Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories

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"[1] A Google News Archive search gives me 6,000 hits on 9/11 conspiracy theories.[2] When I add Reichstag fire to the search terms, I only get back 7 hits (not all of which are reliable sources).[3] 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)

How much more is there to the "Reichstag theory than just the name and the sentence "as a way to justify the US getting into conflict(s) with Middle Eastern countries? Thanks to U.S. high-school history (ca 1995), I've heard of the Reichstag Fire - I don't think I ever heard about Operation Northwoods.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.232.121 (talk) 16:02, 31 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)

I just read the article. Snopes confirms its False...so, whats your point exactly? 131.137.245.208 (talk) 18:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind, missunderstood your meaning. yes there were two letters used as an example, the second specificaly states Jews 131.137.245.207 (talk) 18:21, 13 March 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)

Strong support for denialism as per all of the comments above (it is a denial of the commonly-accepted mainstream view of the subject).

Support for pseudoscience (as pseudoscience, especially in the field of engineering, is usually used in an attempt to back up the denialist claims (e.g. about the shape of holes, about the collapse of buildings, about the melting point of metals).

Ambivalent about "pseudohistory", because I'm unfamiliar with the term. What is it, anyways? Revisionism? St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 14:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment Denialism goes hand-in-hand with conspiracy theory ("Oh no, they're all trying to hide WP:TRUTH by presenting the commonly-held view!"). St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 14:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support The first two, I have never heard of the third. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose All - As others have said, it is too early to have objectively judged the events of 911, therefore not yet 'history'. I don't believe 'history' is a science either. There are many alternative histories, including the official one. 'History' is certainly not an objective certainty. 'Denialism' is defined in tis WP article as a denial of reality - that again depends on your subjective view of what reality is. If 'Denialism' was denial of the official version of the truth, I would have a different opinion. But we are all still too close to the events to judge what is actually true and, as such, we are entitled to accept some things and reject others. All three categories are thinly veiled attacks on the proponents of the alternative theories, which puts Wikipedia on one side of the argument rather than an objective commentator. Sionk (talk) 16:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose all, especially denialism: Per Abootmoose. This stirs up prejudice. Let's not be judgmental about article content when the title itself states 'theories' which would be enough. The categories raise WP:POV issues. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support denialism and pseudoscience, per above. -BoogaLouie (talk) 18:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment On pseudoscience, beyond the lack of sourcing for the label, there is a general inappropriateness to the label. I am not going to suggest that some 9/11 conspiracy theories do not include pseudoscientific claims like what JohnChrysostom noted, but this does not make those theories pseudoscience as a whole and it certainly does not mean all the theories should be labeled with the category. Any time a lay person questions the official version of an event it is likely that there where will be unscientific claims made and spread due to poor understanding of the science. This does not mean it should be automatically regarded as pseudoscience. More importantly, not all of the conspiracy theories incorporate these misguided views if they even address the scientific questions at all. Is someone alleging LIHOP or simple aiding and abetting really engaged in pseudoscience? WP:FRINGE expects that labels like "pseudoscience" be backed by reliable sources and not just a few here and there, but something indicating this is a commonly understood characteristic of the subject as a whole.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:17, 8 February 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: [4]. 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: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]. 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.[10] When I add Reichstag fire to the search terms, I only get back 7 hits.[11] 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.[12] By contrast, a Google News Archive search for the exact same search string, returns only 5,320 results.[13] 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": [14]. Again, though, you should consider what major reliable sources actually say above all else. Sources like this one: [15].--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: [16] [17] [18] [19]. 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: [20] [21] [22] [23]. 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: [24]. 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: [25] [26] [27] [28]. 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: [29]. 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: [30] [31] [32]. 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: [33]. 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)

I'll say - sometimes it doesn't matter how many reliable sources you have, or how prominently something is mentioned by those sources, or how NPOV you word it, some stuff just gets deleted from articles.... Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per A Quest For Knowledge. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support If you do a web search on "9/11 Reichstag fire" you will clearly see that many 9/11 conspiracy theorists have made this comparison, and since this article is about accurately describing 9/11 conspiracy theories, it's clearly relevant. Likewise, as The Devil's Advocate and I have pointed out, this has even been picked up by some of the mainstream media, who generally avoid the 9/11 conspiracy topic as a political taboo. Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support: Per above and per arguments provided by The Devil's Advocate. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - [uninvolved editor, invited by RfC bot] WP policies do not limit how much detail is included in an article (see WP:NNC - notability applies to entire articles, not individual facts within an article). If reliable sources exist which relate the Reich. Fire with 9/11, then it can go in this article, period. Granted, WP:UNDUE applies, but that just means that the existing "Suggested historical precedents" section should be terse. I agree with the Opposers above that the text should be limited; but the best approach would be to list the 4 or 5 (or however many there are) precedents very briefly, say, one sentence each, within that existing section. --Noleander (talk) 21:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Peter Knight is now behind a paywall

I just noticed that Peter Knight is now behind a paywall.[34] If anyone needs a copy, it's available at archive.org.[35] 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. [36]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)

Nor do you get to dictate what the standards for inclusion mean in this case. Geometry guy 00:18, 31 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)

The coverage in news outlets has been obscenely sparse, with those few reports that do mention the theories usually doing so in passing with complete dismissal and, at times, mockery. One of the few mentions that goes beyond half a sentence only does so to note the general conspiracist community's hostility towards the adherents. Coverage in conspiracist sources has mostly been to attack the theories as plainly absurd and even accusing the adherents of spreading disinformation to slander 9/11 conspiracy theories. Clearly their main claim to notability is the general rejection and mockery of their ideas even within the conspiracist community.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:19, 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)

Physics, more than just a good idea, it's the Law. See Newton 1687. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 03:37, 29 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)

Poor grammar aside, the point of these two sentences is explain that these are fringe viewpoints which are rejected by the mainstream. It's not simply that they found no evidence to support conspiracy theories; the mainstream actually rejects them. Further, your new verbiage says that, "most of these claims [have] no evidence to support them". Which conspiracy theories was evidence found? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

What are you calling poor grammar, exactly? As to the "point" of those sentences, I think the point should be exactly the same as that of all material. It should tell people what the sources support. Only some of the claims have been refuted by these investigations and that is why we should not describe the conspiracy theories as "rejected" either. Not even the theory about thermite got "rejected" by NIST's study and this is not considering the fact there were other theories that were not within the scope of their investigation. The same goes for Popular Mechanics. We already state right off the bat that these theories question the widely-accepted account so that alone establishes them as fringe. Also, don't make up wording that I didn't include to suggest I was saying something I wasn't. It says most of the claims were investigated with no evidence found to support them. The only thing being said is that not all claims were investigated, which is supported by reliable sources.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Instead of "like", it should be "such as". The sentence is accurate as it is. If you want to find better sources, that's fine. But the substance of the sentence should remain the same. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, that grammatical issue would seem to be an easy fix. As for the accuracy of the current sentence, the sources plainly do not support the wording "rejected" and the NIST study, in particular, is meant to be the authoritative report on the question. How can we "find better sources" than that? The report does not even reject the claims NIST investigated, let alone the claims NIST did not investigate.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Wait a second. You've already conceded that these are fringe beliefs. By definition, they have been rejected by the mainstream. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I would say that's not necessarily true. Most people haven't "rejected" the theory that reptilian shape-shifters used their heat vision to destroy the WTC, but it would still be a fringe theory. (Sorry, not trying to be pedantic, just saying that the theories weren't necessarily even considered because they are so fringe.) Still, I'm fairly certain the thermite claim has been investigated and widely "rejected" by the science, in addition to being a fringe idea.JoelWhy (talk) 14:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I read NIST's report on the subject. Seems to me they didn't even really investigate it, and their comments on the subject were not in any way rejecting the claim.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Being a fringe idea does not mean automatically that the idea has been "rejected" by the mainstream, only that it has not been accepted by the mainstream. Lack of acceptance is not the same as rejection.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

That's quite a semantic stretch. There may be instances where an idea is neither accepted nor rejected by the mainstream, cases where the jury is still out, but this is not one of those cases. 911 conspiracy theories have been rejected by the mainstream. It isn't necessary that they use the specific word "rejected" and NIST is far from the only source to look to on this. Mystylplx (talk) 18:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The theories have been rejected as having no basis in evidence. Fringe does mean it has no support in mainstream science, just like cold fusion and creationism are fringe. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I've no real problem with the word "rejected". I do however have a problem with including Popular Mechanics as an example of mainstream media. It is a self described home handyman magazine that didn't even rate it's own article until a few years ago and it's still a stub. I'm sure there are more notable publications that could be used instead. Including it gives the POV impression that someone is trying to imply that "Mechanics" in the name gives it some authority as a source. Wayne (talk) 18:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

How is Popular Mechanics not an example of mainstream media? Not only is it an extremely well-known magazine, but its examination of the 9/11 claims has been widely and repeatedly discussed in other mainstream media sources.JoelWhy (talk) 19:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

... seriously? PM is a well-known hobby and science magazine. Their in-depth look at September 11 myths has garnered a lot of attention from other media. That someone never got around to making an article "until a few years ago" isn't relevant. And trying to say the "Mechanics" in the title is an appeal to authority is bewildering. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The magazine may be well-known in America but is not in other countries. PM does not call itself a science magazine, it's own website says "Popular Mechanics is a service magazine covering a variety of information". PM reported long before any real scientific investigations were done and much of what was written by PM was debunked or modified by the later NIST report. As a source it is outdated. I do agree that it is repeatedly discussed in other mainstream media sources, in fact I find it disturbing that sources cite it in preference to citing NIST... although I do give PM kudos for preferentially calling conspiracy theorists "skeptics" instead of conspiracy theorists. Wayne (talk) 03:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

You also need to keep in mind that PM is not peer reviewed and is considered by academics as an entertainment magazine for the purpose of citation by students. Wayne (talk) 04:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

What matters is not what you think is right, but what the sources say. The investigations mentioned do not investigate all the claims, I mentioned several, and the NIST investigation did not even reject all the claims it did investigate. Why do you think we need to say it was "rejected" as opposed to saying they did not find evidence to support the claims?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

That's what rejected means. Scientists don't investigate the possibility the moon is made of cheese because they reject the hypothesis entirely. At one time it was a popular concept, but there's no evidence to even support an investigation. Likewise, there's no investigation of some of these claims because they're farcical from a scientific standpoint.

If your sole contention is the word "rejected," consider "dismiss", "ignore", "discount" or any other number of synonyms. Saying "found no evidence to support the claims" is just a more wordy way of phrasing it, and not necessarily as accurate for claims that weren't even investigated (ie. "space lasers" claims). — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

No, it doesn't mean the same thing. The difference is the same as the difference between not proving and disproving. A theory that has not been accepted for lack of supporting evidence is not the equivalent of a theory that has been rejected. On another note, some of those theories that were not investigated were specifically mentioned in one of my previous comments and they had nothing to with "space lasers" thank you very much.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, you and I are at an impasse, then. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The impasse is mainly based on meaning, but you do not appear to understand that the terms you are using have significant differences in meaning. If "discount" or "ignore" were substituted for "reject" in the current sentence it would leave the article saying that the investigations have not included the conspiracy theories. Just because words are similar does not mean they are interchangeable in a sentence. Saying an investigation "found no evidence" for a theory is not the same as saying an investigation "rejected" a theory.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

(As an aside, understanding what is precisely the point of disagreement is the first step in resolving it.) Geometry guy 00:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

From Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation (emphasis mine)...

NIST has looked at the application and use of thermite and has determined that it was highly unlikely that it could have been used to sever columns in WTC 7 on Sept. 11, 2001.

Sounds like they investigated and subsequently rejected the claim. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 02:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

According to Shyam Sunder, the lead investigator for NIST, controlled demolition was not investigated. Sunder stated that CD would have caused explosions to be heard up to 300mtr from the buildings and as none were reported there was no need to investigate. Wayne (talk) 04:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually...

13. Did investigators consider the possibility that an explosion caused or contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?
Yes, this possibility was investigated carefully. NIST concluded that blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event.

