has gotten. Given the level and frequency of coverage connecting this to the conspiracy theories I certainly do not see any reason to exclude any mention of it at all.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I won't have time to go through that many articles until the weekend. I will state that casual mentions are just that: casual mentions. They don't indicate notability of anything. And casual mentions aren't a "stir in the media." Swiftboating was a stir in the media for the Kerry campaign for Presidency. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Keep in mind that there are literally thousands of sources on the article topic. A handful of articles isn't particularly impressive IMHO. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Stop repeating claims that have already been demonstrated as inaccurate. An article on Charlie Sheen that mentions he is a truther or an article on Ahmadinejad noting the same thing is not likely to also mention the Reichstag comparison, or anything else specific for that matter. Most mentions of 9/11 conspiracy theories in reliable sources are passing mentions that naturally are not going to include many details about those theories. Seriously, look at most of those results you get. The first few pages are mostly articles about x person or group espousing conspiracy theories, with a somewhat lesser number of sources being about x group or study that has reportedly debunked a claim made in some conspiracy theories. Stop abusing search results while ignoring the actual sources that are being presented.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The stuff about Keith Ellison certainly qualifies as a stir. His comments comparing 9/11 to the Reichstag fire were being directly connected to 9/11 conspiracy theories by several major news sources.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

An RFC was opened. it is going against. Arguing against every opposition already throws off that already ongoing conversation. Opening up a sub conversation takes even more away from the discussion you already started. Consensus is against you. It sucks but that is the way it is. Let the process play itself out without even more distraction. Cptnono (talk) 05:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

From what I can tell we are split evenly. Also, most of my argumentative remarks have been to two specific editors, really just one honestly. My comments to other editors have been to try and direct them to sources and that is what this subsection is about.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your deprecation of starting a separate thread. I disagree with your assertion about consensus. Just looking at the boldfaced !votes, and counting one "Conditional support" as a "Support", I see 5 "Support" and 6 "Oppose". That means there's no consensus, at least so far. JamesMLane t c 06:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually Cptnono gave a conditional oppose above that indicated he would support mentioning it and Myst also signaled conditional support for a mention in the article. Their disagreement appears to be on how it is mentioned, when the question is only whether one would support a mention.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I get what you both are saying. Let the RfC die and instead draft a proposal that can actually gain consensus. At this time, there is at least not consensus to make any changes. Wikipedia is weird like that. Cptnono (talk) 06:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Peter Knight is now behind a paywall

I just noticed that Peter Knight is now behind a paywall.[35] If anyone needs a copy, it's available at archive.org.[36] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

No-Planes theory

This has been included in the article for some time, but it completely fails WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. We have one or two articles cited that make very fleeting mentions of the no-planes theory and I can find few sources of any kind that explicitly mention this notion of "holograms" of planes concealing missiles. Those few reliable sources that do mention it ever so briefly often note that it is considered fringe even within the 9/11 conspiracist community. I suggest we remove all mention of it. Leave any talk of it to the pages of those few who actually propose the notion.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense. There are dozens of references to the no-plane theory, ranging from finge CT websites to reliable sources discussing the claims. Just because it's embarrassing to many within conspiracy theory circles doesn't mean you get to whitewash it from Wikipedia. Hmmm, almost sounds like a conspiracy by 9/11 truthers to hide the claim! ;) JoelWhy (talk) 19:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say it should be removed from Wikipedia altogether. However, I don't think it should be included in this article. These claims are not really "discussed" in any major sources that I can find. An article on someone notable who believes such a thing may be a legitimate place to include such information, but not here in the main article on the conspiracy theories. That gives the theory more attention than any reliable source has given it, and the few instances where the mainstream conspiracists bother to take the time to ridicule the theory do not really warrant a mention. At the absolute most there could be a trifling mention in like one sentence, not a whole subsection.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

