Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories

Archives
Archive 1	Archive 2
Archive 3	Archive 4
Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8
Archive 9	Archive 10
Archive 11	Archive 12
Archive 13	Archive 14
Archive 15	Archive 16

Pakistan issue

This quote needs to be reworded and built upon: "There are allegations that individuals within the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence may have played an important role in financing the attacks." The so called 'allegations' are actually documented in many mainstream publications as being facts of public record, such as this quote from the Guardian of UK: "Why then is Omar Sheikh not being dealt with when he is already under sentence of death? Astonishingly his appeal to a higher court against the sentence was adjourned in July for the 32nd time and has since been adjourned indefinitely. This is all the more remarkable when this is the same Omar Sheikh who, at the behest of General Mahmood Ahmed, head of the ISI, wired $100,000 to Mohammed Atta, the leading 9/11 hijacker, before the New York attacks, as confirmed by Dennis Lormel, director of FBI's financial crimes unit. Yet neither Ahmed nor Omar appears to have been sought for questioning by the US about 9/11. Indeed, the official 9/11 Commission Report of July 2004 sought to downplay the role of Pakistan with the comment: "To date, the US government has not been able to determine the origin of the money used for the 9/11 attacks. Ultimately the question is of little practical significance" - a statement of breathtaking disingenuousness."[1] This whole article needs to be cleaned up in general, spending too much time on the less valid points of the 'conspiracy' and often completely overlooking the better documented and proven aspects, such as the aforementioned. I just signed up to wikipedia though and don't want to start altering everyones hard work and what not so I thought I'd put up a discussion first to get a brief consensus from those who have spent more time with it than I. Thanks for any input, it is appreciated. --Cdubg (talk) 20:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

First since you are a newbie usually new discussion topics goes to the bottom of the page. Otherwise if you feel you have a reliable source and The Guardian would qualify as such then add it to the article. Also note as you read the article this article has many sub articles. Link to them One I believe Responsibility for 9/11 attacks" goes into detail about alleged foreign involvement. Edkollin (talk) 01:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

If that matter is going to be raised then it should be pointed out that the only original source for the Pakistan-sends-money-to-Atta story is from the Indian media. India and Pakistan have never been friends and any stories of this type which originate from the Indian media deserve to be treated with intense caution. A useful discussion of the Pakistan-sends-money-to-Atta story appears here at this page:

http://911myths.com/html/india_and_isi-sponsored_terror.html

http://911myths.com/html/isi_first_reports.html

Go through it and check all the sources and then come back and modify the comments on this matter.

Request for sources

After reading the media and ciriticism sections, one could be forgiven for concluding that the US government is the greatest beneficiary of the popularity of 9/11 conspiracy theories. The willingness to entertain fanciful notions and to question anything, no matter how trivial, serve to distract from the more sober questions of incompetence and responsibility that might otherwise be levelled at the administration. Does anyone know of any sources that make such claims? Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 19:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Considering the content, I doubt few [[WP:RS|reliable] sources could be found for such claims. --clpo13_(talk) 20:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I believe Michael Albert of Z Magazine has been outspoken in making this point, and has given other notable commentators a platform to do the same. I will go looking for some sources. (Yeah, I know Z isn't at the pinnacle of our reliable source pyramid, but WP:PARITY has to apply when we're dealing with an article about the 9/11 Truthers.) <eleland/talkedits> 01:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

How can a source be reliable if it makes the claim that the US government was negligent or actively attacking its own citizens? Simply making the claim is enough to become an unreliable source. I may be wrong. Does anyone have a counterexample? In any case, it doesn't seem useful to find reliable sources that make the claim because the evidence leads each person to their own claims and beliefs anyway. The article should be based on evidence rather than claims. Dscotese (talk) 00:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please provide a source for "US government intelligence sources identified the hijackers and linked them to the terrorist organization al-Qaeda, headed by Osama Bin Laden, which later claimed sole responsibility for the attacks." Specifically: "...which later claimed sole responsibility for the attacks." 71.59.20.84 (talk) 03:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)fancyface 11 September 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.20.84 (talk) 03:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Dancing Mossad agents

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.

---

There's various sites that claim five Mossad agents were seen dancing in after the collapse, before leaving in a white van. The van was stopped, and found to contain explosives. They were then deported in minor visa charges. The most reliable source I could find is this: http://www.todayscatholicworld.com/mossad-agents-911.htm. A quick look shows that it isn't reliable at all. Has this come up before, and is there any proof that this is bunk (other than a lack of proof) —Preceding unsigned comment added by GeneralStan (talk • contribs) 23:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

This incident definitely did happen. There used to be quite a bit of material on it in this article, however it has all been moved to the article "9/11 advance-knowledge debate". A number of reliable sources are referenced. The whole thing is very suspicious, and unfortunately many people dismiss it as a bogus story. Logicman1966 (talk) 00:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• Related question: do we have the "Dancing Palestinian children hoax" in any of our articles? It appears that cameramen were handing out sweets to Palestinian children in order to obtain footage of "Palestinians who were extatic about the attacks".  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 20:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• They celebrated an attack on their enemy (America funds the Israeli military). Hardly out of the ordinary. FunkMonk (talk) 15:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

This is what is more commonly known as "arab propaganda". The celebrations were real, and a major embarassment to the Palestinians, who felt (rightly) that by celebrating the west would see them as a bunch of terrorists. Titanium Dragon (talk) 19:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The Mossad incident is real. There were no explosives though; this is yet more arab propaganda. There were box cutters, which aroused suspicion. To be entirely fair, though, it wasn't as if the US government, Mossad, and many intelligence agencies worldwide didn't know that something bad was planned. Titanium Dragon (talk) 19:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a problem here under Jewish involvement, it quotes the ADL and looks like that section was written by the ADL. That is a clear conflict of interest. If you search on Youtube Dancing+Israelis+9/11, you will find interviews with one of the many persons that saw them and called the police and the New Jersey officer that arrested them. Later they go on Israeli TV and state "Our Purpose was to document the event". This information was in the 9/11 conspiracy theories page, but I guess the ADL got to it and took that out. All these things did happen and should be stated under Jewish involvement. Heres a source for information countering the ADL piece. [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guardian4truth (talk • contribs) 00:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Two words: reliable sources SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 02:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

If you actually looked at the link you would see the information sourced by: The New York Times, NBC News, Fox news, ABC news, New York Post, Jerusalem Post and Israeli National News.

I think it is sourced sufficiently. But this section about Jewish involvement is sourced by the ADL? And looks like the whole section was written by the ADL. Now talking about bad sources I don't think there could be a more biased sources for this section than the ADL. Anyone with half a brain knows this section horribly skewed.--Guardian4truth (talk) 04:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not good enough to just wave your hands and say, "look, reliable sources" - you have to provide links to reliable sources that actually verify the material you want to include. Looking through the first fifteen or so links in the article you cited, that doesn't seem to be the case here. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

We seem to get a neverending flow of "Truthers" registering new accounts to post junk here. I find the latest iteration to be especially suspicious. Enigma ^message 06:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello Enigmaman, instead of just erasing sources I gathered why don't you explain which ones are junk and why. It is more fair that way instead of just deleting good sources I gathered. Please elaborate.

Haaretz: FBI had arrested the five for "puzzling behavior." They are said to have had been caught videotaping the disaster and shouting in what was interpreted as cries of joy and mockery.[3]

Fox news: More than 60 Israelis arrested or detained in regards to 9/11, some failed polygraph tests in regards to spying on the US. Also penetrated military bases, DEA, FBI, Secret Service and dozens of other government organizations. Deleted from archives but video found here. [4]

Haaretz: Odigo, the instant messaging service, says that two of its workers received messages two hours before the Twin Towers attack on September 11 predicting the attack would happen. [5]

Youtube documentary interviews people that saw the alleged Israeli operatives, the officer that pulled them over and arrested them, and the alleged operatives interview on Israeli TV were they state " they were there to document the event". [6]--Guardian4truth (talk) 01:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Other editors should not have to apply the principles in Wikipedia:Reliable sources to your sources. You can and should read that guideline for yourself. You should also read Wikipedia:Verifiability - it is one of the essential cornerstones of Wikipedia. What we can reliably infer from the links provided is that:-

• Several Israelis were arrested after filming the burning buildings while in a highly emotional state (I recall being in a similar condition myself on that day, but I avoided arrest through a lucky combination of not having a video camera, having reassuringly pale skin, and not being on a rooftop in NYC.)
• Israel conducts espionage operations within and against the US; their agents were questioned after the attacks.
• People say all kinds of things on YouTube and that's why it is not accepted as a reliable source.

