Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories

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

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2014

The article states that the civil engineering community accepts that the jetliners brought down the towers. That is largely untrue, as many experts, with sources, in that community have stated that it's merely impossible for jet fuel to bring down a building of the magnitude of the Towers. Especially since they were built to withstand multiple aircraft. That is bias, false, and laughable writing. 24.59.67.74 (talk) 07:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Reliable sources are also required. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 09:45, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

References

None of the sources cited are reliable. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

My edit request are in bold. Could anyone do it please. Thanks. "Others, like Daniele Ganser, who reject the accepted account of the September 11 attacks are not proposing specific theories, but try to demonstrate that the U.S. government's account of the events is wrong." 82.126.7.242 (talk) 02:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Ganser is a historian...why does his opinion matter?--MONGO 05:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

"Civil engineering community"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Who's the "civil engineering community"? The sources for this sentence only show the opinion of a single person - Bazant. Bazant does not represent "the civil engineering community", nor is able to speak in the name of them. Several members of the "civil engineering community", in fact, are skeptical of the governamental explanations, as well as half of the American population. Several engineers worldwide are also skeptical.

The sentence is false and should be rewritten or removed. Dornicke (talk) 14:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The "skeptical" members of the "civil engineering community" have yet to have anything published in any respectable engineering journal. No know expert in civil engineering supports any of the controlled demolition conspiracy theories. The sentence is factual. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 14:25, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

You're mixing things up. The fact that skeptical engineers have not published in any "respectable" ("respectable" in the opinion of who, BTW?) journal does not mean they endorse the governamental explanations. This is a fallacy. One thing has nothing to do with the other. Bazant is not a representative of the "civil engineering community" to speak in the name of them. If the article wants to state that "the civil engineering community" has an opinion on the subject, it has to present sources proving that. And using the single opinion of a person does not fall under this category. Dornicke (talk) 14:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I see you're back to promote conspiracy theories again. No professional architectural or engineering organization has supported the CTs in any way, and Bazant is the only engineer who's bothered to even comment. The AIA was finally forced to disavow Gage after he used a public meeting room at AIA headquarters to imply AIA association, but only after years of ignoring AE911 in the same manner as ASCE has done. You're exploiting silence on the part of professional organizations to imply doubt. The sentence is not false. Acroterion (talk) 17:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm really not interested in your personal opinion or perceptions. The fact is: the sentence in the text is not supported by the source. Period. As simple as that. Throwing the "conspiracy theory" card and starting acting like a mad dog with rabies won't change that. Dornicke (talk) 14:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I see editors are already trying to censor discussion on a talk page. This is pure whitewhasing and abuse. I've started a new topic on village pump about that. Dornicke (talk) 14:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm "acting like a mad dog with rabies?" I thought I was just disputing your attempt to lend credibility to conspiracy theories. Good luck with the forum shopping. Acroterion (talk) 17:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

BTW - " Bazant is the only engineer who's bothered to even comment" - So... you agree with me that the sentence is false. If "Bazant is the only engineer who's bothered to even comment", than the article can not attribute his opinion as the opinion of the "civil engineering community". I work with several engineers in Brazil. None of them believes in the governamental explanations. Bazant certainly doesn't represent them as well. Dornicke (talk) 14:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The sentence in question (The civil engineering community accepts that the impacts of jet aircraft at high speeds in combination with subsequent fires, not controlled demolition, led to the collapse of the Twin Towers.) is full of problems and disrespects several guidelines of the project:

1 - Wikipedia:No original research - by implying that Bazant represents the whole "civil engineering community", when there's no source saying such a thing, the sentence falls under the category of original research ("Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources.")

2 - Wikipedia:Neutral point of view - according to this guideline we should Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources. That's exactly what this sentence and its sources do. They represent Bazant's opinion of what "the civil engineer community" accepts as a fact and presents such an opinion as Wikipedia's view.

3 - Wikipedia:Verifiability - As I said, the sources do not support the sentence. Dornicke (talk) 15:45, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

You are wrong on all three counts. 1) Bazant is summarizing the views of the civil engineering community. I presume he is considered a RS, so his summary supports the statement as worded. 2) We are stating the fact, as presented in the sources, that it is the opinion of the civil engineering community that what happened is what happened. Wikipedia is not presenting its own opiniont. 3) The sources do support the sentence, as demonstrated by the statements specifically called out in the cite notes. You may not like that common opinion does not support your conspiracy theory, but that does not invalidate common opinion. Resolute 16:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

1 - Bazant is no one claim he's able to summarize "the views of the civil engineering community". He's nobody outside US borders. He's no one in position of summarizing anything. He only speaks for himself. The article could say that "According to Bazant, the civil engineering community bla bla bla". Nothing more than that. Transforming HIS opinion on what the "civil engineering community" thinks into a fact is original research.