While the "no planes hit the Twin Towers" theory is pretty fringe, "no plane hit the Pentagon" was a major CT proposal for a long time and got significant press. Primarily because the DoD won't release security footage of the impact; just one grainy film from a nearby gas station was released, and that only snapped photos every few seconds, and did not clearly show the plane. There were accusations that the first impact at the Towers was not a plane, because no film existed of the impact... except there is a film of that impact, just not as widely disseminated as video of the second plane impact. Once that was clearly shown, CT-ers moved on to other ideas, with a few fringe holdouts adhering to "holograms," "space lasers" and other nonsense. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Those were claims of a different nature. We actually have a section devoted to the Pentagon and claims about a plane not hitting it. However, what we are talking about are the claims about things like mini-nukes, directed energy weapons, and holographic planes.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Yep. There are claims like this all over conspiracy websites. No one is saying this is the most prominent position. But, it's certainly a claim that's been made time and time again (separate and apart from the 'no plane hitting the Pentagon' CT.)JoelWhy (talk) 21:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

It has been claimed by a few random YouTube videos, some amateur blogs, and a few people of meager notability. Very rarely some non-notable conspiracist source will have an article attacking the claims. A few times it gets mentioned in more prominent conspiracist sources to note it as a joke or absurd notion. Then there are a few points where a mainstream news source will rattle off a bunch of different 9/11 conspiracy theories in a single sentence and throw "no-planes" in the bunch. Only when discussing those few actual proponents does any major source spend more time on it, hence why I think it should be limited to the articles of those proponents.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Right, so CT forums have had to ban people from posting about the 'no planes' theory because virtually no one was posting about the 'no planes' theory. Right...JoelWhy (talk) 22:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The Internet is a big place and there are hundreds of millions of people on it. You can find people advocating just about any weird-ass idea you want and they can disseminate it out to any unknown number of gullible people. Dozens of people buying into something can be enough to generate that kind of attention from an Internet forum.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Keep Well sourced and the section does not that other truthers are not enamored of these theories it. Edkollin (talk) 21:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Here is what one of the sources says:

“ She's convinced, based on her freelance research, that a bomb went off about six minutes before an airplane hit the Pentagon — or didn't hit it, as some believe the case may be. ”

Not only is that incredibly trivial, it is a reference to the specific claims regarding the Pentagon not claims that no planes were involved at all. Another source is the Phoenix New Times that, in an eight-page report, has one trivial mention at the bottom of page 4 much like the one above (though it at least mentions there are people who believe no planes were involved anywhere) and another small paragraph (two sentences long) on page 5 noting that conspiracy sites regularly try to drive away adherent of those kinds of views. The Times article appears to only reference it with regards to David Shayler, one of the few apparent adherents of the view.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree, the "no planes" WRT the Twin Towers is an idea even prominant CTs disavow. It's too fringe to include here. The only "no planes" concept that held on for long, and garnered real attention, was regarding the Pentagon. So I'd say Delete the section on the Towers, but Keep the section on the Pentagon. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. The idea that "no planes" theories should not be discussed in this article because it would be undue weight (or fringe of fringe) is a similar conceptual error to the idea that "conspiracy theories" should not be mentioned in the main 9/11 article for similar reasons. "No planes" theories are for sure among the least credible CTs out there, and hence have relatively few adherents. That means we should not include them as prominent examples of what conspiracy theorists believe, nor should we discuss them extensively.

However, it does not mean they are not notable (in the English language sense) or worthy of inclusion: indeed some such theories are worth mentioning precisely because they represent extreme examples of CT beliefs, and reliable secondary sources refer to them (at least as much as they refer to Reichstag Fire comparisons, for instance). It is informative for the reader to see a wide range of 9/11 CTs (as reported in RSS) to give them a broad perspective on the CT landscape, and allow them to make up their own mind what they believe. Geometry guy 22:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Popular Mechanics tackled "16 of the most prevalent claims made by conspiracy theorists...," including the 'no planes' theory. [37]JoelWhy (talk) 22:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

That article is about claims that the object "didn't look like a commercial airliner," not that there were no planes. In fact, the only mention close to that is a passing mention that it was "...something else, perhaps refueling tankers or guided missiles." Not enough to be a source for the "no planes" theory, by any stretch. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