Ibid. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 05:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

DA, a theory is in one of three states: accepted, being researched, or rejected (ie. no one deems it worthy of further investigation). That you disagree with this is our impasse. And, as others have pointed out, the NIST has investigated claims and then concluded they were without merit. "Found no evidence" means the theory is dead. If you'd prefer, there's the NIST quote ArtifexMayhem presents above, where we could say the proposed event "did not occur." Regardless, it's a more wordy way of saying that the scientific consensus is these theories are bunk. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

That is not what it means by any measure. "Found no evidence" only means what it means. It is not code for "bunk" or in any way interchangeable with such a term. Not to mention that, of all the proposed wordings, saying they "found no evidence" is the one that is the least pushy about a POV.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Investigated but found no evidence = rejected. Mystylplx (talk) 18:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The "highly" was inserted several years later without any apparent basis other than, "Oh shit, people are taking our comments as reason to actually consider it." Saying it was "unlikely" is much less definite than what it said about the use of regular explosives. It also does not appear they seriously investigated the thermite aspect of the controlled demolition theory, if they investigated it at all. Given that, we should not be suggesting that NIST refuted all the theories as the current wording suggests.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, now we've hit the crux of the problem: the NPOV is that the scientific mainstream has found these claims to be without any merit. Saying "no evidence has been found" lends the impression that there is still an ongoing investigation to find evidence, which isn't the case. No, they didn't seriously investigate the thermite proposals, because they were absurd from the start. Others pointed out the basic flaws in the thermite claims, which killed the whole thing from a scientific perspective... but some conspiracists still hang onto it.

NPOV, in fringe topics like this, mean giving weight to the scientific consensus. And that consensus is pretty clear when it comes to September 11 conspiracies: they've been debunked and found false. Equivocating would be the POV stance. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Citation for this claim, please.JoelWhy (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

What claim are you asking me to cite? If it's about whether they investigated the thermite issue, the NIST reports on the collapse make no mention of thermite anywhere and nothing said in the question and answer page indicates that they carried out any actual investigation of the claim.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm guessing it's the claim that the word "highly" was inserted several years later, though it's really irrelevant when it was inserted. Mystylplx (talk) 18:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

There are actually two versions of that page on the web at the moment. One was created soon after the NIST report, with the one Artifex is citing being from many years later.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how "many years later" is accurate. The NIST did update the information in 2011, here is the original: Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation (09/17/2010, ARCHIVE, incorporated into 9/19/2011 update). Also, "highly unlikely" is the polite way of saying "bunk". —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 19:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

In fact, may sources specifically say that 9/11 CTs have been debunked. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Certainly you could find a source saying that. You could find a source saying that truthers are schizophrenic potheads too, but that doesn't mean you should include it. We have to look at what all the reliable sources say, not just cherry-pick the ones that support the "approved" POV.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no universe where "unlikely" is another way of saying "bunk" and adding "highly" after several years with no new evidence doesn't do that either. If it was, NIST would not have been more definite about other aspects of the question. Explosive demolition was strongly dismissed by NIST, but not thermite. Like it or not, that means we cannot describe it as being rejected.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

NIST didn't examine the claims that alien lasers demolished the towers, either. That doesn't mean we include it here, even to point out it was rejected as a viable hypothesis for investigation. Thermite was never investigated because it wasn't even a rational claim.

Do you have anything else to support this position, DA? Because right now, there's consensus for "rejected," and no one else is arguing against the term. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

While not every 9/11 CT have been "rejected" the ones specifically prior to the sentence in dispute have been. Edkollin (talk) 23:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Stop repeating that garbage about space lasers please. Not a single person has raised that as something worthy of mentioning in any way. We are talking about things that have been considered worthy of detailed mention in official reports and major news outlets. Your opinion that thermite was never a rational claim is just that and not a basis for how we edit this article. NIST considered that issue worthy of mentioning and the fact they have not rejected this widespread claim outright, but merely consider it "unlikely" means we cannot prejudice the article to suggest otherwise. Ditto for claims of advanced knowledge or facilitation. In fact, my concern is more focused on the non-scientific issues of advanced knowledge and facilitation that are being lumped in with the rest of the conspiracy theories in this statement. Not only were these not the subject of the investigations, many of the questions in that area have gone unanswered.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Unanswered? No. The answer was they are not worthy of investigation. The fact that this rankles you is irrelevant to the article. At this point, you're simply repeating the same refrain without listening to the rest of us. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 01:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Where do you get that it was determined those issues were not worthy of investigation? As far as your claims that I am not listening, there is a difference between not agreeing with you and not understanding you.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The fact that they didn't bother investigating them and there is no serious call to do so. Only a small fringe wants these things investigated.

It's not that you're just disagreeing with me, it's that you're the only one supporting this change. At this point, it seems pretty clear consensus is against you, yet we're still going round and round. I think I'm done arguing this point. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

So just so we are clear, are you saying you do not have any sources to back up the claim that any theory not investigated was considered unworthy of investigating?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Argumentative and irrelevant. The topic is the unanimous, for all practical and statistical purposes, rejection of the controlled demolition "theories"...

Universally though has the foregoing explanation of collapse been accepted by the communities of structural engineers and structural mechanics researchers, some outside critics have nevertheless exploited various unexplained observations to disseminate allegations of controlled demolition.
...snip...
These conclusions show the allegations of controlled demolition to be absurd and leave no doubt that the towers failed due to gravity-driven progressive collapse triggered by the effects of fire.
—What Did and Did Not Cause Collapse of World Trade Center Twin Towers in New York? doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2008)134:10(892)

You've been pushing the idea that there is some actual doubt about this for months and have yet to provide any credible sources (i.e. It looks like WP:OR). Your argument is becoming very tedious. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 09:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

"Have yet to provide any credible sources"? I am going by what NIST actually said about thermite. Your source makes exactly two mentions of thermite in the entire paper when talking about claims of molten steel and thermite residue, not on the general question of thermite being used. What matters is that the government study tasked with investigating these matters did not have a definite answer on the question. That does not mean they have doubts about their own beliefs, but it does mean they were not able to reject the claims. Again, however, it is not just thermite that I am thinking about, but the claims of government foreknowledge and government assistance. Those claims has not been investigated and rejected.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Claims do not have to be investigated to be rejected. And, for the point, others have investigated the "molten steel" and "thermite residue" claims, and found them lacking. You're still beating a dead horse here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say they have to be investigated to be rejected. Some claims are so fringe no one bothers to seriously investigate them. However, when commonly-made claims have not been investigated and rejected it matters a great deal how we cover that in the article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Now you're just equivocating. The claims have been rejected by NIST as not warranting investigation, and by others as factually inaccurate. This is becoming quite tiresome. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

No one has made any investigations into allegations that whales altered the tectonics of the region through sonar manipulation, but that doesn't mean it should be investigated; it should be dismissed as a crackpot theory out of hand. Buffs (talk) 03:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

"I don't like these theories" is not a legitimate argument. You have to provide reliable sources asserting that all the claims mentioned in the lede were investigated and rejected, not just some. Honestly, this is why my original wording is better. Saying they "found no evidence" creates far fewer issues. It tells people these theories are not accepted by the mainstream and that several investigations into most of the claims have not found evidence to support them. Readers should only be led to believe what is factually accurate. A claim that has not been investigated and rejected should not be described as having been investigated and rejected. Should it have been rejected because it was seen as unworthy of investigation that too should be sourced. You can't just say, "well, obviously, they didn't investigate it because they rejected it so we don't need a source to say it was rejected" and still be abiding by the principle of WP:NOR.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

You are putting words in Buffs mouth. S/he didn't say s/he just doesn't like it or anything resembling that. Mystylplx (talk) 07:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Saying "it should be dismissed as a crackpot theory out of hand" in response to whether commonly-made claims should be described as rejected even if there is no source to back that up certainly does seem like an "I don't like it" argument.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories involving Jews

The Devil's Advocate has removed the category, Conspiracy theories involving Jews explaining that "The conspiracy theories focus on Israel, not Jews in general."[37] But anti-Semitism against Jews seems to be a major component of these theories, particularly in the Arab world. I did a random search of reliable sources for "9/11 conspiracy theories Israel" (not "9/11 conspiracy theories Jew") and even with this search, the first three that I found seemed to confirm this.[38][39][40] What does everyone else think? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

It should be re-added. Anti-Semetism is a driving force among many Truthers, especially in the Middle East. Toa Nidhiki05 17:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Devil's Advocate removed the Conspiracy Theories Involving Jews when we used to also have a category for Conspiracy Theories Involving Israel/Jews. (i.e. it was redundant.) However, a couple of days ago, someone changed the Israel/Jews category to just say Conspiracy Theories Involving Israel (with a separate category for CTs Involving Jews). So yesterday, I re-added the latter (to go along with the CTs Involving Israel) category. Sorry if that's confusing...in short, problem resolved. :)JoelWhy (talk) 17:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, never mind, I see DA did, in fact, remove the CTs Involving Jews category. That removal was unwarranted (and someone correctly reverted it.)JoelWhy (talk) 17:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Look at what those sources say carefully. Every last one mentions Jews in exactly one context: that of Israeli involvement. Israel is said to have "warned" Jews about the attacks. The fact is that some of the conspiracy theories mention Israel, and only mention Jews in relation to their connection with Israel. Conspiracy theories involving Jews is itself included under conspiracy theories involving Jews so there is no need for that category on this article given that the focus is specifically on Israel.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The use of Israeli government in these conspiracies is to give a veneer of legitimacy to anti-Semitic accusations. The focus is not on Israel, except as a red herring. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I am sure the ADL agrees with you, but this is not its encyclopedia. The focus is clearly on Israel, with Jews only mentioned because Israel is a Jewish state.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

It's a conspiracy about Jews and Israel. End of story. Your argument against its inclusion is patently absurd.JoelWhy (talk) 18:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

There are some that try to refer only to the Israeli government. There are plenty of others that are straight-up anti-Semitic. Removing that category is flatly inaccurate. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Jack Ruby was Jewish. Does that mean the JFK conspiracy article needs to have this category too? Pretty much every conspiracy theory subject out there has some variant claiming it was the Jews or somehow involves people who are Jewish. What we have in this article are very brief mentions of theories focusing on Israel the country as being involved, not Jews in general. Categorizing this under the same umbrella as the Protocols and ZOG has a blatantly inflammatory effect.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

[41]

The very second example of a chain email prominently distributed online blames "all Jews," pinning Israel as a subset of Jews.

Your Jack Ruby comparison is the only inflammatory comment here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

What's inflammatory about it exactly? The truth is that every conspiracy theory at one point or another is going to have Jews mentioned. A category should only be used for an article if it can be supported by reliable sources and is not pushing a POV. Labeling 9/11 conspiracy theories as being about Jews because a few sources can be found saying it (not nearly enough to merit the category) thus putting them in the same category as the Protocols and ZOG is definitely pushing a POV. Surely you know that it is a common reaction that any time a conspiracy theory is suggested, regardless of what group is implicated by the conspiracy theorist, someone will ask in a snarky manner whether "the Joos" were also involved. It is a time-honored method of poisoning the wells in a debate. This is not an article for pissing all over conspiracy theorists and their beliefs, but for describing them in an objective manner.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Except that you defeat your own argument by playing the "Jack Ruby" card. Anti-semitic conspiracy theories weren't a notable part of the JFK assassination rhetoric. Blaming Jews (not just Israel) for having insider knowledge about the attacks is. The fact that you dragged out the anti-semitic "poisoning the wells" canard is just ironic. This is not "pissing all over conspiracy theorists," it's pointing out what has been claimed by conspiracy theorists. And they don't need you white-knighting for them. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 01:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure how mentioning Jack Ruby defeats my own argument. My point is that merely mentioning Jews or people who are Jewish does not mean the category should apply. Mention of Jews in these conspiracy theories focuses mostly on those claims about thousands of workers being warned to stay home. However, the sources point to it as being the alleged result of a warning from the Israeli government. Conspiracy theorists claiming Israeli involvement usually mention Jews as a group only to note that allegation of people working in the buildings being warned by Israel. Most conspiracy theorists refer to the "Dancing Israelis" not the "Dancing Jews" and it is claimed the purpose was to serve Israel's foreign policy interests, not some global Jewish plot to do naughty stuff. Sources broadly support that it is Israel that is the focus of most conspiracy theorists claiming Israeli involvement.