2 - You're stating the opinion of a person as a fact. That fails no original research, verifiability and neutral point of view.

3 - No, they don't. They are false sources.

4 - Keep your opinions to yourself. I'm not remotely interested in whatever it is that you think about "common opinion". You're nobody to decide what the "common opinion" is, sorry to tell you that. Dornicke (talk) 16:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Nor are you. The difference between us is that I do not behave like a petulant child when balked. Resolute 17:23, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any problems with this sentence. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Of course you don't. You're one of the editors engaged in tranforming this article into a press release of the US government. Didn't expect any other thing from you. I want to read the opinion of non-biased users. Anyway, I've pointed the problems, you didn't refute any of them, with any kind of arguments, so... I'm still waiting for someone with arguments. Dornicke (talk) 16:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Neither article sourced claims the civil engineering community accepts anything. However both articles state that the structural engineering community is in consensus. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:41, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

It's right there in the introduction: "The civil engineering community accepts that the impacts of jet aircraft at high speeds in combination with subsequent fires, not controlled demolition, led to the collapse of the Twin Towers" - Well... I'm just asking a source that proves this. The article presents none. Just the opinion of one single person about what the "civil engineering community" thinks, and falsifies this source to claim this opinion of a single person is a fact. Dornicke (talk) 16:45, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm talking about the articles cited, not our wikipedia article. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok. But both articles are being used as references to support this sentence. That's the problem. Dornicke (talk) 16:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I just don't understand what the debate is. We have a peer-reviewed article that states "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." Is it that you want to change "civil engineering community" to "communities of structural engineers and structural mechanics researchers"? (It's a pedantic argument, but I'm fine with that change.) Otherwise, I don't see what there is to dispute about the statement. JoelWhy?(talk) 17:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

We have the opinion of one person alleging to know what "the civil engineering community" thinks being used to say what the civil engineering community thinks. As simple as that. Read the discussion. Bazant doesn't have any evidences and doesn't offer any evidences of what he's saying. It's just an opinion. Dornicke (talk) 17:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

And a reliable one at that. It sounds to me like you're arguing that reliable sources are wrong. Is that what you're saying? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Since these are published in the ASCE, I would say that making a along the lines of "Structural engineers agree" Or "there is consensus among structural engineers" would be something that can be taken at face value. The only qualifier I can think of is that the ASCE is only an US organization, and not an international one. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The "debate" is that we have one editor crying "censorship" because we don't agree with removing information that contradicts his world view. Irony abounds. Resolute 17:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if the source is reliable or not. It's being used to support the article's claim that the "civil engineering community" supports the governamental explanations. But this is just the opinion of an individual being presented as a fact. Bazant is an engineer. He's not on the statistics business, he doesn't have any authority to claim that he knows what the "civil engineering community" thinks. The "civil engineering community" doesn't exist as a factual organization. Thus, it has never published a press release or something stating their position. The best thing you can do with the sources you have in this article is to say "according to Bazant the civil engineering community bla bla bla". To claim that his OPINION is a fact goes against ALL THE POLICIES AND GUIDELINES of this project. It would be the same thing of me finding an opinion of some person published in a reliable source to cite as a fact that "Bush is the best president we ever had" or "Detroit is the most beautiful city in the world". It's quite obvious what the problem is, you'd do the project a favor by stop pretending that you are all blind. Dornicke (talk) 20:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources. - This is our guideline that it's being grossly disrespected under your approval. It has nothing to do with conspiracies, mimimimmi blablabla. So, please, stop using strawman fallacies and start using arguments to explain why this ERROR shouldn't be corrected. Thank you. Dornicke (talk) 20:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Again, peer reviewed article (actually, it's 2 peer reviewed articles) both making a statement of fact in a reliable source. Either provide evidence that meets wiki standard to the contrary, or the debate's over. JoelWhy?(talk) 20:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The fact they are two (could be one thousand) peer reviewed articles doesn't mean we can state opinions as facts. I could say that "grammar teachers community" prefer yellow, the same way Bazant says "the civil engineering community agrees with me". I could only state thas as a fact after I can prove that, by presenting reseraches or something like that. He's just an egineer, he's not a mutant, he can claim as much as he wants that he knows what most engineers think. But we can not state that is a fact. Only an opinion, a personal perception he has. Period. And, I'm sorry, but the "debate is not over" just because you say so, you don't have such authority. Present arguments that allows any editor to disrespect the guideline that was mentioned and you may start having a point. Thanks again. Dornicke (talk) 21:07, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Evidence was already provided. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Not my fault if you ignore the projects guidelines. Dornicke (talk) 21:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not an opinion, it's a fact. That's like saying we can't say that the Earth is round, because golly gee, it might be flat. There is nothing remotely controversial or disputed about any of this. Yes, there are idiots in this world who think the Holocaust never happened, that bigfoot is real, and that aliens crashed at Roswell. But that's why we cite reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