"The jets that struck New York and Washington, D.C., weren't commercial planes, they say, but something else, perhaps refueling tankers or guided missiles."JoelWhy (talk) 22:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Refueling tankers are planes.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Guided missiles are not planes.JoelWhy (talk) 22:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

And that's the only comment that even implies the object which struck the tower was not a plane. The very definition of "passing mention." — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. This is not a case of something being prominently and regularly mentioned with regards to the subject of the article. Conspiracy theories about 9/11 have been mentioned all over the place in the media and thus merited a mention in the 9/11 article. However, this is completely different. Mentions of the no-planes theories, the ones that talk about holograms and directed energy weapons, are obscure even within the conspiracist literature, never mind the mainstream literature. Within the conspiracist community you will find all sorts of claims with varying degrees of acceptance. Should we mention Project Blue Beam in the New World Order article? Of course not. The Internet means any random idea can gain some level of support, but the key is whether the support is significant enough and mentioned enough to merit inclusion. On this matter it only seems to be worthy of mentioning on the articles of adherents like David Shayler, not an article that is supposed to be about the most prominent conspiracy theories.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The fallacy is to look to the conspiracist literature rather than RSS commentary on CTs. RSS do refer to "no planes" theories, perhaps more often than they do to Reichstag fire comparisons, whose mention here you support. Sauce for the goose, TDA... Geometry guy 22:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

No need to antagonize, Guy. And if you'd care to link a few RSes that are specifically about the "no planes" with regards to the Towers, it would be appreciated. So far, we don't have anything in the article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I was not: if you or TDA believe I am antagonizing, my user talk page is this way... and we can discuss it. I'm not interested in a fight, quite the opposite: consistency and clear reasoning is my main interest. Editors from all viewpoints tend to make much stronger demands on reliable sourcing for issues whose inclusion they oppose, than they do when they support. That is what "sauce for the goose..." means. Geometry guy 23:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC) PS. My name is not "Guy" and "Back down, please" is an edit summary that does not do you credit.

I always try to apply an equal standard to any issue. Sometimes I miss a source or two, but I have not at any point insisted on a stronger cause for inclusion.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean reliable sources or RSS feed? I can tell you right now that the disparities in reliable sources are only slightly less severe between mentions of the no-planes theory and Reichstag comparisons. So far I have not seen a single major source that has spent more than one sentence on the subject, most of the time it gets one flippant mention within a sentence.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Ignoring your first sentence, I didn't understand the second one: please explain. For the third, who defines "major" or "flippant"? Linked below is an article in the New Statesman with extensive discussion. Why do you find such material less compelling that material on Reichstag fire comparisons? Just because it is about David Shayler? If so, why? If not, what? Geometry guy 23:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

One guy's opinion is not a good reason to include the claim here and give his personal belief greater notoriety than it deserves. As to my second sentence, I am saying that the mentions of the Reichstag comparison are more frequent and more significant than those few mentions I can find of the no-planes theory. "Major" and "flippant" are pretty straightforward. I am not even sure why those would need explaining.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining what you meant about your view of the relative mentions of Reichstag fire comparisons and "no planes" theories. Geometry guy 00:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Here's yet another reference to the 'no plane' theory: http://www.newstatesman.com/200609110028 — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoelWhy (talk • contribs) 23:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

That entire article appears to be about David Shayler and his girlfriend. More reason to include it in his article, as opposed to this one.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Why "as opposed to this one" rather than "in more detail than a brief mention this one"? Geometry guy 23:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Because any random person of meager notability can get a few headlines by spouting off some random idea. We should not be elevating it to the level of more widespread beliefs.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree about widespread beliefs, and said as much above. That does not mean suppressing information from the article either. David Shayler is not some random person: he gets media attention as a former MI5 agent. There are many variants of "no planes" including "no commercial airliners". The article should address this issue, because it is commented upon in RSS (even if only "in passing"). It is not beyond the wit of editors here to do so without implying that such theories are widely believed in the CT community. Geometry guy 00:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The article should avoid mentioning something so insignificant that most mentions are little more than "and these really crazy people who think x" because it gives that notion undue weight. What we have is a classic case of a fringe theory being given undue weight in an article. I think this should be taken as a lesson in when this sort of guideline actually applies.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I will simply point out that different standards are being applied to No planes theory and Reichstag fire and well they should be. In the first case we are talking about a 911 conspiracy theory in an article on 911 conspiracy theories. In the second we are talking about an unrelated conspiracy theory, that 911 conspiracy theorists like to point to, in an article about 911 conspiracy theories. The standards for inclusion should be much higher in the second case as that's not what this article is about. Mystylplx (talk) 00:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I see your point and am sympathetic to it, but this all depends so much on the purpose of mentioning a theory, and the nature of the mention. Neither of these issues are being given as examples of a "typical" 9/11 CT. One may be worth mentioning as an extreme 9/11 CT, the other as a historical comparison. Even there, exactly how or why such mentions are made are important considerations. We aren't comparing like with like, and so we have to find reasonable compromises (based on RSS of course). Geometry guy 00:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