On a side note, are you unaware that poisoning the well commonly refers to a logical fallacy?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you unaware that the term originates from accusations against the Jews during the Black Plague? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Devil's Advocate, it boils down to this: Wiki policies are contrary to the way you view the world. And, that's fine. You're entitled to believe anything you like, consider evidence any way you like, and think any way you like. But, these constant back-and-forths with you are getting us nowhere. In virtually every discussion on this board, you're not convincing anyone that your views should prevail over the ones we find in established media sources.JoelWhy (talk) 22:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

It is not about how I view the subject, but how this article gets readers to view the subject. That is what NPOV is all about. Also, the sources indicate that the theories focus on Israel as being the responsible party with Jews in general only mentioned in the context of Israel warning some Jews of the attacks. I am not arguing that my view should prevail over those of reliable sources. My argument is that we should not be using categories to push an inflammatory POV and that the sources back up what I am saying.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

That was my nice way of saying, most of us here are interested in evidence. You are interested in fringe conspiracy theories and in removing information that may be embarrassing to your fellow conspiracy theorists. One of the first CTs to rise up about the WTC attacks was that Jews were forewarned and didn't show up for work that day -- Jews, not just Israelis. So, this is a conspiracy theory involving Jews and Israel. There are a plethora of sources you can cite to which directly discuss Antisemitism (as opposed to strictly anti-Zionism.) The implication is that Israel has every Jew around the world on speed dial, or was able to tip them off at one of their secret meetings where they were plotting the other events around the world. If the claim was that only Israelis were tipped off, you would have a valid argument. But, once again, you're wasting everyone's time with another completely asinine argument.JoelWhy (talk) 15:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with removing "embarrassing" information. Honestly, I think claims that a cruise missile hit the Pentagon are pretty embarrassing to conspiracy theorists. The "pod" accusations that are strangely not included in this article despite being more prominently mentioned than the no-planes theory are also embarrassing and I would support including them. It is about what reliable sources support including and what gives the most objective perspective on the issue. A category that associates this article with the Protocols and ZOG is definitely not objective and given the vast majority of sources on the conspiracy theories do not mention Jews, most of those only mentioning them in relation to theories focusing on Israel, its inclusion is not supported for this article. Keep in mind, that the category for conspiracy theories involving Israel is included in the category for conspiracy theories involving Jews.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if this helps but most of the theories involving "Jews" were in the immediate post 9/11 period. Lately it is more the Mossad and "Zionist" global bankers/Illuminati etc (Which of course to many making these claims means Jews but that is a whole other debate) Article should emphasize the current situation. Edkollin (talk) 23:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The article October Revolution, which is about the Bolshevik revolution of 1917, does not include the category "Conspiracy theories involving Jews", although it has been widely portrayed that way by right-wing Russians. It seems odd that this article should have that category, when that is such a minor theme, especially when compared to the Bolshevik revolution. The "villain" of most 9/11 conspiracy theories is the U.S. government, not Jews. Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

That's an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument though. I'd be willing to let the category go if we also agree that the entire Israel section is too minor to be worth including. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theories involving Jews" versus "Anti-semitic conspiracy theories"

I don't really do much editing in regards to categories so this might be completely wrong, but I wonder if "Conspiracy theories involving Jews" is a bad name. Wouldn't "Anti-semitic conspiracy theories" better describe this category? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we should look more closely at the categories themselves. All conspiracy theories are anti-Semitic. TFD (talk) 04:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

That would make it even less suitable for inclusion in this article. I think the current name is fine so long as people respect WP:CAT, which says something must be considered by a preponderance of reliable sources as a "defining characteristic" of the subject.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

That's an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument though. I'd be willing to let the category go if we also agree that the entire Israel section is too minor to be worth including. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The article suffers a bit of a Western bias. In the Middle East, anti-semitic conspiracy theories are very previlent, maybe even the major component. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has frequently blamed Jews for 9/11, even giving speeches about it at the UN[42] forcing Al Qaeda to issue statements refuting Ahmadinejad.[43] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The article as it is understates the antisemitism involved in 9/11 conspiracy theories. There's long been a bias in our articles toward what US internet users think are the less-crazy theories, and away from what proponents find embarassing, and what they know won't play well to American middle-class readers. It's probably true that antisemitism has been somewhat less overtly a part of US conspriacist thinking about 9/11, but in Europe and the middle east, Jew-hate is pretty much built in to these theories. TFD is also correct above; all conspiracy theories expand until they include the Jews. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

There is a very good reason that there are efforts to move to "less-crazy theories" and away from what "proponents find embarassing". It's called WP:UNDUE which requires coverage based on proponents, not on what critics want to concentrate on to better discredit them. By your definition you can add the antisemitism category to any controversial topic you want as I'm sure some right wing nutjob group somewhere has blamed it on Jews at some time or other. It is rather dishonest to collectivise all conspiracy theorists as anti-semitic simply because a very minor percentage of theorists have an anti-semitic view. Wayne (talk) 01:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know where you are getting the idea that it is really that much more prevalent in Europe. France has an oddly high proportion of people who believe Israel was behind the attacks, but that is not the same as there being more antisemitic conspiracy theories about 9/11 there. According to polls, nearly all of the major European countries see claims of Israeli involvement hovering around 1%. Even major Muslim countries like Pakistan, Turkey, and Indonesia see hardly any support for the Israel-centered conspiracy theories. Outside Arab countries like Egypt and Jordan even the claims of Israeli involvement get little support, never mind something centered on Jews. Seems like it would be a severe violation of WP:UNDUE to let a small minority of the global conspiracist community dictate how we label the rest.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

With about 3 minutes of Google searching, sites which discuss both anti-Israel and antisemitism related to the WTC attacks:

Snopes I: http://www.snopes.com/rumors/wingdings.asp Snopes II: http://www.snopes.com/rumors/israel.asp JTA: http://www.jta.org/news/article/2011/09/05/3089201/ten-years-later-anti-semitic-conspiracy-theories-continue-to-spread Slate: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/trutherism/2011/09/where_did_911_conspiracies_come_from.html ADL: http://www.adl.org/anti_semitism/9-11conspiracytheories.pdf U.S. Dept. of State: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/102301.pdf NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/04/magazine/the-uncomfortable-question-of-anti-semitism.html?pagewanted=all Southern Poverty Law Center: http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2008/fall/anti-semitism-goes-to-school LA Times: http://articles.latimes.com/2001/sep/29/news/mn-51260

"But....but....but....where are the transitional fossils?! Why does the flag planted on the moon wave even though there's no atmosphere?! How do you explain the traces of thermite?! How about the photos at Roswell, you can't explain that, can you?! I'm not saying I believe in these conspiracy theories, I'm just a guy asking questions..." -- Every Conspiracy Theorist ever

Feel free to continue to argue. It's always amusing to see how many different ways conspiracy theorists can ignore evidence to stay married to their fringe theory-of-choice.JoelWhy (talk) 14:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The first Snopes reference has absolutely nothing to do with claims of antisemitism in 9/11 conspiracy theories. What we find in the second is mostly Snopes making the association, with the only thing attributed to a conspiracy theorist being a message without any source. A quote is presented from al-Manar, but it specifically says Israelis and not Jews. The JTA source is referencing the ADL source, a Jewish advocacy organization. What really matters here, however, is that WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, and WP:CAT should be enough reason to remove the category of "conspiracy theories involving Jews" as it implies this as a defining characteristic of the theories in a way that is inherently prejudicial. Only a tiny minority in the world even subscribe to the idea of Israeli involvement, with even fewer making it about Jews as a whole. It gets notable coverage so information about it should be included in the article as it is presently, but we should not base how we categorize this article about 9/11 conspiracy theories in general based on those mentions.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I posted this in the previous section. The second email explicitly calls out "all Jews," accusing Israel as a government in a secondary capacity. The anti-Semetism is the reason for the accusations against Israel. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Israel comes into the conspiracy theories only because it's full of Jews. The article should not gloss over the faux-respectable middle-class antisemitism that drives this nonsense. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you to both of you for plainly laying out your very much POV-pushing OR reasons for wanting this category. Your personal feelings that conspiracy theories blaming Israel are inherently about disguising Jew-hating are no justification for circumventing WP:CAT. One unattributed chain e-mail is no basis for labeling 9/11 conspiracy theories as being about da Joos. Feel free to include sourced material in the article on the subject, but unless you can demonstrate this is "commonly and consistently" mentioned in reliable sources as a "defining characteristic" of the conspiracy theories then we should not be adding a category that suggests this to be the case.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

DA, lay off the insinuations. This is not POV-pushing OR, but I'm not willing to go browsing for anti-Semitic references at work. This is material that was in the news in the years shortly after the attacks, so I'll have to go digging, but not on a monitored network. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing uncivil about saying you are pushing a POV or trying to insert original research. Bias usually means you do not recognize that your views lack objectivity. I am sure you can find some non-reliable source to say the conspiracy theories about Israel are all antisemitic, but I highly doubt you will find a reliable one that actually says that. Any attempt to jury-rig sources together or cherry-pick them to support that contention so you can have the category included will still be POV-pushing original research.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

10 years on, anti-Semitic conspiracy theories about 9/11 persist. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The ADL is, by its own admission, a group that advocates for Israel and the JTA is simply reporting on the ADL's allegations. It is not a reliable source as it pertains to this issue and therefore should not be considered when categorizing the subject.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the article isn't written by ADL. It's written by Jewish Telegraphic Agency, an international news organization. You said that you highly doubt that we could find a reliable source which describes these conspiracy theories as anti-Semitic. I have done exactly that. You also said that we would have to "jury-rig sources together or cherry-pick them to support that contention so you can have the category included will still be POV-pushing original research." Your claims have now been proven false. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Re-read my comment please. I said plainly that it was just reporting what the ADL said. Their source is the ADL and so their report is no more reliable than the ADL. Also, I really do not think any Jewish news source can be inherently taken as an independent source on the question of antisemitism and Israel. Certainly there are plenty of Jewish people who would be offended by any suggestion of nefarious activity by Israel. The same would be true of American news sources on anti-Americanism.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not the way things work around here. You don't get to dismiss third-party reliable sources because you personally don't like what they said, the sources that they used, or because of their ethnicity. You said that we couldn't find any reliable sources that said that these were anti-Semitic and we have done exactly that. Here's another one, this time by the BBC.[44] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I was not dismissing the source because I don't like what was said, but because they were just reporting on what the ADL said. Also, I do not believe you can call a source that is explicitly marketed towards the Jewish community a reliable third-party source on the issue of antisemitism. Furthermore, what I specifically said is that a reliable source could not be found saying that the conspiracy theories involving Israel are all antisemitic. The BBC source you provided just says that specific claim of 4,000 Israelis being warned away was antisemitic and that comment is made in a very trivial manner. Several people are saying here that conspiracy theories involving Israel are just a shield for antisemitism.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

You don't know that, and even if they are, they're still a legitimate news organization and if they published it, that means that it met their editorial policy. It's not our job as editors to say that reliable sources are wrong. Please stop. Your claims have been proven wrong several times over. There's no point in continuing to point this out, but you can have the last word if you like. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Never said the source was "wrong" as that isn't the dispute. The issue is whether the source can be considered a reliable and independent source that can be used to back up having a category on the article despite the obvious prejudicial nature to it. A Jewish news source, just like an Israeli news source, can't be taken as independent and reliable on whether something is antisemitic. Certainly it can be taken as reliable on what it thinks is antisemitic, but the category doesn't make such a distinction. The category is an unattributed label so we should only include it if we have independent and reliable sources to back up the label. Jewish news sources citing the ADL would be no more reliable on that than African=American news sources citing the NAACP would be on questions of racism.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Southern Poverty Law Center isn't a Jewish organization. Neither is Snopes. Neither is the State Department. Neither is LA Times or NY Times. In any case, it's clear we're wasting our time here. I'd have to go dig up the studies, but the research has shown conspiracy theorists tend to be immune to evidence which contradicts their existing beliefs. I think we've got a case-study right here they could use for follow-up studies...JoelWhy (talk) 17:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Look up at the comments by Hand and Tom. Those claims are what I was addressing with regards to using Jewish organizations as reliable sources, apparently because they want 9/11 conspiracy theories in general to be labeled antisemitic despite most not even mentioning Israel or Jews. I am not sure why you are talking about conspiracy theories being "immune to evidence" as that is not even the matter being discussed. The question is about using a category for these theories that lumps them together with notions like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and the Zionist Occupied Government and, apparently, some wanting to make the language of the category even stronger.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I fully understand what was being debated. I was pointing out that you've been presented with ample evidence showing that antisemitism is a notable attribute within 9/11 CT circles, yet the evidence hasn't swayed your opinion one iota. Ergo, this presents a researcher with an opportunity to study the leaps in logic at least one conspiracy theorist is willing to take in public to ignore evidence which contradicts their engrained opinion. (For the record, I'm being a bit tongue-in-cheek here; I tend to get a bit cheeky at this point in such discussions because they never fail to amuse me. Carry on, fight the power, and all that...)JoelWhy (talk) 18:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