If it's a fact, then it must be simple to prove it. Prove it. Dornicke (talk) 22:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

We already did that. Reliable sources have been provided. I'm not sure what you're looking for. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Wackos playing with their Tonka trucks in a sandbox aren't civil engineers.--MONGO 23:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

No, you didn't. Present me a peer reviewed research confirming Bazant's opinion. Otherwise, it's just his personal opinion or original research. Either way, inadequate for the project. And, Mongo, I don't know what you're talking about. Who are the "wackos"? What's under discussion here is Bazant's statement that "the civil engineer community" backs his and the government's explanations - which hasn't been proven at any point, by him or any other person. That he doesn't represent the "civil engineer community" is quite clear. He's pretty much irrelevant to the "civil engineer community" outside US borders, barely has wikis, just for a start. What is the "civil engineering community" he says that agree with him? The AMERICAN civil engineering community? Which organizations of the American civil engineering community have endorsed what he says they endorse? Can you provide the links? Dornicke (talk) 23:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I can pretty much guarantee that no organization of the Brazilian civil engineering community has never issued any kind of report saying that they reject or confirm his explanations. So he can't say they represent this. I'm pretty much sure this would apply to most organizations and engineering communities throughout the world. Who's Bazant to say he knows what the "civil engineering community" thinks? How does he know that? Where has this been written? When was it published? Who researched it? Or is he just GUESSING? Oh, yes. He's guessing. Just as much as a I could guess "most cops like donuts". Can I write that in the article about the police, without ANYTHING to back it up? Dornicke (talk) 23:41, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Bazant is peer reviewed research. Are you saying that you want peer-reviewed research to confirm the peer-reviewed research? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