None of the above justifies using anything remotely resembling the phrase "Dancing Mossad agents" in the article. There is no link shown between the arrested men and Israeli intelligence, no credible source describing their actions as celebratory (rather than "puzzling"), and most importantly, no reliable source documenting a notable conspiracy theory centred on these events as an indication of Israeli foreknowledge of the attacks. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand you have a point of view on this issue and it is emotional to you as it is to me, but that aside I think the evidence speaks for itself. If I'm not mistaken this the 9/11 conspiracy theories page, I think maybe your mistaken when you say Fox news and Haaretz are not reliable sources or maybe you just meant the Youtube video. I can concede the Youtube clip even though it is from a reliable documentary.

So we have Odigo the Israeli instant messaging service that says two of its workers received messages two hours before the attacks predicting the attack would happen; you didn't address this. The FBI arresting five Israelis for "puzzling behavior." They are said to have had been caught videotaping the disaster and shouting in what was interpreted as cries of joy and mockery. Later to go on Israeli TV saying "they were there to document the event" Both sources are from Haartez.

Then we have the Fox news investigation where it confirms that more than 60 Israelis arrested or detained in regards to 9/11, some failed polygraph tests in regards to spying on the US. Also confirmed they penetrated military bases, DEA, FBI, Secret Service and dozens of other government organizations.

Maybe this should be under something different than "dancing Mossad agents" all agree with you on that. But the evidence I have presented at the very least conspiratorially hints at Israeli or Jewish involvement or foreknowledge, if not outright proves it. This has been the subject of several documentaries and is all over the internet. If this is not a provable 9/11 conspiracy theory I don't know what is.--Guardian4truth (talk) 21:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

(reduce indent) As I have already said, the sources listed above do not verify the claims made by this WP:SPA. It seems that further discussion is unlikely to result in improving the article. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

To recap the sources (again):

• Five Israelis were arrested for behaving suspiciously, possibly dancing, possibly happy.
• Sixty Israelis have been questioned about spying. No information has been released that indicates they knew anything about 9/11 beforehand.

Is it just me? I can't see how the above pieces of information can be added to the article, because they don't seem to be more than tangentially related to conspiracy theories. Anyone who'd like to propose an addition is welcome to do so... SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

This is the third time I'm going to ask you to respond to this, and tell me how this doesn't fit into a conspiracy.

Odigo the Israeli instant messaging service says that two of its workers received messages two hours before the attacks predicting the attack would happen.--Guardian4truth (talk) 22:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The Odigo claim has not be sourced to a reliable source, even among conspiracy theorists. Perhaps there's at least a conspiracy theory about it, but no evidence has yet been presented. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I know I haven't commented on this talk page for a while, but I have been following this debate. I haven't seen anything new presented on this topic, but I have seen large amounts of time wasting and WP:IDHT. user:Guardian4truth, I'm going to suggest that unless you drop this debate, you're going to find yourself on the receiving end of a topic ban in line with Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/September_11_conspiracy_theories#Discretionary_sanctions. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 23:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

To Chris, yes there is a debate and I know there are rules but this is a open source format not a oligarchy, so for you to come out of nowhere and threaten me in some way I feel is out of line. They bring up or address issues and I'm responding.

The Odigo claim is from Haaretz. [7] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guardian4truth (talk • contribs) 23:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The "Odigo claim" is a joke. Some guys got some text messages - according to one website - and in seven years nothing more was heard on the subject, according to reliable sources.

I'll say this again: no reliable source mentions a conspiracy theory. I am not going to "join the dots" and deduce the existence of CTs where there are none. That would be original research, and not allowed. The burden of proof is on the editor wishing to include information - that's Guardian4truth. I have yet to see a proposed improvement to the article. All there's been so far is a bit of soapboxing and a bit of handwaving. I'll say this again too:- under our talk page guidelines it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Put up or shut up. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 02:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

So Haaretz information is not valid enough for a conspiracy theory, well not according to millions of people world wide who believe that there was Israeli involvement and sites all over the internet claiming the same. Do I agree with these people? for the most part no, but it is still a fact that this is a belief by a large number of people based on this information. This is the 9/11 conspiracy theory page and the ADL thinks there is enough of conspiracy to write about it. [8]

Ok we have a large group of individuals who believe Israel was someway involved in 9/11 through information from Haaretz and Fox news and the ADL confirms there is large conspiracy. What is not there for a conspiracy? I think it is clear that this exists and it is based on something and it should have a place here.--Guardian4truth (talk) 21:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

(reduce indent)The ADL does not confirm there is a conspiracy, large or small. Please re-read WP:V and WP:NPOV until you understand them. Then, come back here and propose an edit to the article which is supported by a reliable source. Or don't come back - you can learn a lot about Wikipedia, with a lot less drama (and risk of sanctions), by editing less controversial articles. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand this contention, did you read the ADLs claim? The title is "9/11 Anti-Semitic Conspiracy Theories Still Abound". It is a fairly large article and talks only about 9/11 conspiracy's involving Jews and Israel.

If you Google 9/11+Israel you will find a wealth of sites employing the information I have supplied. So I'm not fully sure where your contention lies, and what more would be needed for a conspiracy? It seems that this meets all criteria for a real conspiracy.--Guardian4truth (talk) 23:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

At this point I am more of less obliged by policy to assume that Guardian4truth cannot tell the difference (or is too lazy to make the distinction) between a "conspiracy" and a "conspiracy theory". If the former is the case, constructive improvements to the article are extremely unlikely. If the latter, please try harder to be clear about what you are talking about. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Alright the sourced information I provided lays out pretty clearly what is implied; the Odigo claim states that there was foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks. I think it takes a leap of faith to believe that someone using a Israeli instant messaging service happened to guess correctly that the 9/11 attacks would happen two hours before they occurred.

The FBI arresting and detaining five Israelis for allegedly celebrating when the first plane hit. The Fox News investigation confirming more than 200 Israelis arrested in regards to 9/11 and having some fail polygraphs in regards to spying on the US, and confirmation that they penetrated dozens of government organizations. A highly placed investigator said there are "tie-ins"(to the attacks).

The Israelis may have gathered intelligence about the attacks in advance, and not shared it. Fox News has learned that one group of Israelis, spotted in North Carolina recently, is suspected of keeping an apartment in California to spy on a group of Arabs who the United States is also investigating for links to terrorism. Numerous classified documents obtained by Fox News indicate that even prior to September 11, as many as 140 other Israelis had been detained or arrested in a secretive and sprawling investigation into suspected espionage by Israelis in the United States. A general accounting office investigation referred to Israel as country A and said, "According to a U.S. intelligence agency, the government of country A conducts the most aggressive espionage operations against the U.S. of any U.S. ally."

So conformation of a large Israeli inelegance network working in the US and likely having foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks and not sharing that information. Let me use a analogy; if you know a murder is going to occur and you know who the murder is and where the murder is going to take place and you supposedly have very close ties with the soon to be victim, yet you do nothing. Shouldn't you be looked at suspiciously? I think that is a fair analogy of why it is important that this side of the story be known, and I'm not alone in this view.--Guardian4truth (talk) 05:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Tendentious editing and in particular I didn't hear that. You are again making claims that are not verified by the sources you've cited, and combining sources to reach a conclusion that those sources do not reach.

This must stop.

Further disruption of this type will result in you being banned from 9/11 related pages, per the terms of the September 11 arbcom remedy (which you've already been warned about more than once). SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:45, 20 October 2008 (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.

Here's a link to a news story about the incident, which could be used as a reference: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0622-05.htm118.4.190.177 (talk) 07:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Passports

The article fails to mention the conspiracies fuelled by the passports of the hijackers and the fact that some were found in the rubble by firefighters. We need some facts: who found them? when? where are they now? were any other passports recovered? what are the sources of this passport story? 70.165.168.225 (talk) 08:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources discussing these? --Haemo (talk) 04:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

That could be seen as a bit unfair, Haemo, we have had a three month discussion on Talk:9/11 about this, which is now in archives 37-39 I reckon...  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 20:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to some connection to conspiracy theories, which has never been produced. --Haemo (talk) 21:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

" 'Conspiracy sites' are ... reliable sources for what 'conspiracists' think," which is that the passports were planted. That should be obvious. Not that it proves that they were planted, but it is hard to believe that they got to where they were 'found,' in pristine condition, by any other means. Wowest (talk) 08:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the passport of one of the hijackers from Flight 11 remarkably shot out through all the fiery explosion upon the plane impacting the building and landed, conveniently to be found in spankingly clean condition as 'evidence'.. z0mfg, please, stop, you're killing me^^.Si lapu lapu (talk) 00:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)Si Lapu Lapu

So where is the source for the passport recoveries, and which section should it go in? The "Coverup Allegations" section? Dscotese (talk) 00:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Foreknowledge

It seems during a speech on Thursday, Attorney General Michael Mukasey admitted that the Echelon spy network had provided warnings of the 911 attack 6 months before it happened. Another RS reported that the CIA was tracking the hijackers and were fully aware of their movements right up to 911. As a result of this information Keith Olbermann stated on MSNBC yesterday that the U.S. government was responsible for "malfeasant complicity in the 9/11 attacks." Feel free to track down reliable sources we can use for the article as I suspect we'll need a lot to get this added. Wayne (talk) 07:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

San Francisco Chronicle: Someone from Afghanistan called the USA; we don't really know who from where called whom and said what. Maybe something like 9/11 could be prevented if we could follow calls like that. Please give more money for wiretapping. (Unvoiced hint hint nudge nudge: the call we don't know about could have been related to 9/11! Think of the children!)[9].