"I think it should be here" is not a legitimate argument. You do not get to dictate the standards for inclusion. We all abide by the same policies and same guidelines. The only significant mention we have focuses on one person, with the rest generally being shorter than a sentence. Just because you think it is more deserving of a mention here than something you do not want here, does not mean you can dictate new rules for inclusion to accommodate your position. At best we can justify a single sentence somewhere in the body of the article, not a paragraph with its own section.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Keep You can't decide what theory gets space here. It is ridiculous. And everyone else thinks the other theories are just as absurd. RS gives it some space. We should continue to give it some space. It should not be the only talked about theory but it deserves some chunk of the article. Note that a portion of the space ridicules it. Nothing wrong with giving the opposition some space.Cptnono (talk) 05:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

If people are deciding based on a perception of them as equally absurd than that is a serious problem. Anyone who can't recognize that pseudoscientific claims of holographic airliners are of an entirely different character than claims of a technologically feasible controlled demolition shouldn't be commenting on this subject at all. However, how absurd you think a theory is has no bearing on this. What matters is whether it gets mentioned enough to merit inclusions and whether mentioning it here gives the theory undue weight. Hell, this is put under "main theories" so that is plainly undue weight right there as no one actually thinks this is a "main theory" in any way. We have several articles relating to the various conspiracy theories and this one is the flagship article if you will. Sources do not mention this as having any legitimacy amongst the vast majority of conspiracy theorists so putting it here smacks of undue weight and there really isn't a logical article it can be included in save those of the few notable adherents.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

But sources do discuss how it absurd. it is so out there that even proponents of a conspiracy think it is absurd. That in itself deserves mention. You can't draw the line on absurdity. That is the way it is when trying to be contrary. Someone being even more contrary is all of a sudden the idiot?

But me being cute and funny aside: This is the exact same thing as the fire. Some editors thought that we should mention the fire. But instead of mentioning it they wanted to write more than a paragraph. But when trying to tone down the mention of something clearly in sources they go for full-on removal. Editors need to stop being extreme in their preferred edits/removals. TLDR=don't be a hypocrite.Cptnono (talk) 05:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not being a hypocrite. The situations are different because the depth and nature of coverage is different. Also, the idea itself is different. My standards have not changed. The leading conspiracy theorists frequently use the Reichstag fire as a way to bolster their argument, while the no-planes theory is rarely ever mentioned and when it is mentioned it is only with dismissal and hostility. Reliable sources mention it in passing as the bizarre fringe among fringe. A brief mention in one sentence is the most I can see reason for (even that only tepidly), certainly not a subsection in the "main theories" area of the article. My thought is that this is a textbook case of where undue weight suggests not mentioning it in this article at all. On the article about David Shayler it makes sense as he is the only noteworthy advocate of the theory as far as I know.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I've seen various fringe theories espoused by one or two crazies on Youtube. I would not propose that those views are of such importance that they deserve mention here (or on Wiki at all, for that matter.) But, here we have a theory that has been widely reported, discussed debated, etc. The very fact that so many conspiracy theorists have had to publicly condemn this theory as being fringe (even going so far as to accuse the government, etc of perpetuating this theory in order to discredit the "legitimate" conspiracy theories) is indicative of just how prevalent the theory is. Again, the fact that it's an embarrassment to '9/11 truthers' doesn't mean you get to sanitize the Wiki page to remove mention of it. We've provided ample sources for the claim, and your arguments against it are entirely unpersuasive.JoelWhy (talk) 13:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