What you have demonstrated is that it is a notable claim about certain claims made by some 9/11 conspiracy theories. Those claims are more often noted by reliable sources as being about Israel and not Jews as a group. Most of the conspiracy theories do not mention Israel as being involved and only a small minority of the global conspiracist community believe the ones that do implicate Israel. Just because the ADL claims something is antisemitic and gets some news coverage for that claim does not mean it has passed the test for inclusion. I have no issue with keeping the conspiracy theories involving Israel category since that is less prejudicial and backed up by more sources, but conspiracy theories involving Jews makes a lot of prejudicial implications and has far fewer sources supporting it as a defining characteristic of the 9/11 conspiracy theories.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest that it may be best at this point just to ignore DA. It is quite clear he is not going to change his position and will continue to push his views indefinitely. The pseudo-trolling he is conducting can only be stopped by ignoring it - stop feeding him and he'll go away. Toa Nidhiki05 19:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

DA, this is precisely why I asked you to dial it back. You're already assuming I'm going to "jury-rig sources together or cherry-pick them," which is the height of bad-faith. Knock it off. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite

I am not assuming you would do it in bad faith, only that you would do it out of confirmation bias. Plenty of people honestly see what they want in an article, even when it isn't actually there.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

You really don't get it, do you? It's bad faith to assume I will make shit up, when I have never done that in the article. The bias here is your determination that everyone who disagrees with you has a personal axe to grind. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

When I get a chance I'll pick up Among the Truthers and some other recent works on conspiracism and see what weight the authors give to antisemitism. That should give us lots to talk about on this page, and at 9/11 Truth movement. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Conspiracy theories involving Israel should suffice. It is already in so just remove the other. Looks like the mentions of Jews is tied to the nation. Easy fix.Cptnono (talk) 05:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

From Jonathan Kay's Among the Truthers, Jonathan Kay:

"Even when the Third Reich lay in ruins, and anti-Semitism became widely detested in its bald-faced Nazi-style form, the Protocols[of the Elders of Zion] would remain ensconced as a sort of universal blueprint for all the successor conspiracist ideologies that would come to infect Western societies over the next nine decades - right up to the modern-day Truther and Birther fantasies of the twenty-first century. In these conspiracy theories, the imagined evildoing cabal would come by many names - communist, globalist, neocon. But in most cases, it would exhibit the same five recurring traits that the Protocols fastened upon Jewish elders in the shadow of World War I: singularity, evil, incumbency, greed, and hypercompetence." Among the Truthers, pg 71

"Not all conspiracy theorists are anti-Semitic. But all conspiracy movements - all of them - attract anti-Semities. Even UFO conspiracists manage, somehow, to project Jewish stereotypes on imagined visitors from other galaxies..." Among the Truthers, pg 289

Like AQFK, I don't mess with categories much, but clearly some changes to the article are in order. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

What changes? This source is just regurgitating the oft-repeated meme that anyone who thinks ill of the establishment must have something wrong with them. If they aren't crazy then it must be that they hate Jews or something. At no time could there be any rational basis for their lack of trust in government. Such memes are common amongst hit pieces like the one you quote above, but they should not be used here as a basis for how we treat the subject. Just like we shouldn't be categorizing the subject of this article under "psychosis" we shouldn't be categorizing it as "about the Jews" since it is too prejudicial to the subject and too poorly sourced to be included.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

When 9/11 conspiracy theorists claim 4,000 Jews stayed away from the WTC the day of the attack, they're talking "about the Jews". Jayjg ^(talk) 22:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Some 9/11 conspiracy theorists make that claim and most claim they stayed away because of a warning from Israel, not because of any shady action on the part of Jews as a whole. Not all of those making that claim even claim it was Jews that stayed away from work, but Israelis. What matters is that the claim itself is not common and neither are claims of Israeli involvement with claims about Jews in general being even less common than that. The article should not give undue weight to the antisemitic fringe that claims "the Jews" set it up by suggesting it is a defining characteristic of the theories in general.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Antisemitism is a defining characteristic of 9/11 conspiracy theories in general.[45] Among the Truthers devotes a chapter to it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Looking over the passage, it appears to only say very plainly that all conspiracy theories attract antisemites while playing a deceptive association game by saying the claims of conspiracy theorists in general are similar to those of antisemites.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

My revert of changes to lede

I reverted the removal of "U.S. government agencies" and "mainstream" that were previously accepted. There is an idea that somehow we don't need to mention these things, but I don't think it is correct. "National" does not inherently imply government as organizations like National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences and National Art Education Association demonstrate it can be used for private organizations. Suggesting people should just check the linked article is inappropriate as no one should be expected to go to another page to get some basic context like this. I don't see any reason why referring to "mainstream" media is a problem since it accurately suggests that media outside the mainstream do not necessarily adopt the same attitude. As to "generally accepts" there are people who are members of the civil engineering community that do not accept the official version of events. We cannot imply those individuals do accept it when they do not. Perhaps changing "generally" to something else is in order, but there needs to be some qualifier since there are some civil engineers who openly advocate the conspiracy theories.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any need to say that the enginnering community "generally accepts" the mainstream explanation. There are always going to be kooks who believe nonsense. Do we say that geologists "generally accept" the world is round or that historians "generally accept" the Holocaust? Sorry, but "generally accepts" implies doubt where there is none. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Correct. You would be hard pressed to find any viewpoint or belief that isn't expressed by someone, somewhere. Other than a few fringe engineers, the engineering community recognizes that government and independent investigations use sound science to provide the only plausible explanation. Similarly, we don't say mainstream media accept the established theory, because this implies there are plenty of other reputable media outlets which reject it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by JoelWhy (talk • contribs) 13:22, February 8, 2012 (UTC)

This wording has been in the article for years without any objections. "Mainstream" is perfectly acceptable and it does not imply that other reputable media reject the official theory, because if it is a fringe media outlet it will likely not be regarded as reputable. If you have any alternative terms for "generally" than feel free to mention them.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Pointing out that NIST is a government agency is unimportant to the information being presented--it neither adds to nor detracts from its credibility as a source so is irrelevant. Using the qualifier "generally" implies a greater amount of disagreement than exists. WP:UNDUE. If a qualifier is absolutely necessary it should be something stronger, like "near universally." Mystylplx (talk) 21:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I put in predominantly. Would that be a better word? As far as mentioning that NIST is a government agency, I think it is important to note this lest people think it is an independent organization.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

No, we don't say historians "predominently" accept the Holocaust or geologists "predominently" accept the Earth is round. This wording implies doubt where there is none. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)"Predominantly" is a weasel word to be avoided. And whether NIST is an "independent organization" or not is irrelevant. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Look, here is what the cited source actually says as you can see from the References section:

“ As generally accepted by the community of specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering (though not by a few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives), the failure scenario was as follows.... ”

This is not a weasel word in any way. Qualifiers have meanings that are significant to any written work.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

"Generally" isn't a useful qualifier. It's a vague hand-wavy statement, not precise at all. Leaving out "generally" is better structurally, and the user still knows the offical story is accepted. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Accuracy matters. We should avoid making inaccurate statements in the article period, and even more so in the lede.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing inaccurate in leaving "generally" out of the lede. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so this has quickly devolved into yet another pointless "debate". DA, your opinion has been heard and we disagree with your assessment. If someone else has a reasonable argument to be made for the change, we can address that. But, DA, it's time for you to drop the matter. If you don't drop the matter, I propose the rest of us should ignore further postings on this topic by DA. I'm not ready to ignore everything DA has to say (yet), but if he insists on perpetuating a pointless argument, I think it's best if we don't take the bait. NEXT TOPIC!JoelWhy (talk) 22:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with JoelWhy - we should ignore further postings on this. Toa Nidhiki05 23:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Ignoring DA isn't a realistic option because they continue to edit the article. This article is under ArbCom santions. I'm wondering if we should file a RfE about DA?[46] Or maybe its better to address these issues in the one DA has already filed one against Tom?[47] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd support that - there is ample evidence of it. Toa Nidhiki05 23:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

His persistent reverting is a problem. I'm surprised he's being allowed to get away with 3rr on this page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

You yourself have supported retaining some of the information that has been removed so I am not the only one objecting to the removal. Also, this was not a "new change" by any measure. "Generally" and "mainstream" have been included in this article for a very long time. "Generally" is the exact word used in the citation for the material so to suggest to other editors that my position should be ignored is just uncivil.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The words "generally" and "mainstream" are used because they were agreed to in a very protracted RFC a few years ago. What has changed that they can be arbitrarily changed now without a new RFC? Repeatedly throwing up straw man arguements such as the Holocaust and flat earthers is not helpful. Wayne (talk) 02:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC) Wayne (talk) 02:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Dead and alive

This isn't what the source says.[48]. It's not that some believe one theory about bin Laden and some believe another. The source says "the more participants believed that Osama Bin Laden was already dead when U.S. special forces raided his compound in Pakistan, the more they believed he is still alive. Hierarchical regression models showed that mutually incompatible conspiracy theories are positively associated because both are associated with the view that the authorities are engaged in a cover-up." Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I checked the actual study. It does note that Truthers are more likely to believe Bin Laden was killed in 2000. And, the study did find that people who believe Bin Laden was killed in 2000 also tend to believe he was taken alive in 2011. But, the study did not look at whether Truthers believe both. Therefore, we cannot include this claim in the article because it would violate Synthesis rule.JoelWhy (talk) 23:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'll have to look at this when I have more free time, but I think the source might talking about conspiracy theorists in general, and not just 9/11 conspiracy theorists.

“ The conspiracy theories surrounding the death of Osama bin Laden can be divided into two major categories: those that propose he was already dead at the time of the raid, and those that propose he is still alive (Kingsley & Jones, 2011). The former seems to have currency among the 9/11 conspiracist Truth Movement; many “Truthers” allege that bin Laden died in 2000 or even earlier, and his video appearances since then were in fact staged productions made with a body double. The latter theory varies; some people believe that he is still at large, while others think that he was captured alive and is being secretly held for interrogation by the CIA. Naturally, these two theories are irreconcilable; bin Laden cannot be both alive and dead at the same time. However, as in Study 1, we predicted that belief in the two conspiracy theories would be positively correlated. ”

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Can it be assumed there's a consensus for restoring the Princess Diana mention with the following modification?

“ People who believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories are also more likely to believe other conspiracy theories such as about the deaths of Osama bin Laden and Princess Diana. ”

--MichaelNetzer (talk) 02:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

According to the studies, that is only one predictor of belief and is not even the most common predictor of those considered important. You cant mention one category to the exclusion of the others that are equally or even more relevant. NPOV requires all or none. Peer reviewed studies (ie: Byford, Chamorro-Premuzic, Carson, Furnham, Swami etc) have found that the major predictors are A: (this is the most common reason by far) people that rejected the current political system (political cynicism) are more likely to believe conspiracy theories. B: people who believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories are more likely to believe other conspiracy theories and C: "Intellectually curious, open-minded, and creative" people are more likely to believe conspiracy theories. They also found that in terms of cognitive functioning, conspiracy theorists can be as rational as sceptics. Psychologists such as Tajfel, Bilig, Gergen and Moscovici believe that belief is not psychological ("faulty reasoning") but is based on the "thematic configuration, narrative structure and explanatory logic" of the conspiracy theory, ie: if it sounds logical it may be true even if there is insufficient evidence. Wayne (talk) 13:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

9/11 CTs in conspiracism

The discussion about the Reichstag fire comparison and precedents section, as well as the insertion of material about correlations between belief in 9/11 conspiracy theories and belief in Princess Di theories, leads me to think we can resolve some of this dispute by creating a new section in the article focusing on the 9/11 conspiracy theories in relation to conspiracism in general. We have some scattered mentions in various sections that could be incorporated into it and it would be place for additions like the Reichstag and Princess Di. Basically my thinking is it would mentions 9/11 CTs as part of a broader conspiracist narrative espoused by many proponents. I think there would be plenty of sources to back up such a section and it would be a lot more useful than the mentions we currently have strewn about.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. Mystylplx (talk) 18:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone else have any input to provide?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe it has been established in prior discussion that Reichstag Fire comparisons are not notable. Toa Nidhiki05 20:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

It could be appropriate in a section on conspiracism. Mystylplx (talk) 20:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

By no measure was this established as the vote was a pretty even split that favored inclusion. Policies like WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTABILITY do not mean you need dozens of sources to justify inclusion of material in an article if it does not emphasize a fringe aspect of the subject, which this is not. However, redoing the section to incorporate these comparisons in a more encyclopedic fashion is certainly preferable to the way it would be currently included.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

This has just been added to the last sentence of the lead:

However, more than 1,000 architects and engineers have reportedly signed a petition calling for a new investigation into the building collapses.

References:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/22/inside-the-beltway-70128635/?feat=home_columns
http://www.smh.com.au/world/utzons-son-signs-up-for-september-11-conspiracy-theory-20091124-jhf7.html
http://macedoniaonline.eu/content/view/12598/2/
http://www.ae911truth.org/signpetition.php

Now if you check the list, many of those who have signed are not architects or engineers. Many are Electrical Engineers, simply have a bachelor's degree in engineering, are software engineers and so forth. I have no idea what the actual amount of experts really are if you remove all of the people with degrees in areas that are only tangentially related. Have such an analysis been done? I believe it might be undue weight to include them as they appear to represent a minority and I don't think they publish their views in peer reviewed engineering journals. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 14:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

You've got two reliable sources citing the 1000 figure (The Washington Times and the Macedonian International News Agency). Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

It certainly isn't fit for the lede, and even if you assume all are really engineers, they still represent a tiny minority of the engineering community not worth mentioning. Toa Nidhiki05 14:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

"However": WP:Undue Weight, and [49], [50], [51]. SK (talk) 15:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

This IS an article about 9/11 conspiracy theories, so how can it be undue weight to counter an assertion that implies ALL experts support the mainstream account? Here's another article: http://archinect.com/news/article/11045427/riba-comes-under-fire-for-hosting-bonkers-9-11-talk Ghostofnemo (talk) 15:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the insertion of "most of the" actually points to a nice approach for resolving a previous dispute, but the insertion about AE911 gives undue weight to the conspiracy theories and to that organization. As I recall there was an instance where some notable group or individual demonstrated how their petition was easily gamed. Maybe someone can track down the source, but I think there was some report about how their method for verifying someone's credentials was incredibly subpar with AE911 supposedly changing their methods in response. For a while I have been wanting to find it so it could be put in the AE911 article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Another news article: http://www.cm-life.com/2011/04/24/new-student-group-questions-911-attacks/ It's not undue weight to mention news reports about this petition - it counters assertions experts almost unanimously support the government account.Ghostofnemo (talk) 15:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, there's the magic phrase. For full disclosure, do you support the 9/11 Truth movement? Is it the goal of you're editing here to - as you say - "counter the government account"? Toa Nidhiki05 15:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean my personal opinion? I personally find it hard to understand why the government would scrap all the evidence without conducting an investigation. And it also seemed odd that you had FBI agents who were telling headquarters that they suspected a plot was underway to fly jets into buildings but they weren't allowed to pursue their leads by their bosses: http://articles.latimes.com/2006/mar/21/nation/na-moussa21 But I'm not a member of any 9/11 truth groups. What about you - do you believe the government account? Does that disqualify you from editing this article? Ghostofnemo (talk) 16:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Reminder: WP:NOTAFORUM--Harizotoh9 (talk) 16:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Reminder: that cuts both ways! Deleting relevant, reliably sourced, NPOV material from the article seems more suspicious than including it. Ghostofnemo (talk) 16:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Is the Macedonia Online article a reprint of a press release? It reads like one and I've seen it reprinted by other sources. In that case, it doesn't count as a reliable source since it would be actually written by the A&E for 9/11 Truth. I'm also questioning the veracity of the 1,000 figure. They seem to include anyone with the word "engineer" in their title, or anyone with even a bachelor's degree in anything relating to engineering. This means that many don't actually count as "experts" who are relevant to this discussion. Which means that the actual number of real experts on the list is in question. I can search for other reliable sources that question the veracity of their expertise. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 15:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

This story was even featured in "Project Censored" for 2011. It's a group of journalists and journalism professors who feature the top under-reported stories of each year. See the third paragraph: http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/14-increased-tensions-with-unresolved-911-issues/ Ghostofnemo (talk) 16:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Project Censorced is not a reliable source. Toa Nidhiki05 16:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh really? Check out Project Censored "Project Censored is one of the organizations that we should listen to, to be assured that our newspapers and our broadcasting outlets are practicing thorough and ethical journalism." Walter Cronkite Ghostofnemo (talk) 16:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

1. Walter said "listen to", not "believe". We're already considering AE911T in this article. "Damage to Saturn"???
2. Our article notes that their coverage of 911 has led to resignations of judges; even if Project Censored were a reliable source, that would have to be noted.

All of this means that mention of AE911T is too nuanced to be in the lead. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The place in the lead where Ghostofnemo is trying to insert that is talking about the civil engineering community. The AE911truth petition has few signers from that community. To put that up in juxtaposition with the ASCE is very clearly undue weight. Most of the signers are architects, and even among the engineers most are not civil or structural engineers who could actually claim some expertise on this topic. Mystylplx (talk) 19:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

We now have four or five news stories or stories by media groups pointing out this petition. That leads me to believe that, based on the reliable sources, this is notable. If it remains deleted, you have the untrue assertion that the government account is unchallenged by construction professionals. Furthermore, this line is being excluded based on original research (see WP:NOR) of editors who are "debunking" news reports. Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

How about we say "the vast majority of" before "the civil engineering community" and leave out the mention of AE911?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

What is your rationale for excluding it? It seems relevant, reliably sourced and NPOV. Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

It certainly doesn't go in the lead. Definitely not juxtaposed with the ASCE as if they are of anything like equal weight. Mystylplx (talk) 02:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we need to qualify it. Just saying "the civil engineering community" doesn't imply it's unanimous within that community, just that is the position of the community as a whole. Same way Wikipedia editors can come to consensus even if a few disagree. Adding the "vast majority" qualifier is not inaccurate, but it's unnecessary and bad writing. Mystylplx (talk) 02:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

"Consensus" is not always agreed to be unanimous, but that is not the issue here. Many will read the current wording and presume that there are no dissenters or that there isn't anyone seriously challenging it. Talking about "bad writing" and it being "unnecessary" is a smoke screen for you really mean and I would appreciate it if people stop playing games like this. You don't want the wording in because you don't want there to be any impression of dissent at all. While that is perfectly respectable as your personal opinion, it is not appropriate for writing an article. Emphasizing that it is accepted to an almost universal degree is not going to persuade people to believe the theories, but leaving out that there are engineers who disagree might.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not the one playing games here. There isn't anyone seriously challenging it. You want the wording in because you want to create the impression that there are serious challenges. If you can show a credible source that takes AE911truth "seriously" then I will eat my hat. Until then the fact is that the civil engineering community rejects the conspiracy theories and there is no "serious" dissent. Mystylplx (talk) 05:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

When I say "serious" I mean the difference between "I have some doubts" and "you lie!"--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 09:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

What does that even mean? When I say 'seriouts' I mean serious. As in serious dissent taken seriously by the civil engineering community. As in what would happen if there was any real debate taking place within said community. Please stop the weird and tiresome semantic arguments. Mystylplx (talk) 17:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you are the one who is arguing semantic here. We have notable dissenters to the official theory within the civil engineering community who disagree with pretty much the entire theory. It is appropriate to leave some sort of qualifier. "Vast majority" doesn't in any way indicate that there is any dissent being taken seriously. This use of a qualifier has been normal in many articles on fringe theories. All it does is indicate that not all of the civil engineering community agrees, which is correct and verifiable. Never mind that the cited source, a scientific journal, actually uses a qualifier for its acceptance within the civil engineering community. Are we really going to have to have another RfC over this issue as well?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Pointing out that some "outsiders" think someone planted explosives isn't a qualifier for its acceptance within the engineering community. Feel free to start yet another RfC if you like. I doubt you will have any more success with this one than with any others. Mystylplx (talk) 19:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

(unindent) 2 Things: 1. we are talking about the lede. 2. we are talking about a paragraph contextualising conspiracy theories, pointing out that they have no standing within the scientific communities of the relevant fields. On both counts, being the lede, talking about the context, AE991T has no place. ad 1. because at that points we are not going into specifics, ad 2. because AE911T is an advocacy group, not a scientific organisation. It is that easy, really. SK (talk) 20:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't seem WP:NPOV to lead readers to believe that construction professionals unanimously support the government's findings (basically debunking the subject of the article in the lead-in), while at the same time concealing the existence of the Architects and Engineers petition, even when it has been mentioned by several news organizations. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

It doesn’t, until you look at how editors have presented them. I'm all for the mention of the AE911T petition, with the caveat that it also be mentioned that there are a lot of unqualified signatures on it. — TheHerbalGerbil^(TALK|STALK), 12:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the question is still up in the air as to how many relevant experts are even on it. It is much less than 1,000. I'd be more comfortable if there was some reliable source analysing the signatures so that we can provide better context. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 14:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

You'll need to find a reliable source that debunks the petition. None of the news sources that have mentioned it have mentioned invalid signatures. Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

To much for lede. Edkollin (talk) 23:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I have not seen any articles by reliable sources discussing the validity of the credentials of the petition signers. That is too bad, but we can not sit here and say this person looks right, this person looks wrong, 50% of the signers look invalid therefore the petition is not reliable. That is as original research as it gets. It is not our job here to do the work organizations deemed "reliable" by Wikipedia failed to do. Notability and variability guidelines have been met for the continuation of AE9/11 an their petitions mention in this article. Edkollin (talk) 23:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The Washington Times source is a column, not a news story, and therefore fails rs. Otherwise, the main issue is neutrality, if the story is only mentioned in a few publications, then it lacks the significance to mention. TFD (talk) 01:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

It's still a reliable source. It appears in a real newspaper, the author is a regular columnist, it's professionally edited, and it has a publisher who is responsible for the content. It's not an editorial or a letter to the editor. Ghostofnemo (talk) 17:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

It is an editorial and therefore unlike an article is not reliable for facts, only the opinion of the writer. Typically newspapers publish columnists presenting differing viewpoints that are not necessarily the views of the editor. TFD (talk) 18:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Nemo, I am curious, if the wording in the lede "the civil engineering community accepts" were changed to "the civil engineering community generally accepts" would you drop your insistence on mentioning AE911 in the lede?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

'Generally' implies the existence of real, serious dissent - which there isn't. We don't say that historians 'generally' accept the Holocaust or that scientists 'generally' reject the Flat Earth theories, why is this any different? Toa Nidhiki05 19:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Questions that are essentially asking "why should we treat this different from Holocaust denial?" are not in any way a valuable contribution to the discussion. I shouldn't even have to tell you that 9/11 conspiracy theories are not on the same level as Holocaust denial.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Toa Nidhiki05's example was a poor choice, but we do not provide parity to fringe theories. No civil engineer or architect has published an academic paper challenging the cause of the buildings' collapse. TFD (talk) 03:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Parity is not what I am talking about. Allowing that there are some who disagree is different from giving their positions parity with the mainstream position.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Citing the ASCE then noting that "some disagree" followed by citing AE911truth is giving AE911truth parity with the ASCE. And I'm not sure what "level" holocaust deniers are in comparison to 911 truthers, but they are really quite similar cases. Maybe a better comparison would be Obama birthers, and we don't say judges "generally" reject birthers claims either. Mystylplx (talk) 05:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself...

Universally though has the foregoing explanation of collapse been accepted by the communities of structural engineers and structural mechanics researchers, some outside critics have nevertheless exploited various unexplained observations to disseminate allegations of controlled demolition.
...snip...
These conclusions show the allegations of controlled demolition to be absurd and leave no doubt that the towers failed due to gravity-driven progressive collapse triggered by the effects of fire.
— Zdeněk P. Bažant, What Did and Did Not Cause Collapse of World Trade Center Twin Towers in New York? doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2008)134:10(892)

The number of professionals that doubt the conclusions of Bažant or the NIST et al. is extremely small. That the opinons of this group are the topic of this article does not give them any actual validity. Please see WP:UNDUE. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 12:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

@Myst I was not suggesting the AE911 stuff be included in the lede. I was, in fact, asking if Nemo would be fine with keeping that out of the lede so long as we restore the wording "generally accepts" to the lede.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

You need to provide a reliable source that says there is doubt in the community. TFD (talk) 16:07, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

We already have a reliable source cited that uses the word "generally" to describe acceptance within the civil engineering community.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually "generally"...

As generally accepted by the community of specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering (though not by a few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives), the failure scenario was as follows... Bazant 2007

...is out of date...