How conspiracy theorists read that: Hey, someone knew someone made a telephone call! They did it on purpose! Admission! Smoking gun![10].

Well duh. Weregerbil (talk) 08:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

You got it wrong.. you should have said "how conspiracy debunkers spin it"....an American newspaper selectively reported it.... What are the chances? Mukasey said the call was from an Al Qaeda safe house in Afghanistan to the US. "Maybe something like 9/11 could be prevented if we could follow calls like that". The government did not need a warrant as FISA laws already allowed interception of such calls. In fact the government admitted in 1999 that such calls were routinely intercepted and copied under FISA and in September 2001 German Intelligence stated that calls intercepted by (what they believe was) Echelon were given to them in June 2001 indicating "Middle Eastern terrorists were planning to hijack commercial aircraft to use as weapons to attack important symbols of American and Israeli culture" (it was unknown what symbols or where) and that they acted on them by increasing surveilance of terrorist suspects. The key is "multiple sources" not the one that best fits. Wayne (talk) 07:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Except that Echelon doesn't really exist. It's a myth purpetrated by the CIA in an attempt to demonstrate they're doing something. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Echelon may not exist (which is why it said "believed") but something similar does exist. The national newspaper here had an article on it as Australia does the interceptions for the US. According to Aussie officials "we" have the ability to intercept and record every phone call on the planet and do interecept all from suspected terrorists that use "key" words. Is that not similar to Echelon? Wayne (talk) 07:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

So do you know any reliable sources that discuss Mukasey's "admission"? So far we have him asking for money (not warrants) to make a closer investigation of suspected terrorist chatter.

In a newspaper here a Muslim gentleman of 15 years of age was quoted discussing Fitna: do they want a terrorist attack in Amsterdam or something?. Probably just talking out of his arse, but if something happens you heard it here first: I had foreknowledge! I am teh 1337 Illuminati!

It is not practical to direct unlimited manpower to follow up on every phone call with non-specific threats from half a world away. So we would need a WP:RS which carefully considers foreknowledge vs. vague hints of something that might or might not happen somewhere at some time. Weregerbil (talk) 08:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The difference is that there is a RS (unfortunately citing anon sources within German Intelligence) that claims the call was passed on to them months before 911 as a serious threat. Wayne (talk) 16:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I can give you guys some reliable sources if you want — but they discuss it like this:

Either Mukasey is lying about the 9/11 attacks in order to manipulate Americans into believing that FISA's warrant requirements are what prevented discovery of the 9/11 attacks and caused 3,000 American deaths -- a completely disgusting act by the Attorney General which obviously cannot be ignored. Or, Mukasey has just revealed the most damning fact yet about the Bush's administration's ability and failure to have prevented the attacks -- facts that, until now, were apparently concealed from the 9/11 Commission and the public.

The article then continues, citing the apparent falsity of the comment given replies to it from other governmental source:

That's polite Beltway talk for saying that nothing like what Mukasey described actually happened. Does anyone on TV other than Keith Olbermann care that the Attorney General of the United States just invented a critical episode about 9/11 that never actually happened -- tearing up as he did it -- in order to scare Americans into supporting the administration's desired elimination of spying restrictions and blame FISA supporters for the 9/11 attacks?

Scandalous, yes. Connected to 9/11 conspiracy theories? Well, we'll have to wait and see. Right now, it looks like this is just an opportunistic fear-mongering lie from the Attorney General to try and rally support for a failing initiative. --Haemo (talk) 18:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Echelon doesn't exist? Note the admission from this former NSA officer, turned whistleblower, Russell Tice. Echelon is just the start of a huge surveillance infrastructure, with no accountability and abilities the average person thinks are impossible. The article explains how practical it is to turn their perving devices on anyone they want. - Shiftchange (talk) 14:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Société Générale

A recent article in the London Times (January 23, 2009) states that Jérôme Kerviel, Société Générale rogue trader made large sums of money on the day of the 7/7 "attack", more interestingly he was quoted as saying:

“The best trading day in the history of Société Générale was September 11, 2001,” he said. “At least, that’s what one of my managers told me. It seems that profits were colossal that day.“I had a similar experience during the London attacks in July 2005.”

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/banking_and_finance/article5568518.ece

"It was a day of carnage that left 56 people dead and a dark shadow for ever cast over the history of London. But for Jérôme Kerviel, the French rogue trader, 7/7 was the jackpot." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.212.49 (talk) 04:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit Comment

I reverted an edit Haemo made and in the comment i said he had made a dishonest edit. The reasons for my assumption were that he changed "mathematician" to "biologist", the source to the study was replaced with one giving Dewdney's conspiracy beliefs which are irrelevant considering the study is not disputed and a quote from the report by Dewdney was replaced with another from a magazine that made him sound like a crackpot. These changes appeared to me to be an attempt to discredit his study. The edit comment I made is out of character for me and has bothered me all day. I apologise for not assuming good faith and having had time to think I now assume he was not thinking clearly for some reason or was mistaken. Thx Wayne (talk) 16:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

But it looks like a mistake. The source that was previously used never states that he was a mathematician — whereas the source I added in this revision is a reliable source which states he is a "biology professor". Also, the quote I added as the same, but continued to give context for his beliefs — previously, it stated that the chance of successful connections "can only be described as infinitesimal". My revision put it in the correct context, which is "cellphone calls made by passengers were highly unlikely to impossible. Flight UA93 was not in the air when most of the alleged calls were made. The calls themselves were all faked." This section is directly about "claims relating to the cell phone calls" and Dewdney's argument is not just that it would have been impossible to make the calls — he further argues that this indicates that the calls were faked. If you think his views make him a "crackpot", then so be it, but that's no reason to remove them from the article — if his opinion about the possibility of calls is important enough to mention, that surely his conclusion drawn from opinion is just as important. You can't have it both ways here. --Haemo (talk) 18:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

PS thanks for the apology :) --Haemo (talk) 18:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

OooH. We just had TWO edit conflicts.

I meant to comment on that. Haemo could have been honestly reporting a dishonest article while assuming that only reporters who agree with his POV are honest. On the other hand, supporters of the Official Conspiracy Theory seem to have a morbid fear of any other possible explanations. The footage of the Twin Towers in the aftermath of the attacks was traumatizing, regardless of the exact chain of events, and a lot of people did a lot of things to vent their anger, such as clipping American flags (made in China) to their bumpers and speeding up and down various main drags. That could give rise to a lot of cognitive dissonance. I picked up a few flags that had been run over and saved them for a formal flag retirement event at the American Legion.Wowest (talk) 18:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Haemo is, of course correct that having a "reliable source" is more important than getting the fact right, according to wikipolicy. Still, BLP rules should apply, if we can find a reliable source that says that A.K. Dewdney is whatever he actually is. Wowest (talk) 18:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, AD is (or was) a mathematics columnist for Scientific American. If he's a biology professor, that may explain the (to me) obvious errors in some of his columns. Again, although I think his views are nonsense, we must include them if reported by a WP:RS in the conspiracy movement. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

So, is he a mathematician or not? He's definitely a biology professor. Also, what of including more complete views of his? It seems contrary to policy to selectively quote what someone believes about the phone calls because we think it "makes him sound like a crackpot". If no one objects, I'm going to restore that revision, leaving in mathematician with a "fact" tag. --Haemo (talk) 19:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Upon some study, he shows up in the Mathematics Genealogy Database. I think we can include both then? --Haemo (talk) 19:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

"Biology professor and writer on mathematics" seems to sum him up, based on the info presented. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 20:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Er, no. He seems to be a professor of computer science at the University of Western Ontario. -- But he has other interests. Look here:

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/faculty/akd/akd.html

Wowest (talk) 23:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I am so confused. Is he a biology professor or not? Maybe he once was, and now isn't? Let's just say "professor and mathematician" and be done with it? --Haemo (talk) 00:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Did anyone look at his WP entry which is wikilinked in the paragraph? "Alexander Keewatin Dewdney (born August 5, 1941 in London, Ontario) is a Canadian mathematician, computer scientist and philosopher who has written a number of books on the future and implications of modern computing."
As for having it "both ways" the paragraph should concentrate on the study not on his own irrelevant views as the study stands by itself. The source for the cell phone calls origin is the 911 commision report and the only part that had no reference was flight 77 having no airphones which I checked and found that not only do the airlines literature of the day state they had none, but they were asked and confirmed the fact.
The new sentences that have been added are misleading as a.) the source predates the study and b.) no one (not even Dewdney) disputes that there is a chance (1.8% above 6000 feet and "physically impossible" above 8000 feet) but the source implies ALL cell calls have a HIGH chance of connecting which is incorrect in light of actual studies and this implication makes the addition POV and it needs to be deleted. Wayne (talk) 13:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The assertion that cell phone connection is unlikely is not in or quoted by the 911 Commission report. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The sources don't say they have a high chance, they say they can work or they have varying degrees of success, neither of which implies a high success rate. RxS (talk) 14:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