@Dornicke: You received zero support last year when you raised the exact same issue. Do you have new information to present to this community-based project that justifies reopening discussion? Or are you just wasting everyone's time? VQuakr (talk) 03:53, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Again: it doesn't matter that his work is peer reviewed. He's mentioning something that is just an opinion. Opinions must be cited as opinions, doesn't matter if they are published in a peer reviewed article or not. If you have an article published in a reliable source showing that there is a research proving what "most engineers" think, Bazant and you will have a point. If not... sorry, it's just guessing, and guessing is not fact. Last time I raised the same issue, I did get support, not only on my talk page [2], but also on the discussion. Saying I got "zero support" is a blatant lie [3] and tells a lot about the character of some editors that self procclaimed themselves as owners of this article. One user has even pointed at the occasion that "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but the sentence does not meet an encyclopedic standard. You cherry pick the narrowest possible application of the policies to meet your chosen outcome. Regardless of notability, it is illogical to take one man's statement of opinion as illustrative of the larger community. Moreover, it is not demonstrated via notable sources that "most of the engineering community" has made inquiries into the topic." That's it. So obvious that a rock can see. You chose to ignor his opinion and censor the discussion. As for the guy with the "disruption" card ("I don't have arguments so I'll call you a disruptor"... that's a new one... LOL): if you feel you're waisting your time, ignore the discussion, no one is forcing you to read or to take part in it. So... just put yourself back into your place and remember you're nobody in position to tell me or any other person what we can or can not discuss. I'll discuss whatever I want to discuss whenever I want to discuss wherever I want to discuss. Period. ARGUMENTS people. Enough with the childish name-calling, idiot veiled threats, etc., it makes you look a bunch of irrational Justin Bieber teenager fans outraged by criticism of their god. Pathetic, in fact. Would like to understand what's the problem of editors of pages like this. Dornicke (talk) 11:55, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh my... ha ha ha. Look at this gem: "It's not an opinion, it's a fact. That's like saying we can't say that the Earth is round, because golly gee, it might be flat." - Sorry, but this is a pretty stupid comparison. I can find hundreds of thousands of reliable sources, photographs, etc, etc, etc. to prove that the Earth is round. Because this is a fact - it's easy to prove. You were not able to present ONE, just ONE reliable source/research/proof to corroborate Bazant's opinion... that tells a lot about how "solid" is his statement about "what the civil engineering community" thinks. Just for a start - most people in the civil engineering community don't even know who Bazant is. "Civil engineering community" is a lot of people. The burden of the proof is with Bazant and he didn't offer any kind of explanation of how he came to that conclusion. Thus, it's a mere perception, opinion. Now, it's really sad to discuss project guidelines with people unable to understand the difference between fact and opinion. It's like trying to have a logical discussion with a three year old child talking about fairies and dragons. Dornicke (talk) 12:22, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I was reviewing the old discussion we had about the same topic. Found another interesting opinion I hadn't seen before: "Censoring Dornicke for his reasonable request is illustrative of your weak argument. I suggest flagging this article as biased or controversial. As Dornicke correctly points out, one man's quote is not illustrative of the entire engineering community. Even the title speaks to the inherent bias of this article. Reasonable skeptics can appreciate the logic presented above. Those without the facility of critical thought can cling to their beliefs, but it has no place here. Censoring him for engaging you politely on this talk page only serves to further highlight your biases." - There. Three user (four with me) agreed at that occasion. Other two users agreed that the sentence should be re-written. So much for "zero support" huh... Dornicke (talk) 12:30, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Given the known facts we should probably expand the sentence to be more inclusive. We wouldn't want people to think there's any merit to these conspiracy theories, right? — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 17:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Dornicke is exploiting one of Wikipedia's (many) flaws to assert doubt about a fact that is patently obvious, but difficult to verify, since it requires a positive statement about a negative. The issue is not whether the consensus of engineers and architects think controlled demolition is hooey, which despite AE911's efforts is quite plain, the issue is whether that statement can be cited in the absence of an affirmative statement in a source. Wikipedia's policies on reliable sourcing and verifiability make it theoretically impossible for proponents of conspiracy theories to be taken seriously, but they can also allow such proponents to exploit silence from authorities who can't be bothered to taken obvious fringe theories seriously. By the way, Dornicke, your conduct here and at the Village Pump has been far from exemplary: you've made a habit of describing editors who disagree with you as mentally ill [4] [5] [6]. If you're going to show up here once a year to promote conspiracy theories, you can expect some opposition. That is the difference between Wikipedia, which attracts such behavior and has to deal with it, and professional organizations, academic researchers and scientific journals, which can afford to politely ignore conspiracy theorists. Acroterion (talk) 17:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

1 - LOL. So, the problem is Wikipedia and its guidelines. They are all wrong. You (and Bazant) are right. Got it. It'd be easier to admit the obvious error in attributing the status of fact to an opinion. There's no flaw at all about this, this is how an encyclopedia works. If you want to quote opinions as facts, perhaps you should considering writting to a blog. NEVER an encylopedia.

2 - No, the problem has nothing to do with "exploit silence from authorities who can't be bothered to taken obvious fringe theories seriously". The problem is much simpler than that. The problem is: Bazant said "the engineers think like this", and editors wrote "the engineers think like this", instead of saying "according to Bazant, the engineers think like this". See? The problem lies with the one that wrote that sentence - not with the "conspiracy theorists", "terrorists", "communists", "big foot" or whatever is the following strawman you're going to use.

3 - I'm going to show up here whenever I want and I have no reason to be polite with rude editors or tolerate their rude remarks.