There are all sorts of ideas that the mainstream of conspiracism reject and regard the way you mention. Not every loony idea is notable just because most conspiracy theorists happen to agree that it is loony. No one has provided "ample sources" for this at all. As I noted, one of the sources is not even talking about this specific theory and another is a minor news outlet (about 90,000 subscribers in the Phoenix area) that buries very brief mentions on page 4 and 5 of an eight-page article. The only significant mentions that have been shown are entirely about one guy who adheres to the view. Even mentions in conspiracist sources are sparse. It has nothing to do with "sanitizing" the page at all. The theory just plain doesn't belong here.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I should note the burden is on those wanting to keep it to prove that it is worthy of remaining.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

No, where did you get that idea from? This has been in the article for quite some time. The burden in on those who seek to change consensus. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

How long something is in an article means nothing. The burden is on you to establish that the material meets the standard for inclusion.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

That's silly. If you want to remove long standing content the burden is on you to show there is consensus to do so. Obviously the consensus is the opposite. This debate is starting to become tendentious. Mystylplx (talk) 18:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

It is not tendentious to say those wanting to keep the material should back up that it does not give the claims undue weight. When all the major conspiracist sources reject it, reliable sources rarely mention it for more than half a sentence with even those mentions few and far between, and the only notable mentions pertain to one specific proponent the argument for including it in the main article for the conspiracy theories falls flat on its face.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• Keep This article is about 9/11 conspiracy theories, and articles are supposed to be comprehensive. It would be strange to omit this conspiracy theory in an article about such theories. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Here's an summary of a set of videos produced by Michael Shermer discussing the no planes theory. http://www.michaelshermer.com/2007/09/911-conspiracies-fact-or-fiction/

And, here's an article from The Daily Mail which talks about the theory. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2056088/Footage-kills-conspiracy-theories-Rare-footage-shows-WTC-7-consumed-fire.html

And, don't get me started on the scores of major conspiracy websites discussing this. Your argument has no merit, it's time to move on.JoelWhy (talk) 17:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Congrats, you have found a single article from a major news source that is not about David Shayler giving it more than half a sentence of coverage on the first page. That it took you this long to find something like that says more than anything. As for the video, I am not going to dig through all the video coverage. Where is the mention of no-planes?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The link is not to the video, but to the summary which includes the no plane theory. And, Wiki is not bound to your arbitrary rules of what does or does not constitute an appropriate source. You have been provided with numerous links discussing the theory, and there are plenty more. But, to be clear, I'm not trying to convince you or change your mind -- the fact that you believe in any of the conspiracy theories discussed on this page tells me that you and I do not share the same understanding of altering views and opinions based upon the available evidence.JoelWhy (talk) 18:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

You should check the summary again. It is talking about the claims specifically regarding the Pentagon, not the general no-planes theory. We already mention the cruise missile stuff in the Pentagon section. Nowhere did I challenge the sources you used, only the significance of the mentions in the sources. Also, I never said anywhere that I believe any of the conspiracy theories. Rather, I just recognize that certain theories have more legitimacy than others and that someone putting out the technologically plausible notion of a controlled demolition is not the equivalent of someone making the pseudoscientific claim that the planes were holograms. I also recognize that any conspiracy theory, no matter how fringe, is liable to get lots of coverage in conspiracist sources relative to what it gets in mainstream sources and that mainstream sources may very well make fleeting mentions of it. That you can find a source saying something does not automatically mean it merits inclusion.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Ahh, you are correct. I have not seen the videos, so I do not know whether the theory is discussed there. But, if you want other articles discussing the theory, I can certainly provide them. (e.g. From ScienceBlogs, http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/01/your_friday_dose_of_woo_no_planes_no_bra.php) As I've stated before, no one is saying that all 9/11 CTs should be included, or that all such CTs are equivalent. Is the 'moon landing hoax' CT more plausible than a David Icke CT about shape-shifting aliens? Sure, but that's not to say either one isn't a fringe theory or that one deserves discussion but the other doesn't because it is even 'less' plausible. But, the 'no plane' theory has been discussed by the media, on CT websites, etc, etc. It would be a glaring omission to remove it from this article.JoelWhy (talk) 19:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Some blogger who goes scouring the Internet for things to debunk every week saying he hadn't heard of it years after it was first noted doesn't make for a compelling case. Again this is the main article on the conspiracy theories. People are taken here from the article on the 9/11 attacks. It should inform them properly about the most common claims of conspiracy theorists. Including this here gives people the impression that it has more currency in the conspiracist community than it actually does.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