And why should we just focus on his study? Why aren't his other views about the phone calls important? It seems that his opinion that the cellphone calls were faked is not in any way irrelevant to a section entitled "Claims relating to the cell phone calls". Would you mind explaining why you think that claim is irrelevant, while his claim that the phone calls were unlikely to impossible is relevant? --Haemo (talk) 18:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, you are mistaken that the source predates the study. The study was published between January 23rd and April 19th 2003. The MacLeans article was published on Aug 30, 2006. I do not believe the sentences are in any way misleading — they are a direct quote of what he believes about the cellphone calls. If you believe he was misquoted, or that the context is wrong, then please provide a source at odds with this quote. --Haemo (talk) 19:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Dewdney's study is relevant because it is a study and backed by other sources, but his own views are not notable (I didn't even know he had any until you found that 911 conspiracy website) as they are not widely known and were not stated until after the study (they were possibly formed based on the studies results) and to mention both (especially mixing them together as you did) can cause confusion for a reader in differentiating between what is the study and what are his personal views.
The Macleans source you quote is a hit piece that has factual errors that even cursory fact checking would have fixed (ie:it's not a RS). The other source you used that says cell calls are possible is dated 1989 at which time there had been no studies and is thus OR on the part of the people interviewed. Your version is clearly cherry picking in an attempt to debunk what is probably the only 911 fact that is undisputably true which is that cell calls are next to impossible. Asserting those calls were faked is another kettle of fish and as such needs to be separated from the study. I also noticed you put your version back without consensus and with the comment "No response after 2 days -- readding reliable sourcing with quote". No response was due to a belief we would keep the original until such time as you could prove your case. I remind you of the Arbcom findings, they apply to you as much as anyone. Wayne (talk) 06:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Dude, I spent two days sitting here with no reply to very clear and pointed arguments in favor of including it. How long should I wait? A week? Your argument is here does not make sense — how is Dewdney's study "backed by other sources"? The only source that's ever been presented in this discussion has been the Macleans article, and the study itself. How is the Macleans article a "hit piece" — how does it have "factual errors"? How on earth do you conclude that Macleans, the most respected newsmagazine in Canada, is not a reliable source. At no point have you demonstrated that this study has any notability — the only reliable source which discusses it so far discusses it in the context of his views about 9/11. Do you seriously think that his views about the cell phone calls have no relevance to "claims regarding the cell phone calls"? Why do his views embodied in the study become relevant, while his views in terms of his statements become irrelevant — is Mr Dewdney a notable conspiracy theorist? How could his study be notable and not him? Could you provide some sources that back this up — because, so far, I'm the only one providing sourcing which portrays his study, or his views, as in any way relevant and you have decided that you don't want to include part of his views because you think they're "kooky" and debunk the "correct" version. That's not how this works. Either provide sourcing showing that Mr Dewdney's views about the calls being faked are viewed as unimportant, while the study is important, or please stop trying to selectively include views you think are "indisputably true" while distancing them from the other views of their proponents. Because that's exactly what you're doing. --Haemo (talk) 07:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have gotten your dates wrong again. The second source used is dated 2001 not 1989 — I'm not sure if that changes your argument but I didn't include that other source, but how does the fact that you believe it was "OR on the part of the people interviewed" in any way invalidate it. Mr Dewdney's study is OR — why is that valid, but not this? OR applies to Wikipedians — not to people off-Wiki. Indeed, "OR" reported in third-party reliable sources is what we're supposed to be basing this article on. --Haemo (talk) 07:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

2001 still predates the study, so it commenting on how easy it is to make calls without any scientific backing is OR. Dewdney's study is no more OR than NISTs report is, both investigated a theory and published conclusions which a generally accepted.
Dewdney is not a notable conspiracy theorist. I doubt most readers of conspiracy websites would have even heard of him. To include his views would appear to many people as an attempt to discredit the study which should stand on it's own merits. I point out that similar quoting of supporters of the official theory that possibly discredits them have been reverted in the past for the same reason. Have you read all the Macleans article? It gets Dewdney's occupation wrong, it makes fun of all Canadians, it makes fun of conspiracy theorists, it deliberately lies/exaggerates to make it's point, it extensively promotes a debunking book, it uses disparaging language etc etc. I've never heard of the magazine but if this typical of it's journalism it is no better than some of the conspiracy websites. Wayne (talk) 18:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

But, if no one has heard of Dewdney, then why are we discussing his study? Macleans believes that both have about equal notability, and gives them about equal time. His views are totally relevant to the study — we would not, say, explain a study found evolution to be impossible or highly unlikely without also mentioning that the studier happened to be a Creationist. Also, the article didn't get his occupation wrong — it's just out of date. He used to be involved in both environmental science and conservation. If you've never heard of Macleans, that's understandable but it is definitely a reliable source. It has a circulation of over 350,000 copies a week, and is "one of Canada's leading sources of news and information", according to our article on the subject. You may not like that it disparages theories you think are credible in the article, but you will notice that we don't focus on that at all — we focus on Mr Dewdney's views. --Haemo (talk) 20:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, it's been more than a week. Do you have a reply? Because in the absence of any reasonable objection to the points I've made here, I'm inclined to simply make the change. --Haemo (talk) 23:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, why is A.K. Dewdney listed as a "participant" if he isn't mentioned in the article? Dscotese (talk) 00:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Magic passports?

Is this really a notable or important view amount 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists? I can't find any sources that discuss this term in any depth, and it appears that section claiming it is related to the "magic bullet" is completely the opinion of the author. I'm not "up to date" on what the important views are, but I can't find one reliable source discussing these passports in the context of 9/11 conspiracy theories, or ascribing them any importance to these theories at all. --Haemo (talk) 23:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Does This belong anywhere?

TEHRAN, April 9 (UPI) -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has questioned whether the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks by al-Qaida really took place, an Israeli military Web site said. The man who is famous for denying the Nazi Holocaust told an audience he wonders how U.S. radar could have failed to detect two planes before they struck the Twin Towers in New York, the DEBKAfile reports.[11] Edkollin (talk) 02:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

That's really odd — it's a source reporting that another source has reported that someone said something. The source for the story is this site which looks, uh, unreliable on issues of Israel-Iran-Palestine etc. So, I'm not sure. --Haemo (talk) 02:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, if you go to the source, they not only attack Iran in the article, but the statements they attribute to him are really bizarre — so I think we should with-hold action until better sourcing arises. --Haemo (talk) 02:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It struck me as odd also that is why I put it up for discussion. I would not cite Debka.com directly as it is an a gossipy (intelligence and security matters not celebrity) source with a agenda but UPI is a a reliable source and they did not write that he has reportedly said but wrote that he did say it. Edkollin (talk)

Another cite claiming he said this [12] Edkollin (talk) 04:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

If you read the source, they don't say he said it — they say an Israeli website said he said it — you can see they're being really careful with how they couch it. Second-hand from an unreliable source, in other words. --Haemo (talk) 20:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

My first source says an Israeli website said it. This one [13] I added later from an Arab news source does not mention debka at all but quotes him directly.Edkollin (talk) 06:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't see that. Hmmm — I'm not sure how we want to deal with this, then — we really need a section on "Arab and Muslim views". This article is rather badly US-centric, when the majority of 9/11 conspiracy theorists are from the Muslim world. --Haemo (talk) 19:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The Truth Behind 9/11

It appear, to me at least that the organization The Truth Behind 9/11 is not notable, and their inclusion in this article gives them undue weight. I've already removed it once today, but User:Saint.Pierre.Pro re-added it without comment. Since I've pledged not to revert changes more than once per day, I'm referring this for discussion here. Does anyone agree with me? --Haemo (talk) 20:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

In fact, after doing some research, they don't appear to be a registered non-profit — they appear to be a website using freehosting a la Geocities which is so obscure I had a devil of a time finding them using Google. --Haemo (talk) 20:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

My Regards

I am very very sorry for confusion or anything I have caused. I wish to apologize and my article "The Truth Behind 9/11 has been removed. I am terribly terribly sorry and I wish to improve my Wikipedia editing skills as soon as possible. I must really apologize to Haemo for the inaccuracy of my article. The only problem is I wish to create articles not to edit others, does anyone have any suggestions? Once again, I apologize. Thank you. Saint.Pierre.Pro (talk) 21:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It is much harder to create new articles, in my opinion, because (with a few exceptions) all the best subjects already have articles. I would recommend spending a little time reading the links on the welcome message I sent to your Talk page; this will help you to work with other editors editing existing wikipedia articles. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 21:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