4 - The "conspiracy theorist shaming" won't work with me, sorry to tell you. I know the establishment in the US has been busy trying to brainwash their citizens into thinking that questioning "official" governamental versions and been skeptical about facts as presented by mainstream sources is a thing for lunatics, and that the reality of the things of the world needs to be approved by self-procclaimed authorities... but, generally, in the rest of the planet, people don't buy this crap - they understand government, newspapers and politicians do lie. Dornicke (talk) 18:58, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

The Laws of Physics will not bend to any man or government. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

"The Laws of Physics will not bend to any man or government." - Agree entirely. Media and their parrots, however, will. Dornicke (talk) 18:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

We simply repeat what reliable sources tell us. If the reliable peer reviewed sources said that Coneheads from the town of Remulak in France used gamma rays to bring down the WTC that is what we would report. Bazant is one of the few engineers to even address the absurdity of the conspiracy theories so we have to go with that. A few wackos over at the truther websites are pretty good at filling the web with moronic notions and fantastic claims because it helps to promote their Chariots of the Gods type of fancruft books.--MONGO 19:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Where are the peer reviewed articles published in reputable Civil Engineering journals proposing the Controlled Demolition Theory? In contrast, there are many, many others that support the mainstream account. This is all that matters.

According to the translation of this article (I can't read the original) the only thing approaching a peer reviewed published paper was published without the editor's knowledge. [7]. This is pretty standard for pseudo-sciences. To gain legitimacy they try to worm their way into reputable papers, but to do so they have to avoid proper review. There was a similar situation with creationists getting a paper published a few years back.

And AE911 is a ridiculous organization, filled with people with Bachelors of science in irrelevant degrees (anything with the name "engineer" in it, like software engineer). Similar lists could be made for any fringe or unfounded belief (creationism, AIDS denial, astrology, etc). 911 Conspiracy theories, especially theories about a Controlled Demolition taking down the towers are the definition of WP:FRINGE. They exist completely outside the relevant scientific community and among the lay population.

Wikipedia is about reproducing the views of scholars. For 911 Truth organizations to have their views represented as real science on Wikipedia, they would have to convince the scientific community first. Until that time they will be treated as a fringe theory. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 13:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Terminology" section

The phrasing of the Terminology section seems like exactly how a conspiracy theorists would describe the facts of the attacks. Compare this article with the Obama birth conspiracy article. I like the way the birth conspiracy article is written much better, writing that the conspiracy theorists dispute the facts. Anyone else support this idea? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 22:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2015

Simplified a bit, the first sentence in the Motives section reads like this: "Scholars for 9/11 Truth argued that a group (the PNAC), [...], set on US world dominance and orchestrated the 9/11 attacks ..."

Simplified a bit more, it reads like this: "a group set on US world dominance and orchestrated the 9/11 attacks"

Seems to me it should changed; either to "a group was set on US world dominance and orchestrated the 9/11 attacks" -or- "a group set on US world dominance and orchestrated the 9/11 attacks"

I don't know which... - Delamaran (talk) 05:32, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Motives not properly explained

It suggests one of the alleged motives was to justify the invasion of Iraq. Yet the Bush administration never claimed that Iraq was involved in 9/11, so how exactly does that work? Why would the government successfully frame al-Qaeda for the attacks but fail in framing Iraq? I'm not trying to bring "logic" into the conspiracy theories, but this a really obvious question that needs further exposition.

CJK (talk) 14:50, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The Bush administration was very successful in framing Iraq; even if many of the accusations made were more implicit than explicit. According to a Washington Post poll, 70% of Americans believed that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attacks.[8] The USA Today article states, "President Bush and members of his administration suggested a link between the two in the months before the war in Iraq." If reliably sourced references for this are needed to supplement this Wikipedia article, they are easy to find. Wildbear (talk) 21:48, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Well obviously many people assumed the worse when it came to Saddam but the administration itself never actually claimed he was involved in the attacks. If the attacks were hypothetically staged in part to justyify invading Iraq, it makes absolutely no sense for them not to explicitly implicate Saddam and invade in late 2001 or early 2002 instead of 2003.

CJK (talk) 00:48, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Really? No connection?
In remarks on May 1, 2003, announcing the end of major combat operations in Iraq, President Bush stated: “The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 — and still goes on. . . . [T]he liberation of Iraq . . . removed an ally of al Qaeda.”
Umh...TMCk (talk) 17:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Right, the administration's position was that Iraq had a relationship with al-Qaeda, but was not involved in the September 11 attacks. The article claimed that the attacks were used to "justify" the invasion of Iraq, the historical record is that the attacks occured in September 2001 and Iraq was invaded in March 2003 a full 18 months later.