Rather than having the mention of the no-planes stuff here, how about we move mentions of it to the 9/11 Truth movement article under the "internal critiques" section? There it can be rewritten to more closely focus on the criticism from the majority of the conspiracist community.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. The above debate is ongoing. Toa Nidhiki05 00:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Please give an actual position on the proposal.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose is an actual position.

Not when you are only saying it because of an ongoing debate.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

*Oppose we don't want to get all into what some conspiracy theorists said about the conspiracy theories of other conspiracy theorists. This is not a platform for conspiracy theorists to air their arguments amongst themselves, nor are such arguments relevant to the article. Mystylplx (talk) 02:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I am proposing the article on the Truth movement mention their behavior towards these sorts of theories, not this one. Looking above many people were arguing that the theories were notable for the mere fact that conspiracy theorists were so hostile to them, so I figured it makes sense to put talk about no-planes in the section of the 9/11 Truth Movement article where internal criticism of competing conspiracy theories is mentioned.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

They are not notable for the mere fact that Truthers are hostile to the theory. They are notable because some Truthers proposed this theory and it was covered in various news outlets, discussed on virtually every conspiracy theory website, etc. As the article here points out, many Truthers are hostile to this theory, which is notable, but's not the primary reason the no planes theory is notable. So, again, I agree it should be included in the Truthers article, but it certainly shouldn't be removed from this one.JoelWhy (talk) 16:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose 9/11 conspiracy theories should be covered in the article about 9/11 conspiracy theories, not some ancillary article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Mention it in both places if you want but don't cover up the truth... oh wait. Many people think all of the theories are ridiculous. This is what it feels like to be astonished by something that you feel is preposterous. Weird, huh? But more inline with our standards: It deserves the weight that sources give it. The fact that it gets credit for being ridiculous shows that it deserves some space. Let the prose do the talking since this article is not here for you or me to make a point but instead here to reflect the knowledge of the subject as seen in the sources. Cptnono (talk) 06:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose No problem with also including it in the Truther article, but that does nothing to detract from that fact that it needs to remain included in this page.JoelWhy (talk) 13:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Propose removing the Suggested historical precedents section

1. The article is on 911 conspiracy theories, not on every conspiracy theory regarding a purported false flag operation that has ever existed, and that's exactly what that section will grow into if not nipped in the bud.

2. The section adds nothing to the article--what the conspiracy theorists believe about the motivations for the conspiracy are already covered in the lead. Mystylplx (talk) 19:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree as currently worded does not add much. Section needs to be altered to show why 9/11 CT's keep on bringing it up. The International Herald Tribune Columnist we are using as a cite argues that because of these "precedents" you should not dismiss all 9/11 truther theories out of hand. I don't have reliable sources yet but there are many people who will say while the government lies everyday and is evil they would not go so far as to attack their own country. These truthers use these "precedents" to say see the US governments has done it before or in the case of Operation Northwoods it got very high up he food chain. Edkollin (talk) 22:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