No worries at all! I replied on my talk page in more detail — but, BTW, welcome to Wikipedia :) --Haemo (talk) 01:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I Would Like To Help

Hey everybody, I have had much experience in the area of the September 11th Attacks. After deleting my past article I am left with helping with this one. Would anyone like me to do anything for this article. You can post ideas here or at my [talk page]. Thanks. Saint.Pierre.Pro (talk) 14:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

We need more reliable sources discussing the theories on this page, and less primary sources. If you could find more of these, that would be awesome. --Haemo (talk) 19:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Great! I know what you mean, but do you have any suggestions to make finding more reliable sources easier? Like I've said before, I am new to Wikipedia editing and I am not fluent in all the terms and expressions used. Please explain. Thank you. Saint.Pierre.Pro (talk) 19:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Um, well, that's the problem :D Reliable sources are "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" — in general, we're talking about newspapers, magazines, books, academic works, etc. The kind of things you would use to write a report on a subject for class, or what-have-you. The issue is that we're having trouble finding them for this subject. So, hit the library or any databases you have access to. --Haemo (talk) 20:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting 911 update

The Society of Civil Engineers has convened a panel to investigate claims against it of conflict of interest, engaging in a cover-up to protect the government and of falsifying conclusions that skyscrapers could not withstand getting hit by airplanes. An investigation funded by the National Science Foundation found that most New York skyscrapers "would survive such an impact and prevent the kind of fires that brought down the twin towers". The claim is made by structural engineers after independent computor simulations couldn't get the WTC to collapse. They are not claiming CD but suspect a major construction/structural flaw. Wayne (talk) 19:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Dang..I'm behind the times, someone has already added it to the page. I would have suggested it not being added yet as the panel will give it's results in a few weeks. Wayne (talk) 20:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

This seemed fairly likely to me when they got rid of all the rubble ASAP rather than really examining it; the Bush administration has a lot of friends in business who would have lost billions of dollars had the insurance company not had to pay out because the building design was defective. Titanium Dragon (talk) 19:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Where is it? Dscotese (talk) 00:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Israeli/Jewish victims of the 9/11 attacks?

I came here figuring that I'd be able to find accurate info on the number of Israeli citizens, and persons of Jewish descent who died in the WTC attacks.

A list at the State Dept website (i just added it) lists 76 and says it's a "partial" list; http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Jan/14-260933.html

these are the sources citing higher numbers, from 270-500:

1. "Surveys" are cited without any info about who did them or where they can be found. What a joke.

2. Rosenblatt article says "While no one knows for certain how many Jews were killed on Sept. 11, the most reliable estimates put the number at about 400." Does citing an unsupported claim from a source with conflicts of interest meet Wikipedia standards?

3. same as 2. ""A week later I called him and said 'about 500,' which is 15 to 17 percent of all the victims killed in the World Trade Center. The figure would have been even higher had it not been for the fact that many Orthodox Jews went to work an hour later because of the Selichot prayers recited in the days before the Jewish New Year."

4. "4000 Jews" rumor article; why'd the person who put this here not note that it only lists 76 victims?

Whoever posted these bogus cites should know it really reflects badly on them, and their efforts to discredit the "conspiracy theories"

Note: I don't think "the Jews" or "Israel" were responsible for the attacks- I do believe, like 81% of Americans, that the Bush Administration is "hiding something" or "mostly lying" about what they knew prior to 9/11. http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/13469

I do believe a full criminal investigation, independent of the Bush and Clinton Administrations and anyone connected to them, with public oversight, is needed to determine who all the responsible parties are, for the 9/11 attacks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorkelobb (talk • contribs) 04:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I doubt there is complete and accurate data on this sort of thing anywhere, which is why this article lists so many varied sources. Furthermore, this article isn't intended to discredit the theories. That would violate the neutrality policy of Wikipedia.

At any rate, if you're looking for information regarding the attacks, the September 11, 2001 attacks page would be a better choice. --clpo13_(talk) 04:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Except for the second sentence in that section and the last sentence of the second paragraph I researched and wrote the entire section. I also wrote note 160 in it's entirety and it explains the discrepancies in the sources. I could have mentioned the sources for that note but they are not disputed and would have made the note far too long (notes tend to be reverted for the most minimal reasons). These sources are easily found in a search. I am seen by most here as being a conspiracy theorist so that section contradicting CT's can be seen as particular reliable lol. Wayne (talk) 03:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Theories and hypotheses

Nothing described in this article rises to the level of a theory. All are merely hypotheses, and the article now so notes. Wowest (talk) 16:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Following Arthur Rubin's tendentious revision, I have restored my additions. Although some conspiracies are not criminal, as Arthur pointed out, all conspiracy theories concerning 9/11 do involve criminal conspiracy. Wowest (talk) 17:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there are a couple of 9/11 conspiacy theories that I have read about that are not criminal. I haven't seen them in this article but I tend to agree with Arthur's take on this issue. UB65 (talk) 18:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Incompetence, one of the most prominent, and mainstream theories is not necessarily criminal. I also support Arthur here. --Haemo (talk) 05:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

INCOMPETENCE is the mainstream account! "A failure of imagination," according to Bush. Are you now acknowledging that the mainstream account is, itself, a conspiracy theory? I just got warned about "tendentious" editing for adding that statement to an article, so I'm no longer editing 9/11 articles -- only commenting on them. Wowest (talk) 05:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I meant incompetence concealed from the 9/11 Commission. Don't put words into my mouth. --Haemo (talk) 05:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that. You've been reading something I haven't read or thought about though. Could you give an example of an accusation of "incompetence concealed from the 9/11 Commission," as a conspiracy theory? I currently believe, personally, that it was MIHOP and that incompetence argument is just excuse-making. Of course, I can't say that in an article, and I don't read much theory in either direction any more. Wowest (talk) 06:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Silverstein Again

It belongs because most notable CT cites, videos etc mention him. There is to much emphasis on how much he made in this debate. That is at most to give background for the reader. I fail to see how the this particular allegation of mass murder differs from those mentioned in this article and associated sub articles against President Bush, Members of the Project for the New American Century and Mossad. They are living people many of the allegations come from “notable” “non reliable” web based sources in many cases they are based on the “connect the dots” approach etc. Again this is an article not about facts but of notable allegations, theories, hypothesis or whatever you decide to call it. Edkollin (talk) 06:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Produce reliable sources documenting these claims or accusation and we'll have a discussion about it. Until then, it's un-encyclopedic gossip-mongering by anonymous speculators and has no place here. The argument that other stuff exists is not compelling in the slightest. --Haemo (talk) 06:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd just echo what Haemo said, CT sites are not reliable sources. And I think you can tell the difference between Silverstein and Pres. Bush....and if there are other BLP problems in the article, they should be fixed, as opposed to making more problems. We're a long long way from adding material about him in a 9/11 conspiracy article. RxS (talk) 15:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

This article is here because the CT theories are a political phenomenon. Therefore it is and has been up to now “notable” proponents of theories not necessarily “reliable” proponents of theories that have been cited. Although I would disagree with this course of action because this is not an article about a straight factual subject if we are going to use only traditional reliable sources this article should be only a few paragraphs long another words all cites, external Links using such types of sources as Alex Jones”,”Loose Change” etc need to be wiped out. And no I do not see why allegations against President Bush and Larry Silverstein should be treated differently at all. I guess what I have come to the conclusion is that allegations against Larry Silverstein is not the real issue behind this debate but the unhappiness about of what types sources are used as cites in this article and possibly the general direction and tone of the artical. Edkollin (talk) 05:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

None of this has any bearing at all in terms of BLP and Larry Silverstein. If you don't get that, please read WP:BLP. Any discussion about the type of sources used in the article or the tone of it is a separate issue. In terms of Larry Silverstein there really isn't anything to discuss. RxS (talk) 17:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not a biographical article and this discussion is not about deleting an article or comparing articles so BLP and other stuff exists do not apply. This is not a separate issue in fact it has everything to do with the question should allegations against Larry Silverstein be mentioned in the article. But it is a broader issue and I will deal with it below in that way Edkollin (talk) 04:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that it isn't a biographical article: This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons on other pages. That's why I asked you to read WP:BLP, it wasn't a rhetorical request. This a very clear, very separate issue, we are not going to add his name to a 9/11 conspiracy page because of some speculation on the Internet. We're just not. There are no reliable sources to point to and no controversy or debate within mainstream media, academic sources or anything else even faintly resembling a reliable source. I don't know how to make it any clearer except to say that insisting on this point will only end with a topic ban or block, and it would be by no means the first time. RxS (talk) 05:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Notable/Popular CT theory sourcing

The type of sourcing I am referring to is the Alex Jones, Loose Change, prison planets of the world. I am not referring to some conspiracy theorist sitting in his or her basement and creating a website. I do not want to get involved in an argument here over whether a particular source fits a category or not.