Universally though has the foregoing explanation of collapse been accepted by the communities of structural engineers and structural mechanics researchers, some outside critics have nevertheless exploited various unexplained observations to disseminate allegations of controlled demolition. Bazant 2008

Get it? —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 09:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

"Out of date" is not the appropriate way of looking at it. That this change in wording happened just a year later and in a paper where Greening, who appears to be at the forefront of the debunkers, became involved does not suggest to me this was anything more than an attempt to strengthen wording by people uninvolved in the first paper because softer wording was politically problematic. I sincerely doubt it actually went from "general acceptance" to "universal acceptance" within a year. What I see is that we have one source saying "generally" and another saying "universally" suggesting there is a conflicted view about its level of acceptance. However, given that we all know there are people who are structural engineers that object to the official theory we should favor the accurate description, not one that suggests those people do not exist.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

DA, let it go. You're arguments have all been debunked by pretty much everybody here and it is very clear they are not consensus. Toa Nidhiki05 18:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Well DA, there are structural engineers and there are guys like Bažant. Luckily we can use WP:WEIGHT to sort things out. Let us know when you get your sources together. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:44, 20 February 2012 (UT

Not sure if I get what you are saying. His first paper says one thing, and it appears he was the primary authority behind it. The second paper you cited includes numerous other major people involved so it is unreasonable to suggest his paper has been "updated" by the second paper. What we know is that there are indeed structural engineers who disagree, something that can be easily verified, and there is a source specifically using the word "generally" to account for that small dissenting group. Rather than arguing "this guy says it is universal so we should ignore all verifiable information clearly demonstrating it is not universal and pretend like it is" you should allow that a small qualifier like "generally" is accurate and also better than edits like Nemo's that insert the stuff about AE911 into the lede.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Even the one that uses the word "generally" goes on to state that only a few "outsiders" disagree. Mystylplx (talk) 21:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

By "outsiders" Bazant is refering to non-engineers and belief in CD. He accepts that some engineers believe in particular CTs that dont include CD. I can tell you through my own experience that using the word "Universally thought" in an academic paper would result in rejection by any legitimate peer review because it is such a patently false claim. This subject is blighted by people who cant separate CD from CTs in general or use CD to discredit legtimate concerns. Wayne (talk) 06:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I think my original line is the best solution. The current article says "The civil engineering community accepts (the government explanation for the collapses)" and my additional line says, "However, more than 1,000 architects and engineers have reportedly signed a petition calling for a new investigation into the building collapses." And there are three newspaper articles that note this and a link to the petition web page, where readers can see the names of the signatories and their credentials. Seems pretty NPOV to me. Although I'm supposed to be assuming good faith, it almost seems as if there is an attempt to cover up the existence of this petition and the very existence of any dissent. Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE mostly. Certainly not the lede. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

From WP:UNDUE: "In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained." In this article, about a minority view point, the minority viewpoint is being dominated by the mainstream view, to the point that the minority view is not even being allowed to counter-balance the majority view in the lead on this point. Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

What you quoted from WP:UNDUE expresses it very nicely. Mystylplx (talk) 03:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

This whole article is about the dissent--strange to claim anyone is covering it up. In the entire article there's just that one tiny paragraph giving the consensus account. I don't see why some feel such a need to water even that down. If anything it feels like there is an attempt to make it seem there is more (and more significant) dissent within the engineering and science communities than actually exists. Putting up AE911Truth in juxtaposition with theASCE is a powerful example of that. It implies that the two organizations are somehow comparable in terms of credibility. Like saying that scientists generally accept that the world is round, however 1000 members of the flat earth society dispute this claim. Mystylplx (talk) 02:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, while the exact nature of Nemo's edit is problematic, we don't make any mention of the 9/11 Truth Movement and the various organizations that comprise it in the lede, even though this represents a significant aspect of the subject. Including this in the lede in some manner would seem to be appropriate.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Ghostofnemo, this article exists because conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11 have received a level of media coverage that satisfies the notability requirement for inclusion. It should not be inferred that this "notability" supplies the theories themselves with any actual credibility. Credibility is at the mercy of WP:RS et al. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 04:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we should use the word "universally." A few fringe scientists don't believe in evolution, and it's not fair to say they don't exist. I get it, we all want to rub the Truthers' noses in the fact that they believe in a patently absurd conspiracy. But, let's not do that to the detriment of the article. We just need to phrase this to provide a clear understanding that the scientific community is in agreement, that the evidence clearly supports the prevailing view. We can indicate something about some fringe scientists signing on to a statement questioning the findings. But, we make it clear that virtually every claim made by the fringe has either been debunked or is based with virtually nothing to support it.JoelWhy (talk) 13:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I would avoid both "generally" and "universally". And no, we don't want to rub anybody's nose in anything but we do need to avoid documenting doubt where there is none. Unqualified claims by AE911Truth that the signatures of ~1000 architects and engineers on a petition indicate actual doubt are unfounded and not supported in the sources. The opinions of those that disagree with the wider and specialist community should be attributed to those individuals or organizations.—ArtifexMayhem (talk) 14:07, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with this. I don't like "universally" because it is too absolute. That's not to say we should use terminology which implies doubt -- only that makes mention of the existence of fringe true believers.JoelWhy (talk) 14:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

We have a documented source from a highly-qualified and reliable academic who thought nothing of using the word "generally" in a scientific journal. I think you should consider that more compelling than your own personal dislike of saying anything that you think will be too accommodating to conspiracy theorists. Perhaps by mentioning some of those truther organizations, such as AE911, immediately after that we can make it clear that when we say "generally accepts" we are talking about those groups being on the dissenting side.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't seem NPOV to not mention, in an article about 9/11 conspiracy theories, that there exists a sizeable group of architects and engineers who DON'T buy the government's explanation. If you are going to state in the lead that the government's view is accepted by the civil engineering community, it's a huge omission to not also point out that a group of people with some expertise is asking for another look. It's not comparable to flat earth theories. Could you get 1000 astronomers and geologists to sign a petition saying the earth may actually be flat and that more research is needed? Ghostofnemo (talk) 18:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you could find 1000 people who have some ephemeral connection to astronomy or geology, a few of whom might actually be astronomers or geologists, to sign such a petition. Mystylplx (talk) 18:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

We also have a credible source who thought nothing of using the word "universally", but no one is suggesting weuse that word in the article and only two people are suggesting we use the word "generally." Considering the fact that the case to use each word is exactly equal I'd say it shows who is trying to push a POV and who isn't. Mystylplx (talk) 18:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The difference is that "universally" would be demonstrably false, while "generally" is clearly accurate.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The .pdf is being looked at in the wrong way. In 2008 it used the word "universal" to describe the structural engineering community's view. That was 2008 before the all or most of the AE911Truth got notoriety and many of their signatures. While they would probably use "universal" today we can't assume that. What should used are the specific refutations of the controlled demolition theorist claims. Edkollin (talk) 20:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

"List of dissenting scientists" is a common tactic of pseudo-science promoters. AIDS Denialists for instance have [one]. Evolution deniers have another. The numbers on the list are inflated with a lot of people who are not relevant experts. Such lists does not mean that there is a real debate going on in the sciences. They represent an extreme minority position. For instance, Project Steve was created to highlight how much of a minority they really are in biology. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I am sick and tired of people comparing 9/11 conspiracy theorists to groups like these. Why don't you compare them to JFK conspiracy theorists or OKC bombing conspiracy theories? All comments like these do is poison the wells in a content dispute. Calling the subject pseudo-science is also quite absurd. Save for the "no-planes" fringe there is no pseudoscience involved in 9/11 conspiracy theories. On occasion there is bad science, but that is not the same as pseudoscience.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

They are perfectly legitimate comparisons to theories that are just as insane and absurd. 9/11 Truthers are no different in their faulty reasoning than AIDS Denialists, Holocaust deniers, or moon landing conspiracy theorists. Toa Nidhiki05 21:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Every single word of your post is WP:OR. Peer reviewed psychology studies have found that belief in 911 conspiracy theories is not psychological ("faulty reasoning") but is based on the "thematic configuration, narrative structure and explanatory logic" of the conspiracy theory, the premise being that if it sounds logical, it may be true even if there is insufficient evidence. These studies refute claims that most of the theories are "insane and absurd". Most conspiracy theories are separated from AIDS Denialists, Holocaust deniers and moon landing conspiracy theorists by the fact that these are clearly refuted by the evidence wheras many conspiracy theories cant be refuted due to a lack of evidence. Personal opinion has no place in arguing an edit. Please stick to the facts. Wayne (talk) 13:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

All I see is an uncivil attempt to poison people's minds against those who disagree with you in a content dispute. The article is about 9/11 conspiracy theories. I don't see why we can't find some way to accommodate Nemo's desire to see notable groups mentioned in the lede. We can even use it as a way of bringing the term "generally" back in a way that would satisfy concerns about it implying mainstream doubt. This is not an article about AIDS denialists or creationists and how we treat each subject should be determined by reliable sources.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

All of these conspiracy theories are similarly trying to poison the minds of people with paranoia and bad science, so comparisons are apt. If they have been made in reliable sources then there's no reason not to reflect them here.

I don't know of any Wikipedia guideline that would require other conspiracies theories to be a factor in how AE911Truth is handled in this article. Besides the comparisons between 9/11 CT's and their supporters compared with other theories and their supporters is dealt with at some length in the article. Edkollin (talk) 00:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

As for the 1,000 "engineers", this does not appear to to fulfill WP:WEIGHT, particularly:

This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news

Apart from being mentioned by two news sources shortly after it happened has it been referenced by future sources on a later date? Has it had persistent coverage in the news, or been covered in less transient works than the news or is this just been thrown out there to attract readership with titles like "Explosive News". Without any indication of ongoing significance to the subject its incredulous to believe it is a significant information or that it won't mislead readers unaware of the fraudulent authority many of these "engineers" have on the subject.AerobicFox (talk) 03:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Are any of the petition debunkers here engineers or architects? Have you checked out the list of signatories on the A&E website? Why do your personal opinions and original research trump the reliable news sources that have mentioned this petition? You have yet to produce one reliable source that this petition is a hoax or that some of the signatories claiming to be architects or engineers are frauds. Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Another news story that mentions the petition, and also mentions other news organizations who are covering the story: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/14/geraldo-much-open-minded-911-campaign/ Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Fox News video from 2010 that mentions the petition: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=pFPobKeSzKQ Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

A trivial mention by a Fox news host, and a blog criticizing that Fox news host mentioning it in one line as well. The news is transient and reports are commonly done on breaking stories without any kind of historical perspective, has someone recently brought this up, has there been any evidence of a lasting impact stated by a reliable source? Also, do you know what a fallacious appeal to authority is? It's me calling myself a culinary engineer because I made a triple-deck peanut butter & jelly sandwich for lunch and then responding to every layman who questions my authority on collapsing buildings "Well, are you an engineer?"AerobicFox (talk) 04:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't have any qualms with including the petition in this article. There clearly has been media coverage of their claims. But, it needs to clearly point out that this is a tiny fringe group. 1,500 architects and engineers? Engineers which include electrical engineers, mechanical engineers, computer engineers, and others with as much expertise in this arena as someone who majored in, say, French or Women's Studies? It should be included in the article if only to point out just how fringe this claim is within scientific circles.JoelWhy (talk) 13:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

How fringe is AE911? How many engineers have publicly agreed with the official explanations? 100? 200? 500? I doubt it would more than that and suspect it may be only a few dozen. A few engineers have gone on record that they will never make their opinions public in case it negatively affected their careers and this is apparently widespread. There have been plenty of polls on who believes CT but has there ever been one for engineers? If not, why not? That some engineers have gone public in support of some CTs makes limited mention relevant. Wayne (talk) 14:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I've never seen a poll asking astronomers whether they believe we really landed on the moon. I've never seen a poll of historians to see if they believe there really was an Atlantis. But, yes, clearly there is a conspiracy to keep the engineering community silenced!JoelWhy (talk) 14:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Sigh......because there is no comparison between the two cases so you are proposing a logical fallacy, which seems to be the only type of arguement you can can find to support your case. We have an abundance of evidence for the Moon landing, easily understood by the non academic, from start to finish. We have physical evidence, photographic evidence and even a man-made mirror on the Moon which will reflect a laser to a degree that is impossible to fake. For the 911 collapses we only have mathematics. NIST admits the physical and photographic evidence does not support a collapse and they did not even investigate the collapse beyond the point of initiation. How many people can read Bezant's paper and say "oh wow, it's so obvious". I'm talking here of understanding the math not just agreeing with it because you are biased to the official theory. We even have the problem that NIST refuted Bazants original paper so he had to rewrite it...at least four times! Wayne (talk) 08:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

BTW, who has claimed there is a conspiracy to silence engineers? Wayne (talk) 08:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

1. "NIST admits the physical and photographic evidence does not support a collapse"
   1. Their report clearly does not say this
2. "biased to the official theory"
   1. Which group are you biased to, a bunch of random people calling themselves engineers from unrelated fields who have Googled 9/11 or:

• "[NIST's] in-house expertise with an array of specialists in key technical areas ... over 200 staff contributed to the Investigation ... NIST and its contractors compiled and reviewed tens of thousand of pages of documents; conducted interviews with over a thousand people who had been on the scene or who had been involved with the design, construction, and maintenance of the WTC; analyzed 236 pieces of steel that were obtained from the wreckage; performed laboratory tests, measured material properties, and performed computer simulations ... Cooperation in obtaining the resource materials and in interpreting the results came from a large number of individuals and organizations, including The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and its contractors and consultants; Silverstein Properties and its contractors and consultants; the City of New York and its departments; the manufacturers and fabricators of the building components; the companies that insured the WTC towers; the building tenants; the aircraft manufacturers; the airlines; the public, including survivors and family members; and the media."