This article isn't supposed to be a platform to showcase all the various arguments that CT's have made, especially those that are so tenuously related to the subject matter of the article. On top of that there's the fact that Operation Northwoods was never implemented and most historians agree that the Reichstag fire was not a Nazi conspiracy, false flag operation, or anything of the sort. There are all kinds of peripheral arguments that CT's make and those arguments can be included where appropriate within the body of the article if they are notable and if the context demands it. We don't need an entire section devoted to them, though. Mystylplx (talk) 00:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Some reworking of how the subject is covered makes sense, but not removing the material altogether.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand the concern in point one, but the comparisons have some strong relevance for conspiracy theorists. Many point to these cases to present the 9/11 conspiracy theories as having credibility. Several are significantly tied up with claims of conspiracy theorists. As I noted above, perhaps a separate article listing the various real or alleged false flag attacks could be linked to from the section to cover those not mentioned, while only mentioning those of note. Perhaps the section itself should be redone to put the comparisons in their broader context, the idea of conspiracies shaping history with 9/11 just the latest instance, but we definitely should include the most notable parallels mentioned by conspiracy theorists.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

"Many point to these cases to present the 9/11 conspiracy theories as having credibility." I understand that may be why you want them included, but that's not a reason to include them or (particularly) for them to have their own section. This article is on 911 conspiracy theories and these are not 911 conspiracy theories. I'm not opposed to them being mentioned at all if there's a place in the article where such mention would fit in a natural and logical way, but I don't think they deserve their very own section. Mystylplx (talk) 18:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd managed to overlook that section somehow. The whole section should go. The false flag is a common trope for CTs, but there's nothing notable about this in regards to Sept. 11. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

What exactly would you call a staged terrorist attack meant to be blamed on some other party to justify major policy initiatives? Obviously, the MIHOP theories are alleging a false attack so it is definitely notable.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic towards removing it from the article. There's certainly a stronger case for removing it than expanding it. But I'll reserve judgement until more people weigh in here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

How on earth is there a stronger case? Of all the conspiracist subjects out there this one is particularly notable for this emphasis on finding historical precedents. Essentially, the 9/11 conspiracy theorists use these other claims to give their theories a greater perception of legitimacy. It is a characteristic of these conspiracy theories, whether you like it or not, and should be mentioned. How it is mentioned is a matter for discussion.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The Reichstag Fire isn't a 9/11 conspiracy theory. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Good thing no one is suggesting we say that. The suggestion is that this is a widely-cited comparison made by conspiracy theorists, just like Northwoods, as a way to try and bolster their case and therefore merits inclusion.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Simply put, this isn't deserving of its own section. Damn near every conspiracy theory throws false flag out as if it explains everything. It's not unique or even notable to the Sept. 11 attacks as its own point, but wouldn't be out of place including a few lines elsewhere in the article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I am struggling to think of a situation where other conspiracy theories cite alleged false flag attacks so frequently. Reworking the section makes sense to me, not removing it.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Morgan Reynolds, and a bug hitting your windshield

Let's get Morgan Reynolds's assertion right. Morgan Reynolds is saying that, because steel is stronger than aluminium, it can be scientifically predicted that an aluminium aeroplane would crumple up like a beer can upon impact, but that it would not smash the steel to smithereens, any more than a bug hitting your windshield will smash the windshield, regardless of how fast either body is traveling at impact. 75.150.50.9 (talk) 00:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that Reynolds doesn't understand basic physics (it has nothing to do with the "strength" of the materials; it has to do with mass, velocity, and impact force. He's also quite mistaken about that bug--even water will cut steel if you put enough force behind it.) it seems to me the article explains his position pretty well, even without the mistaken bug analogy. Mystylplx (talk) 00:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Sentence in third paragraph of lede

I have changed the first sentence in the third paragraph of the lede that says "Published reports and articles by the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Popular Mechanics and mainstream media have rejected the 9/11 conspiracy theories" to say "U.S. government agencies like the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and mainstream media outlets like Popular Mechanics have investigated most of these claims and found no evidence to support them." The previous version described the theories as being "rejected" by these reports, but in fact NIST's study never uses the word "reject" or any synonym from what I can see. It does say they "found no evidence" to back up these claims. Furthermore, while they did investigate most of the prominent claims made by conspiracy theorists, not all were investigated. Ties between government agencies and al-Qaeda are not mentioned in either report, claims about exercises are not mentioned either from what I can tell, and there are probably others I cannot think of at the moment. We should avoid implying something that appears to be false.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)