1. Should this type of sourcing be used in the article?.

2. Should this type of sourcing used as an external link?

3. If a “reliable source” quotes a source like this should it be used?

I have made my point above but if these sources are not to be used then we should not use them in all circumstances. I understand number 3 is correct by Wikipedia rules but I would find doing that hypocritical and not seeing the forest from the trees Edkollin (talk) 04:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The answer is clear — reliable sources. We should include prominent views reported on by reliable sources. We can also attribute details of these views to primary sources. Beyond that, there isn't a lot to say — policy is policy, and if you can only write a stubby article about a subject because of it, then that's the appropriate length of the article. --Haemo (talk) 21:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The Parity of sources section of the Fringe Theories rules specifically allows for this type of sourcing for this type of article. Edkollin (talk) 08:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Read it carefully. --Haemo (talk) 21:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

In particular, the fact that this article is about fringe beliefs doesn't allow us to ignore WP:BLP and post poorly-sourced, contentious, defamatory material. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Zeitgeist movie

There's a great movie that has all kinds of great points about 9/11 and the federal reserve and stuff like that. I'm not much of an editor but I think it shoould be added in the movies section. It's a free movie available to download at the main website [14]. --InsayneWrapper (talk) 21:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It covers multiple conspiracy theories, not just 9/11. I really don't think it should be in this article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The movie used to have its own article page, but was deleted because it is not notable. I would say WP:NNC excludes its inclusion as a factual supplement, because the movie is simply a well crafted and entertaining opinion. By the way, the movie's most credible material has to do with well documented Christian history, not 9/11, rich bankers, Amero advocates, or RFID chips. —Kanodin 10:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

That's actually the least credible material. As for whether the movie should be included, it's been firmly established that it should not. The credible material (everything Kanodin mentioned minus the Christianity stuff) isn't anything that you couldn't find in more reliable sources. --Pwnage8 (talk) 17:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually it is the most credible material. Kanodin is right Vexorg (talk) 10:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The claims made are not even accurate. For example, the supposed virgin birth similarities (many of the so-called Christs were not born of virgins ex: Krishna). The religion stuff is the only thing that brings the credibility of the film into question. Although, it's also what attracts all the atheists to jump on the anti-christian bandwagon. The NWO, RFID, 9/11, etc stuff is easily verifiable. But this is not the place to be having a debate. --Pwnage8 (talk) 17:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Pwnage8 is right, the Christianity segment is the most easily debunked of the 3 segments in the movie.--E tac (talk) 20:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Minor edit

This citation: cite web|url=http://www.stage6.com/911Revolution/video/2163757/911taboo-v1-1%7Ctitle=Watch 911 Taboo now on Stage6, a movie by Genghis6199 of 911taboo.com is a dead link, can someone with access please remove it? Sadmep (talk) 13:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

RE: This citation: I cited the particular link that has since been killed. Please replace the link to its previous link: http://www.livevideo.com/socialservice —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.243.87 (talk) 04:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Rebuttals?

Where's the nice rebuttals to the various proposed conspiracy theories? I read an older version of this article years ago and it was organized so you could read the theory then the rebuttal, very nice and easy to find the information. Now I don't see any rebuttals in the article anymore. What happened to them? JettaMann (talk) 15:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It was felt that this made the article to long and unreadable. The article was split off into sub articles. If a section had a sub article that section was made into summary. I liked it the old way also but was in the minority. Edkollin (talk)

It's also not really the job of the article to provide "rebuttals" to conspiracy theories. Rather, it should discuss them, and criticisms of them together. --Haemo (talk) 05:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Then where are the criticisms of them? It's too hard to find them anymore.JettaMann (talk) 18:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Some of the "rebuttals", such as one from Popular Mechanics, do not stand up to scrutiny. They show complete lack of respect by only assigning one or two paragraphs to each theory.Autonova (talk) 14:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a laugh. I read the Popular Mechanics article and it was pretty much right on the money. You see, they are familiar with this crazy thing called "science". JettaMann (talk) 18:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Have you read this article by Jim Hoffman? It discussed the tactics PM uses to make it's readers think that the theories are being debunked, when they're really not. I fell for PM's dirty tricks too until I read this. Hunter and Gatherer (talk) 17:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Initial wording of official account

The following is part of the first paragraph of the article as of this Talk Page entry:

A variety of conspiracy theories question the mainstream account of the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States. At the very least, these theories posit that the official report on the events is not sufficiently forthcoming, thorough or truthful.

I was told to get a consensus on the talk page about this edit, which was erroneously described as "absolutely wrong" by one editor, before I put it in the page:

A variety of conspiracy theories question the government account of the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States. At the very least, these theories posit that the official report on the events is not sufficiently forthcoming, thorough or truthful.

My only point is that at it's most basic form, the mainstream account is the US Government's account. I was accused of trying to "cutely" insert a "fringe POV" edit, when all I am doing is clarifying in only the initial wording of the issue at hand what exactly the mainstream account is at its most basic form. It is the government account that is considered mainstream, not that the mainstream account is inherently given by the government, and that is an important point to make in this article. If I were attempting to insert a biased point of view in the article, then I'd have gone throughout the entire thing and replaced "mainstream account" with "government account" every time it occurred in the article, which I clearly have not done here. So, if my point is sufficiently explained for the condescending editors who insist on seeing me as some sort of opinionated cook, one of whom having begun to stalk my own edits on other articles and accuse me of inserting "vandalism" in "many" of my other edits, then I guess we can begin getting a consensus on this one way or the other. Thank you. Fifty7 (talk) 15:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, the US government is by no means the only (or even main) source of the reliable sources used to base that sentence (and the general account) on. Media, academic sources, foreign governments and people involved in the attack itself all make up what's considered the mainstream account. Claiming that the mainstream account is solely made up of US government sourcing would be wrong. RxS (talk) 16:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

RsX is right. The governments account of events would not be the mainstream account of events if media and scientific sources did not accept the governments conclusions. In most cases the government and mainstream sources come to the same basic conclusions but this is not always true. For example until recently scientific and mainstream media sources were much more likely to attribute global warming to humans then the Bush administration Edkollin (talk) 05:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

But no one knows what the "mainstream" account is. In fact, I would venture to say that there is no "mainstream" account (note all the CTs). However, the account provided by the government is well documented, and the very next sentence explains where. If the first sentence is not an unnecessary tautology, then what is it trying to say? That a variety of conspiracy theories express a minority view? That most people believe something other than (some) of the conspiracy theories? The sentence is much more useful if it addresses the largest subset of conspiracy theories that question a particular well-defined account by describing precisely what they question, and that would be the government account, wouldn't it? Dscotese (talk) 00:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Al Qaeda blame Iran and Hezbollah for the conspiracy

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7361414.stm I believe it should be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oren.tal (talk • contribs) 16:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC) .

When this story came out I put in in this sub-article Responsibility for the September 11, 2001 attacks#Other alleged responsibility under Israel Edkollin (talk) 05:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Minor edit

I just wanted to point out a typo in the following sentence:

'Additionally, a National Reconnaissance Office drill was being conducted on September 11 in which the event a small aircraft crashing into one of the towers of the agency's headquarters, was to be simulated,'

The word 'of' should be inserted after the word 'event.' Joachimboaz (talk) 18:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Changed. Hut 8.5 18:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

For slight grammar changes like this you can just make the change and give a brief description of it or just say fixed typo it the Edit Summary Section Edkollin (talk) 23:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

No they can't - the article is semiprotected, which means new and unregistered users can't edit it. Hut 8.5 18:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Very important article

http://www.daily.pk/world/americas/99-americas/3865-usa-military-officers-challenge-official-account-of-september-11.html Autonova (talk) 14:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Implication of Afghan Opium Drug Lords ?

Implication of Aghan Opium Drug Lords ?

With over 80% of the world Opium derived from Afghanistan why is not this part of any conspiracy.

The war on drugs and or a other interference in the trade of some, is putting pressure on the Lords...

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 13:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Has the American media exposed this ? Canada's Foreign Minister "dating" former biker wife. Biker Girl and Foreign Minister

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 16:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

It truly is surprising that opium if seldom mentioned, the half-truth that remains hidden. Seems these may be modern opium wars disguised as something else; remember this is all criminal activity.

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 17:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Opium Links removed?

I had placed three links to site dealing with the Opium trade in AFghanistan.

They appear to have been removed ?

CI

Like this one.

VOA News Afghanistan 90% of worlds Opium and largest Heroin Supplier

Most important was a BBS report saying that agreements were in place since 1989? to buy the opium..?

I am certain that they were posted?

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 18:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Sometimes 2 plus 2 is twenty two.

"Some experts suspect that bin Laden's al Qaeda network -- and other Afghan- based terrorist organizations such as Egyptian Islamic Jihad, the Army of Mohammed and the Army of the Righteous -- may also be directly involved in the drug trade."

San Francisco Chronicle

Seem the obvious possible "conspiracy" or truth has been missing. Then again, it is suppose to be illegal.