If you do not see a problem with weight, pitting a petition from a scant field of unrelated "experts" who have done no direct research vs. virtually every individual and organization with any authority on the subject involved who investigated this then you should reread WP:WEIGHT.AerobicFox (talk) 20:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

1. "Their report clearly does not say this"
   The NIST report above actually says that the most severe computor simulation didn't allow the buildings to collapse so they altered the data "beyond what the physical and photographic evidence supported until collapse occured". In writing a peer reviewed paper, engineers questioned NIST on this and NIST explained that while this is true they did not alter the data beyond "physical possibility." The engineers requested to know what data was altered but NIST declined.
2. Which group are you biased to, a bunch of random people calling themselves engineers from unrelated fields who have Googled 9/11 or NIST's in-house expertise.
   I am biased to no one. I am simply not scared to give all sources a fair go based on weight and relevance, regardless of whether it contradicts what I myself believe. Just because something may be used to support CTs does not mean that the CTS are true. Wayne (talk) 15:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
3. "beyond what the physical and photographic evidence supported until collapse occured"
   • I believe the actual quote you are looking for is "simulations deviated from the photographic evidence or eyewitness reports", but I can see how to an open enough mind that can be read as "NIST admits the physical and photographic evidence does not support a collapse".
   1. "I am biased to no one. I am simply not scared to give all sources a fair go based on weight and relevance"
      • Everyone is biased, believing you have none makes you more susceptible to it. Dividing the sides into 1 group for an "official theory" and 1 group against is not giving all sources a fair go. The 9/11 conspiracy theorists like many others are only notable because they are vocal, not because their opinions are an alternatively valid way of looking at things, and to that extent we cover their vocality because it is notable and their opinions because it explains their vocality, but we do not care about arguing over the validity of their opinions because their validity is irrelevant apart from the fact that they are wrong and the driving force behind their actions. If they had valid points then we could argue over them in a detailed and nuanced way, but no reliable sources have bothered to write things to contradict them beyond what has already been presented, and if nobody reliably describes the importance of something they do then it isn't significant enough for this article.AerobicFox (talk) 02:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe that reliable sources are supposed to decide if something is notable or not, not us humble editors. Reliable sources have mentioned this petition, including the Washington Times, Sydney Morning Herald and Fox News. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Let me see if this is clear, according to you "reliable sources ... decide if something is notable or not" and since "Reliable sources have mentioned this petition" you believe that those sources have determined the petition to be notable. Then does it follow that everything that is mentioned in sources is notable? No it does not. We do not create a mosaic of trivial mentions and shallow coverage to prove notability, we require a source explicitly stating the importance of something in order for it to be notable. So far none of these sources have stated any significance to this petition.AerobicFox (talk) 22:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The petition exists, it has been mentioned by the given reliable sources (making it notable), and it is clearly relevant to the subject of the article. It is not random information plucked from a footnote, but is prominently mentioned by all the listed sources. Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Existing does not make it notable, neither does mentions in reliable sources. Unless a source states something to the effect of "this is notable because" or gives some other indication of notability, or continues to be mentioned in sources then their is no indication that it should be given weight.AerobicFox (talk) 15:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Outside of analytic pieces most news stories do not say this is notable or something to that effect. The decision to print means they think it was newsworthy/notable etc. And of course we would not put in trivia like it was raining when they presented the petition. How often do reliable sources mention it if not analyse it is also important. I google news "9/11 truth" and "9/11 conspiracy" by date order pretty much every day. A lot of it is what you would expect reprints by fringe blogs of what appears in Prison Planet. I have not counted how often but what I see a decent amount of local media covering AE911 Truth events in their area and mentioning the petition. Edkollin (talk) 23:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The petition exists. We cannot say that a reliable source says that the signers are "architects and engineers" without evidence that they are not just quoting the organization. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The reliable sources do not question the validity of the signer's credentials. The signer's credentials are publicly displayed on the group's website. If the news organizations were diligent, they would have checked this out prior to publication. It's called "fact checking". Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

"The decision to print means they think it was newsworthy/notable"

Newspapers print breaking stories all the time with the intent to be the first one to, or to grab reader's attention, without any notion of notability. Not everything a newspaper has written should be reprinted in Wikipedia, only that which a newspaper has indicated will have lasting importance should make its way here, so far neither of those sources do that.AerobicFox (talk) 04:27, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The 9/11 truth movement is not "breaking news" so that argument doesn't pertain in this case. Long term follow up or continuing coverage of a subject by reliable sources has always been a marker for notability in the discussions I have seen. If we only printed what reliable sources say will have lasting impact we might have no 9/11 CT article or at most a stub.Edkollin (talk) 05:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Pseudoscience category

While there had been strong support in the RfC for keeping the denialism category, it was much softer on the pseudoscience category. As another editor has stepped in to try and remove the category I think we should focus on that specific category. Not only do we have very little sourcing at all to back up this category, the application here seems off. Many aspects of certain 9/11 conspiracy theories include bad science, but I don't think bad science is the same as pseudoscience. Only a few very fringe views could actually be described as pseudoscientific, in my opinion. The vast majority of the conspiracy theories are just conspiracy theories and the whole group of them should not be described as pseudoscience based on the attitudes of editors, as that was the only basis provided by editors supporting the category.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

After some thought I have to agree with this. Pseudoscience may be a part of many 911 conspiracy theories but 911 conspiracy theories are not in and of themselves pseudoscience. Mystylplx (talk) 21:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

You're argument is demonstratively false; 14-6 (70%) is not 'weak' by any stretch of the imagination and is almost the same as denialism got (15-5, 75%) and quite frankly there is no need to redo this less than a month after the previous overwhelming consensus (Denialism and pseudoscience, too early for psuedohistory) was created. There is no valid reason to revisit this early. Toa Nidhiki05 22:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The previous RfC mentioned three separate categories and so it was less focused on any particular one. Also, when I say the support was softer it is because two people voted "weak support" and that matters. Now we have another editor who objected to the category and Myst changing his stance.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

9-11 conspiracies are a mixture of pseudo-science and pseudo-history. The distinction between the two is not meaningful. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:51, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Several major theories don't even attempt scientific arguments so it is kind of disingenuous to suggest they are all pseudoscience. Also, like I said, bad science is not the same as pseudoscience. Nothing postulated by the main 9/11 conspiracy theories is outside the realm of possibility. They do not try to challenge some commonly-held scientific theory or law. Only the fringe of the fringe do anything like that and that is not sufficient reason for labeling all of the theories as pseudoscience.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Change to no-planes section

I inserted the following wording to the no-planes section:

“ Most 9/11 conspiracy theorists have strongly rejected the "no-plane" claims with advocates of the theory occasionally being banned from conspiracy theory websites and sometimes threatened by posters ”

This was reverted and I restored it. While the editor reverting claims the original version reflects what the source actually says, this is inaccurate. At no point does the Phoenix article say "discussion" of the no-planes theory is banned from certain websites. It specifically references people who advocate the theory as sometimes being banned and sometimes being threatened. The source also clearly supports the "strongly rejected" wording.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 14:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

DA, here's what the sources you cite state, as far as I can tell:

From Yoda of 9/11:

"To us, they're all insane," offers Bennett. "But, to them, there are different levels of bizarreness."

Indeed, there are LIHOPers, those who believe the government "let it [9/11] happen on purpose"; MIHOPers, who insist that the government "made it happen on purpose"; "no-planers," who assert that no planes were involved in any part of the attack; people who believe there was no plane at the Pentagon attack but, otherwise, there were planes. There are even "pod people," who cling to a notion, widely rejected in the movement, that one of the photos of United Airlines Flight 175 just before it flew into the South Tower of the WTC shows a pod or bulge on the underside of the plane near the fuselage.

Posters on 911blogger.com and other conspiracy theory sites angrily reject certain ideas, like those of the outcast no-planers. They sometimes even threaten violence against the likes of the no-planers and ban them from forums for fear of being tainted by their lunacy.

From Truth is Out There:

As if this plot wasn't sufficiently challenging, there were Truth activists who became persuaded of even more technologically complex possibilities. On the fifth anniversary of the attacks, the New Statesman carried an interview with David Shayler and his partner Annie Machon, the former employees of MI5. The interviewer describes Machon as looking uncomfortable when Shayler decides to reveal his true opinion. “‘Oh f*** it, I'm just going to say this', (Shayler) tells her. ‘Yes, I believe no planes were involved in 9/ll.' But we all saw with our own eyes the two planes crash into the WTC. ‘The only explanation is that they were missiles surrounded by holograms made to look like planes,' he says. ‘Watch footage frame by frame and you will see a cigar-shaped missile hitting the World Trade Center.' He must notice that my jaw has dropped. ‘I know it sounds weird, but this is what I believe.'”

I didn't bother reading through the 3rd source, which is hardly notable. However, if you can please point me to language in either of the articles you cited which support your claim, I would appreciate it.JoelWhy (talk) 16:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The "yoda" article describes them as being "outcasts" amongst the conspiracy theorists. The 3rd source is from a conspiracist source so what it says about these claims is pretty important:

“ Regardless, claims which have been widely and publicly rejected by the vast majority of the 9/11 truth community ”

It is pretty clear from the sources we have that this is rejected by most 9/11 conspiracy theorists.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The first article clearly mentions 'outcast no-planers' in the context of 'posters on...conspiracy theory sites." Nowhere does it state that most 9/11 conspiracy theorists strongly reject the theory. The second article makes no assertions whatsoever regarding how widespread the belief is. The 3rd article is most certainly not a reliable source for making any type of factual claim; rather, if it is to be used to all, it can strictly be used to show what certain Truthers believe. (Or, are you really going to argue some random person's blog meets to notability requirements under Wiki policy.)

DA, once again, either provide evidence to support your edits to the article, or your edits will be reverted. As I had edited the section, it does not imply that all or most Truthers believe this. It states most posters on 9/11 forums reject the idea. We have a reliable source supporting this. This is Wiki Editing 101. Surely by now you must understand this.JoelWhy (talk) 17:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The third source is not reliable concerning the theories themselves, but it is reliable concerning what theorists believe and that would include what most believe about the no-planes theories.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding me. You really think that some random Truther's blog can be cited to make a factual claim regarding the prevalence of a particular theory? DA, stop wasting people's time with asinine arguments. Either find a reliable source for your claim or it'll be removed. I'm done debating this with you.JoelWhy (talk) 17:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

It is not "some random Truther's blog" but one of the main 9/11 conspiracy theory websites.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Journal of 9/11 Studies A Critical Review of WTC 'No Plane' Theories Quote:
"These theories never were and never will be broadly accepted among the 9/11 skeptic community"
"never supported by any more than a small minority of 9/11 researchers"
"it is clear that there is no supporting physical evidence whatsoever for the no-plane hypothesis"
"It is standard operating procedure for false and misleading evidence to be planted to discredit conspiracy researchers. We can be nearly certain that this has been done with 9/11 evidence" Wayne (talk) 17:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Anyone else care to examine the 'reliable sources' presented?JoelWhy (talk) 14:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The sources are reliable as it concerns what 9/11 conspiracy theorists believe. Sources demonstrating that the vast majority reject the no-planes theories is pretty compelling for including material to that effect in the article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

When discussing 9/11 conspiracy how can any official document, 911 Commission, NIST, etc be regarded as reliable? If the government is covering things up then its publications must be regarded with suspicion in the same way as any document coming out of Nazi Germany could be regarded as possible propaganda. In determining what is reliable we must look at the quality of the evidence directly, and not through some sort of official filter.