CJK (talk) 18:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

It takes time to make up a case. End of 2001, Blair talked Bush out of going too quickly with his belief that Iraq was involved. The rest is history.TMCk (talk) 20:27, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I do not think it is productive to argue the details. The fact is the article is accurate and should not be changed. TFD (talk) 19:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Wow, the article is "accurate" and "should not be changed"? You do understand this is an editable encyclopedia, right? The administration did not claim Iraq was involved in the attacks, which is what is being implied when it alleges they used it to "justify" the invasion.

CJK (talk) 20:02, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

You mean the administration claimed they did not claim Iraq was involved. No reason for your unsourced addition. I will revert and please do not put back in without sources and agreement of other editors. TFD (talk) 20:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

No, I meant the administration did not claim they were involved in 9/11. If they did you should present evidence. I'm not sure why I should be required to prove a negative but I nontheless will attempt to comply with your unreasonable demand.

CJK (talk) 21:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The text is sourced. You are required to prove a negative anytime you want to add it to an article. You can't for example add to Obama's article that he was not born in the U.S. TFD (talk) 21:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

It takes time to make up a case.

They wouldn't need time if they were the ones behind the attacks. It would all be pre-planned.

End of 2001, Blair talked Bush out of going too quickly with his belief that Iraq was involved.

And your saying they couldn't just fake evidence?

CJK (talk) 22:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

They weren't the ones behind the attacks, and no one suggested they were. And I don't think they would deliberately fake evidence either. TFD (talk) 23:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Gee, in case you hadn't noticed this is an article about conspiracy theories. Your statement (I don't think they would deliberately fake evidence) is so radically at odds with what you said in 2013 (The U.S. government fabricated evidence that he did [have WMDs]) I'm wondering if you did it just to provoke me.

CJK (talk) 23:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

It turns out that they did not fake evidence but used evidence that was obviously faked. In any case this is becoming a tangent. The U.S. government implied that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11 order to build support for the invasion of Iraq. Of course you do not have to believe that but the article must accurately reflect sources. TFD (talk) 03:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

It turns out that they did not fake evidence but used evidence that was obviously faked.

Wow...

The U.S. government implied that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11 order to build support for the invasion of Iraq.

When did they do this? I have provided a source which states clearly that the Bush administration chose not to use the attacks to invade Iraq even though every single poll taken in late '01 and early '02 showed massive popular support for it. Saying Bush used 9/11 to justify invading Iraq makes absolutely no logical sense, either in the context of a conspiracy or not.

CJK (talk) 04:17, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Just to be clear: the 9/11 attacks definitely increased concern over terrorism and these concerns were later used by the Bush administration to help justify invading Iraq. But that's completely different than saying the attacks themselves were used to directly justify an invasion of Iraq which is what I believe is being implied here.

CJK (talk) 13:28, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Using Meacher at Project for the New American Century

His article [9] "This war on terrorism is bogus: The 9/11 attacks gave the US an ideal pretext to use force to secure its global domination " is being used for the statement:

Writing in The Guardian, British MP Michael Meacher, made similar allegations in 2003, stating that Rebuilding America's Defences was "a blueprint for the creation of a global Pax Americana," which had been "drawn up for" key members of the Bush administration.[37][38]

I suggested that using an article specifically about, and subtitled as being about, a 9/11 conspiracy theory was not a superior reliable source for making such allegations about living persons, and that using a guest from the Alex Jones (radio host) show was possibly involving that article into the associated 9/11 conspiracy theory categories.

The person most involved (Ubikwit) says the quote has nothing to do with 9/11, and besides Meacher was a member of Parlianment. ("One aspect of Meacher that I found particularly notable is that he is British, and a Labor member of Parliament", "No the article is not "about his 9/11 truther position", "do not agree with Collect's assertion that the 9-11 material belongs in the article. As described below, the academic sources do not mention it in this context, and as far as I can tell, that is because it is not relevant to the topic", "The assertion that "the entire article is about Meacher's 9/11 conspiracy theory" is your fanciful interpretation, nothing more, but you refuse to listen.")

The queries here are:

Is that article by Meacher directly related to his 9/11 theories? Is the quote about the Bush administration benefitting from PNAC in a conspiracy "drawn up for" them unrelated to 9/11? If that material is used, would the PNAC article then fall into the associated conspiracy categories? And lastly, is the material of sufficient credibility that it ought to be included in the PNAC article? Many thanks! Collect (talk) 15:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)