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 18:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not know what has been deleted or not but I can tell you that this material is not article worthy becaus0e there is not even a suggestion in your cites that the money was used to fund the 9/11 attacks. At most is the suggestion of possible old fashioned drug corruption. If I understand what you are saying is that since the U.S. taxpayers money went to these organizations that suggests that the U.S. had a working relationship with the Taliban therefore had foreknowledge of the attacks or were working with them in planning or carrying out the 9/11 attacks. The problem that this is your theory not the articles theory therefore it is Original Research one of the biggest Wikipedia no no's. You must come up with a reliable source that ties the Taliban,U.S. money and the opium trade to a conspiracy involving the 9/11 attacks. Edkollin (talk) 04:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not suggesting a tie with US money.

The movie, Clear and Present Danger http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_and_Present_Danger contains within the wikiepdia information a useful link.

• Clear and Present Danger can also be considered an allegory to the Iran-Contra (Afghanistan) scandal, which occurred around the time this novel was being written.

That is that 'some' involvment related to the illegal drug trade in the area is beyond the law. That is like in the days of New York when SOME within the system was corrupt and involved in corrupt affairs, they were at war with the gangsters and the Cosa Nostra who were trying to bring law and order to their community. (history might record it in that matter, as the line between law and order and criminal organizations does not exist or changes in time...)

Newsreports in Canada say that 'corrupt cells' within prisons, within the police forces are part of the problem.

My conclusion: The half-truth logical flaw of the material on 9-11 or conspiracy thought, is the total lack of mention of drugs.

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 14:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Unless you have a reliable source to back these claims up, this is not going to be included in the article because it violates our policy of no original research. --Hut 8.5 15:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• If I had a reliable source then it would not be a conspiracy it would be true.

This is not necessarily correct. Although in the minority there are reliable sources touting 9/11 conspiracy theories. An example: The former president of Italy who has been involved in false flag operations claims 9/11 was a joint United States/ Mossad operation. With his background he is an expert on the subject of nefarious conspiracies carried out by governments. While most experts would disagree with his claim we put his claim in one of the sub articles of this article. Another example: Scientists disagree on how aggressively to treat prostrate cancer. In a case like this Wikipedia would print both sides of the dispute citing the disagreeing scientists as reliable sources. The point is for the purposes of editing articles we do not care if it true but whether reliable sources say it is true Edkollin (talk) 06:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

My point was to show you that no where, no where on this site on others related is there a mention of the Drug trade.

I have discussed this with

VegitaU http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:VegitaU

• "I was born in Colombia and immigrated to America when I was three. Since then, I've lived mostly in Maryland. I served four years in the Air Force and was honorably discharged in 2007. While serving, I spent four months performing non-combat duties in Iraq.*

I cannot understand why he was not aware of this ?

Remember these are all conspiracy theories, not actual thought.

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 18:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand. All content in Wikipedia must be sourced to reliable sources. If you don't have a source, it's not appropriate for Wikipedia. Many conspiracy theories (even those which are universally seen to be false) have Wikipedia entries, and are covered by reliable sources. --Haemo (talk) 01:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The drug theories have no connection with any 9/11 conspiracy theory. The Taliban had effectively ended drug production in Afghanistan so there was no drug financing available for 9/11. There is very likely a drug conspiracy now involving the CIA as there is considerable evidence they are involved but that is post 9/11 so not appropriate here. Wayne (talk) 03:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Opium War Revealed

They missed the link? Opium = Taliban = Bin Ladin Problem with US War on Drugs / Nato / Military / Clear and Present Danger

Would you admit that some of your forces were involved in the drug line, legal or not ?

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 16:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Canadian Foreign Minister Resigns after "spouse" former biker/drug lady

By the way, how can you have a 'reliable source' about a so called unsupported conspiracy ?

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 17:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

You can have a reliable source that states 'Mediocre unstable people who want to feel important think such-and-such.' If it's properly researched, it will also state 'Such-and-such, is, in fact, completely wrong'. Found anything? John Nevard (talk) 17:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

New Flight 93 article

To save space, I've diverted most of the info in the Flight 93 section into a new article: Flight 93 controversies and discrepancies --Noah¢s (Talk) 13:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this move. The new article is 7 KB, and because of the nature of the subject, smacks of content forking. The 100 KB size is not a hard and fast limit, and I don't see how the topic is enhanced by creating two articles. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 23:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

FYI, it's 100 KB of readable text. This article is less than 80. --Haemo (talk) 23:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, there aren't enough reliable sources in the forked article to justify it. The article should be brought up for AfD. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 02:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd be fine with simply bringing it back into this article. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 02:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's some material that could be added (the article is now locked): Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta testifying before the 9/11 Commission that shoot-down orders were apparently issued: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDfdOwt2v3Y&feature=related. Also, in the documentary "Loose Change: Final Cut" a military spokesman admits that planes were in position to shoot down Flight 93, but that they did not shoot it down. Finally, if Flight 93 was shot down with a missile, the debris released by the explosion could have floated on the prevailing wind. If the wind at that altitude was blowing in a southeasterly direction, the debris released when the missile struck could have floated far beyond the crash site.118.4.190.177 (talk) 08:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

YouTube and Loose Change are not are not considered reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory

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.

---

"Conspiracy theory", as stated by Wikipedia itself in an undisputed article, has acquired over the years the status of a derogatory term. I suggest that the every time a theory is labeled as "conspiracy", we should say it's a "so-called conspiracy theory". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nashledanou (talk • contribs) 16:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. It's more neutral that way. --Pwnage8 (talk) 17:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Please no. Read WP:WEASEL. Hut 8.5 17:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not a weasel word. --Pwnage8 (talk) 18:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is. The obvious question that is raised by "so-called conspiracy theorist" is "who calls them conspiracy theorists?" As Ice Cold Beer points out below the term is used by reliable sources. Hut 8.5 15:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Good questions.--caesarjbsquitti

Yes "Conspiracy theory" is pejorative, thats why its used. If we really want to have a it NPOV it should be "Alternate Hypotheses" but those editors that want to influence how others think about this topic in a negative way will never allow that.

"so-called" is bad grammar and a weasel word. Tony0937 (talk) 22:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

HRrrrhrrmm. Sigh. I don't know how many times I've said this. To everyone: The official and alternate theories are all conspiracy theories. The only difference between the two are the conspirators!Si lapu lapu (talk) 00:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)Si Lapu Lapu

We just had an extensive discussion over this which ended with no consensus. There are arguments to be made both in favor of the name, and against it. Let's not bring this up again, because it's going nowhere. --Haemo (talk) 01:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Please read the archives their have been probably literally millions of words written about this dispute. Edkollin (talk) 06:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

This is getting rather ridiculous. This has been brought up endlessly. There was a case for arbitration in April see: [[15]] Please stop rekindling old flames.Cdynas (talk) 06:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

If I'm "pro-conspiracy", then you're "pro-conspiracy theory". If we want to bring neutrality to the page, we need to discuss things like this and reach a consensus for language that doesn't advocate either side. Right now the article is written in a predominantly dismissive nature. HOW is that neutral? --Pwnage8 (talk) 14:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources call them conspiracy theories, so that is what we call them. The term is not used pejoratively within the article, so the title stays. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 15:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

If we are quoting them then it is acceptable in the context of a quote. That corporate media has been primarily dismissive and even antagonistic toward any questioning of the Official Account is not in question. What I have issue with is we that are a using the pejorative outside a quote. Which is clearly against policy[16].Tony0937 (talk) 16:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Guys, we're not starting this again. --Haemo (talk) 23:35, 27 May 2008 (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.

Pilots for 911 truth revisited

A large article on them has been published in a reliable source and can be found here.
"Twenty-five former U.S. military officers have severely criticized the official account of 9/11 and called for a new investigation. They include former commander of U.S. Army Intelligence, Major General Albert Stubblebine, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Col. Ronald D. Ray, two former staff members of the Director of the National Security Agency; Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, PhD, and Major John M. Newman, PhD, and many others. They are among the rapidly growing number of military and intelligence service veterans, scientists, engineers, and architects challenging the government’s story."
One of them may not be credible as he pushes the "no plane" theory but the others have credible concerns so the organisation shouldn't be dismissed. Wayne (talk) 03:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I don’t know how pertinent this really is. Sure 25 former military officer's distrust the official account but I'm sure there are 100,000+ more who don’t. Do you see where I am going? If we begin toting up additional people who do or don’t believe in the conspiracy where does it stop?Cdynas (talk) 05:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

We do have an external link to this organization. As to where this should be going it should go in as replacements for some of the less reliable sources in the article and subarticles claiming the same things. We establish in the summary that most reliable sources do not believe in these theories, we have a section on the mainstream account,criticism and media coverage which for the most part is the same thing. As long as there is consensus that these minority views are worthy of an article at all and this article is not entitled criticism of 9/11 conspiracy theories I see no reason not to use these reliable sources touting 9/11 conspiracy theories because of possible future problems. Edkollin (talk) 06:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