In this regard, the high school teacher who first showed that by video analysis, that building 7 was falling at free fall acceleration for about 2.4 seconds, must be regarded as reliable. Especially when his evidence has been supported to Steven Jones and NIST in its final report. Similarly they red/grey chips are either in the dust or they are not. Anyone with access to both the dust and a microscope can verify their existence. If these red/grey chips are nano-thermite, what are they doing in the dust?

In summary we should be looking at science, not propaganda when determining reliable sources. Tony.wallace.nz (talk) 11:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The guidelines on reliable sources, fringe theories, no point of view were all put into place for a reason. If we were to abandon them, it would open the floodgates to all sorts of problems. Remember that every group that advocates a pseudo-scientific position has some excuse for why the relevant experts can be ignore (or in wikipedia termas considered "not reliable"). I will also remind you that talk pages are not a forum for discussion of the topic at hand, but for discussion of the article itself.

Secondly, your analogy doesn't hold. NIST is a federal organization, but is largely independent. It is not a wing of the Republican party or under the direct control of President of the United States or any other group who is alleged to have conspired to carry out the attacks. Do you have any evidence that there was any attempt to censor or coerce NIST or their report in any way? --Harizotoh9 (talk) 12:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Tony.wallace.nz - your post effectively says "The official report is not a reliable source because I say it's not" Sorry. That logic doesn't work. HiLo48 (talk) 13:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

If then a large body of scientists and engineers were to say that the NIST report was unreliable, would it then get marked as an unreliable source? This is the nub of the question, who decides? How is that decision made? Any discussion of truth needs a falsifiable test. Accordingly what test would show the NIST reports to be unreliable? If it cannot be tested as to accuracy how can it be relied upon? Tony.wallace.nz (talk) 02:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

If there was a disagreement between reliable sources, then yes, we would note that there is a disagreement. That is not the situation currently however. See the above discussion about Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth.

Before continuing make sure that you are fully aware of WP's relevant policies on this:

• WP:NPOV - No point of view
• WP:NOR - No original research
• WP:FRINGE - Fringe theories
• WP:RELIABLE - Reliable sources

--Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 February 2012

{{edit semi-protected|answered=no}} Please change: Proponents of these theories claim there were inconsistencies in the official conclusions or evidence that was overlooked. To were overlooked

Please add to the information on hijacking. The perpetrators of the attack were very quickly identified mainly because they were paid off by the US government in the first place. Conspiracists say that the visual world and the world of nieve citizens is in deception, while the true reality is always hidden. CarleySmith29 (talk) 15:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for enlightening us clueless sheeple.JoelWhy (talk) 16:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Need a Reliable source. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

It's called Able Danger and here is one source: "Witnesses in Defense Dept. Report Suggest Cover-Up of 9/11 Findings" http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/04/exclusive-witnesses-defense-department-report-suggest-cover-findings/ Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I've added an Able Danger subsection to the Foreknowledge section. Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

What you added was a mixture of fact, fiction, and misleading information. I made some corrections, but if someone else wants to clean it up, please do. Note that the information regarding Shaffer's book was removed because it was highly misleading (and contained some blatantly false information.) The underacted version of the book is widely available. An worst, this information evidences that Dept. of Defense was caught with their pants down, but there's nothing in the redacted information that implies 9/11 was an inside job or that the gov't let the attacks happen. I frankly would have no problem with deleting this entire section, as it really has zero to do with a conspiracy regarding the attacks -- rather, it is pointing out that the government failed to put the pieces together, so the only "conspiracy" was, perhaps, an attempt by the government to hide its incompetence.JoelWhy (talk) 13:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I did delete it because the section I saw in the article was unsourced. The source here does not show a 9/11 conspiracy theory. Reliable sources should be produced showing 9/11 CT's consider Able Danger part of a 9/11 CT or notable in that regard. Edkollin (talk) 05:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

POV/OR: While I have seen 9/11 truth sites discussing Able Danger I have not seen them making this link. 9/11 truthers seem to be putting this in as part of a laundry list to show the government is is "evil" enough to do what they are accused of. From what I have seen while the government is widely disposed as liars and cheats there is widespread disbelief the government would go so far as mass murder of its own citizens. Edkollin (talk) 05:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Able Danger subsection

First, the section was modified so that it differed from the reliable source it was based upon. Then it was completely deleted for being unsourced, despite the fact that a reliable source was supplied as a reference. What's going on here? Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

You should provide sources that link them to the conspiracy theories. They are not hard to find as I demonstrated. If you want to include something in this article make sure there are sources mentioning it in connection with the conspiracy theories. Granted, editors shouldn't be reverting stuff they undoubtedly know is connected to the conspiracy theories based solely on you not providing a source noting the connection, but that is the way things go in this topic area.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

If you feel this is necessary, you should add this material to the article. The entire section, along with all the supporting references, should not be deleted. Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC) Oh, I see now, it was deleted, then restored and moved. I can live with that. Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Able Danger

I've removed the section on Able Danger because to the best of my knowledge, this is not a major element of 9/11 conspiracy theories (CTs). The first two cited sources,[52][53] aren't even about 9/11 CTs. The third source is essentially a primary source (apparently a transcript of testimony given by Curt Weldon) and only contains a passing reference to CTs (less than a sentence).[54] In fact, even the passing reference denies that this is related to CTs. The fourth source is being misused. It's actually about 9/11 CT movies [55] but it's not being used to discuss 9/11 CT movies. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The sources were being used in a highly misleading way. The editors included statements suggesting a conspiracy, but conveniently left out the statements making it clear that the only conspiracy they are referring to involves a possible cover up of incompetence -- not foreknowledge or participation in the attacks. Yes, some Truthers have tried to point to Able Danger as evidence that '9/11 was an inside job,' so, if properly cited, it may be appropriate for the article. But, we don't then use the standard 9/11 Truther arguments in the article. Rather, we include the accusation and then the facts (and, as usual, the facts fail to support the claims made by the Truthers.)JoelWhy (talk) 14:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

It's a continuing problem that the page relies on primary sources, synthesizing from them our own wiki-definition and analysis of 9/11 conspiracy theories. In the early days this was understandable, but now there are good secondary sources on the topic. Those are what we should be summarizing here. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The transcript does not "deny" a connection to conspiracy theories. In fact, Weldon plainly states that the Able Danger story was used to advance conspiracy theories. Also, the last source isn't being used inappropriately at all. If a conspiracist creating a film to promote a theory and getting national media coverage for it does not justify mentioning it in this article then I don't know what justifies including material in this article. Several major reliable sources also directly labeled Weldon's claim a conspiracy theory.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, it might be more accurate to say that Weldon denies he's using it to advance CTs ("I have done none of this"), but it's still just a passing reference and still a primary source. And the first two sources have nothing to do with 9/11 CTs and the final one is being misused because we're not using it to discuss 9/11 CT films. In any case, you're missing the big picture: this is not a major element of 9/11 CTs and doesn't deserve its own section. I just checked Knight and there's not a single mention of Able Danger. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I believe it's fair to say that the 9/11 CTs that we are discussing on this page fall into two different categories (with some overlap). There are CTs that claim the U.S. allowed the attacks to happen; and there are CTs that claim the attacks were carried out as some form of false flag attack (e.g. 9/11 was an inside job; Israeli gov't was responsible for the attack and frames Al Quaeda, etc.)

There are other conspiracies related to the attacks, but I do not feel they are appropriate for this page. For example, did the Bush administration try to downplay its responsibility in failing to prevent the attack (i.e. incompetence)? Yes, that would involve a "conspiracy," but it hardly falls into the realm of "conspiracy theory" as the phrase is commonly used. I saw a report today indicating the FBI may have covered up evidence that would have embarrassed the Saudi Arabian gov't. Again, not a "conspiracy theory." Rather, it's the type of information that may belong on the actual 9/11 page, not the CT page, where we discuss theories which are rejected by official accounts, mainstream historians, etc.

So, for this particular issue, did the U.S. gov't possibly try to stem the flow of embarrassing information to hide its incompetence? I think you would find plenty of researchers who would agree there is evidence to support such a belief. And, it deserves discussion on the official page. Here, we're discussing fringe beliefs.JoelWhy (talk) 17:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with that perspective. This article is for discussing the conspiracy theories period. It is not a place for discussing conspiracy theories editors believe are worthy of ridicule. Failing to mention issues and theories on the basis that they lend legitimacy to conspiracy theories in general is inconsistent with WP:NPOV and makes the article less comprehensive. The stuff about Able Danger was not only labeled a conspiracy theory, but was widely noted as having fueled conspiracy theories. In addition we have major reliable sources discussing a movie based on the Able Danger program that explicitly cite the mention of Able Danger as promoting a conspiracy theory. The argument that this is not a "major element" of CTs is funny when many of you support having a section devoted to the no-planes theories based on a few truly trivial mentions that plainly mention it as not being a prominent theory. One might think there is a bias towards having this article portray a negative image of the conspiracy theories.

However, you do have a good point about the Able Danger issue not falling neatly in one category or another. While it does involve foreknowledge accusations, it also has elements of the cover-up allegations and others have used it to support a MIHOP theory. That also represents a problem with how we deal with Israel. The five dancing Israelis fit into the foreknowledge section, but also the foreign governments section. Perhaps we need to have a major rewrite of this article to have things grouped more appropriately.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations on defeating another army of straw men.JoelWhy (talk) 19:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I just checked Popular Mechanics and they don't cover this either.[56] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

They don't mention the no-planes theories either. What happened is you moved the goalposts. At first the problem was that sources didn't link it to the conspiracy theories and now that this can be plainly demonstrated as linked to the conspiracy theories it's the argument that this is not a prominent claim. Yet, when it comes to the no-planes theory the latter argument doesn't hold up by any measure so why the double standard? Didn't you say in justifying the inclusion of the no-planes theory that the article should be comprehensive? Why does your opinion suddenly change when its a claim that makes the conspiracy theories look more sane?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:59, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

@Devil's Advocate: They haven't changed and there is no inconsistency. Cover-up allegations are in the article. The Cover-up section already gets seven paragraphs. The no planes section gets only one paragraph. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

And no, you don't have multiple sources. You only have one and it's about 9/11 CT films, yet the section is not about 9/11 CT films. In any case, as you have been told dozens of times (or so it seems), this is a topic where we have thousands and thousands of sources. One (misused) source out of thousands and thousands doesn't impress much. See WP:UNDUE. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I do have multiple sources actually, but I shouldn't have to cite half a dozen pages when I provide a major national news organization giving in-depth coverage of an issue. Verifiability doesn't require that every single possible source be provided in the article, but only that such sources exist and can be used to verify the content. Saying it is "misused" is mistaken as well. The article is about certain films promoting conspiracy theories so it is valid to use that source to note a prominent conspiracy theory, because the national media coverage of the film makes it a prominent conspiracy theory.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:59, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

So, your argument is that because this is briefly presented in a notable movie, that makes this particular CT notable? That's not a good argument here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

@Devil's Advocate: Well, I've been working on this article for a couple years now and and to the best of my knowledge, this is not a major component of 9/11 CTs. I was open-minded and I checked both Knight and Popular Mechanics and found that neither even mentioned this. If you're unwilling to provide your sources, there's not much I can do. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

@Hand It was not that the film mentioned the conspiracy theory, it was named "Able Danger" and centered on the conspiracy theory about Able Danger. To AQFK, here is another source about the movie: [57]. Also, here are some sources showing the claim itself was labeled a conspiracy theory: [58] [59] [60] [61]. The last is a copy of the Philadelphia Inquirer article that is currently behind a pay wall and also notes that Able Danger was fueling conspiracy theories. As well, here is a major conspiracist source mentioning it: [62].--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll repeat what I said earlier. If this is something the Truthers have latched onto, I have no qualms with including mention of it (assuming we have sources for such claims). However, unlike the highly misleading addition which was justifiably removed, such a mention would have to explain that the parties who are criticizing the gov't are NOT accusing the gov't of foreknowledge. This is something invented by the Truthers, mixing fact with fiction to support their fantasies. The people involved are accusing the gov't of trying to hide their incompetence, nothing more.JoelWhy (talk) 21:45, 13 March 2012 (UTC)