This is useful because, as Ed says, we can use it to source some of the claims made by weaker sources. --Haemo (talk) 07:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thats why I suggested the source. Previous attempts to mention them have failed due to no RS for their members or qualifications. I'm not saying give them a section but now we have a source for when it is appropriate for their mention. I can see where you are going Cdynas but you overlook that of those 100,000 who trust the official account maybe only 10 or 20 have actually looked into it to any meaningful extent. If you only count those who have then we have maybe a 50/50 split. Wayne (talk) 16:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Reformat

I thought it'd be more accessible/easier to streamline in this layout. I hope the community appreciates my reformatting. Autonova (talk) 11:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

"so-called"

Since the discussion here was prematurely closed, I now have to reply elsewhere. In response to Hut 8.5, the answer to your question of "who calls them conspiracy theories/theorists?" would be the mainstream media, certain experts, and government officials. Tony0937 can back me up on this, and he even pointed out that using the pejorative "conspiracy theory" is against NPOV policy. Now, "so-called" may not be the best approach, but it's better than what's being used now, and is clearly not a weasel word, as I have demonstrated. What I liked about the original comment was the reasoning behind it, not necessarily the use of "so-called". I'd rather see "Alternate Hypotheses" used. --Pwnage8 (talk) 00:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

This has been extensively debated in a recent RFA here and although it was admitted that Conspiracy Theory is deliberately used as a perjorative there was no consensus to change the title. Without a clear majority there can be no change so it is pointless to try again so soon. Try again next year as it is counterproductive to bring up the same argument too frequently in the hope of getting a different outcome. Wayne (talk) 03:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I was on a wiki break when this was going on. I fixed your link and a spelling mistake in you post (hope you don't mind). I will read the mediation case before I comment further. Tony0937 (talk) 04:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

NP. Don't forget to read the archived discussion as well as a few comments there show suporters of the current title see it as perjorative but dont feel that is a reason to change it. Wayne (talk) 16:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The US Government's Official Story is, by definition, a "conspiracy theory"

Nineteen religious fanatics who could barely fly single-engine Cessnas, lead by a cave-dwelling Muslim on kidney dialysis, commandeer commercial jumbo-jets with box-cutters and fly them into US targets with pin-point accuracy while the entire US military stands-down for over an hour & 20 minutes. Three concrete and steel buildings are disintegrated and melted, crumbling straight down into the path of most resistance at nearly free-fall speed in perfect symmetrical collapses "due to fire" for the first time in the history of modern architecture, in defiance of fundamental Newtonian laws of physics.

[Dude, you need an education. Badly. Jersey John (talk) 20:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)]

Current use of the phrase "conspiracy theory" or "conspiracy theorist" as a denigrating pejorative label for those who question established ideas is discussed here http://www.newdemocracyworld.org/conspiracy.htm:

"Conspiracy theory" is usually used as a pejorative label, meaning paranoid, nutty, marginal, and certainly untrue. The power of this pejorative is that it discounts a theory by attacking the motivations and mental competence of those who advocate the theory. By labeling an explanation of events "conspiracy theory," evidence and argument are dismissed because they come from a mentally or morally deficient personality, not because they have been shown to be incorrect. Calling an explanation of events "conspiracy theory" means, in effect, "We don't like you, and no one should listen to your explanation."

By the way, I did read the previous discussion of this subject. Nothing was changed -- but it must change. Either call everyone's explanation a "conspiracy theory" or don't use that phrase at all. --MrEguy | ♠♥♣♦ 10:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:NAME requires that articles use a name which is used by reliable sources. The label "conspiracy theorist" is almost universally applied to the theories discussed in this article, whereas it is almost never applied to the mainstream theory. (Note it's not the U.S. Government's story because huge numbers of organisations and individuals endorse it, including many who have no connection at all to the U.S. Government.) Hut 8.5 22:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

demolition

Wouldn't demolition make some loud noise? Any report from ground zero about it?Scmaster (talk) 15:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The noise would be the same regardless of whether the buildings fell or were demolished. However as far as reports go explosives would be heard and in fact most firefighters reported multiple explosions but their testimony was rejected by the 911 commission and not included in their report. In the north tower many survivors from below the impact floor thought there were explosions below them so climbed higher instead of trying to exit the building. Here you can read around 30 pages of survivor interviews catalogued by their building and floor location and quite a few mention the secondary explosions. Here you will find 12,000 pages of firefighter and EMS interviews and a great many mention secondary explosions in lower floors. To find plain text reports of those interviews that do mention explosions you will find it easier to find them on 911 conspiracy websites. Were the explosions CD or events related to the buildings collapse? We'll never know. Wayne (talk) 16:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I never knew steel could explode on its own ;) --Pwnage8 (talk) 20:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

There were machine shops on lower floors..fuel exploding due to fires? This is why NIST should have investigated controlled demolition (they rejected it without investigation). Now Conspiracy theorists use the explosions and NISTs refusal to even consider it as proof of CD. If NIST had investigated properly then I doubt this article would even exist lol. Wayne (talk) 07:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I will take a look.Scmaster (talk) 22:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

. Scmaster, in response to your previous question, conventional controlled demolition would have involved a lot of noise, which is one theory as to why such a relatively unreliable method as aluminothermic demolition was used. That was put forward recently, either by Dr. Steven Jones or AIA member Richard Gage, or both of them, during a series of radio interviews. Perhaps because it was relatively unreliable, they used an amazing amount of material, resulting in tons of molten metal underground weeks later and in the very fine black dust which was intermixed with the gray cloud that blanketed lower Manhattan. You can see a discussion of the dust and the microspheres here starting on page 76: http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf Wowest (talk) 22:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC) .

Cell Phones

I deleted Sirbu's opinion for the following reason. Sirbu's expert opinion was made 3 days after the 911 attacks at which time there had been no research into cell phone use in aircraft. Dewdney conducted his research 2 years after Sirbu's comment and although it confirmed the basic opinion of Sirbu that calls were possible it contradicted the details of exactly how possible they were thus making Sirbu's comment irrelevant based as it was on personal opinion. Dewdney's study, which is accepted by the scientific community, must take precedence over an earlier unresearched opinion. If Sirbu has commented since Dewney's publication then that is acceptable as his opinion then is in light of the study and he is free to critisize it and have it in this article. To use Sirbu's earlier opinion no matter how expert it was at the time to debunk later actual research is POV pushing as we have no indication that he has not accepted the study. Wayne (talk) 14:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. American cell phones still primarily had an analog backup, while Canada never installed the analog system, and (primarily) uses a different digital system. Dewdney's research on Canadian cell phones is irrelevant, even if it were accepted by the "industry". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

"Nonsense" is a bit strong when you have not even read the research. Dewdney used both anologue and digital cell phones (plus a cell phone that could be used in both modes) and used the different network types available (CDMA, GSM, IDEN and Analogue). While the digital phones did not perform as well as the analogue the studies conclusions were based on the best performance for an analogue cell phone (not on the digital results) in ideal conditions in a radio transparent aircraft (Success would be lower in an Aluminium skinned aircraft). Also Dewdney makes the point that "the cellphone technological base in Canada is identical to its US counterpart" You need a better argument to justify the revert. Feel free to add a post 2003 source that contradicts the study. Wayne (talk) 07:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Dewdeney is, I'm afraid, a mathematician, rather than an RF professional. (I'm afraid I'm both, now, although I work mostly in RADAR bands and the GPS frequencies, which I don't think is near the cell phone frequencies.) I can confirm that the digital coding system used in the USA (TDMA) was not on the list you quoted. This is, of course, not sufficient to suggest removal of Dewdeney from the article, but it's sufficient that the older professional study of cell phone communication shouldn't be eliminated just because it's contradicted by a newer non-professional study. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Your "older professional study" is actually an "older professional opinion" not a study. Nowhere does the source or subject claim it is a study or the result of a study. Also your "newer non-professional study" is actually a "newer Professional study". Who cares what profession Dewdney is? All he did was record the results (which is where his mathmatical expertise comes in)...the actual study was carried out by techs from Wireless Concepts Inc who I suspect have some expertise in.. dare I say it...wireless and who, I believe, are the Canadian partner who helped design and build the Cospas-Sarsat. I'm very dissapointed that you so blatantly twist the English phrasing to back your own opinion. I repeat...justify the revert or as per the ArbCom 911 sanctions it has to go. Wayne (talk) 16:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Non-professional conspiracy theorist carries out study which is not published in any established peer-reviewed journal, and makes a claim. Conspiracy theorist uses said study to make claims that certain flights were shot down, and the calls faked. Prominent experts in the relevant theory offer their professional opinions that contradict said study. You (1) deliberately remove any mention that non-professional who commissioned the study is a conspiracy theorist and now (2) want to remove the professional opinion because it contradicts the conspiracy theorist's study. I think anyone would see the issue with that. --Haemo (talk) 18:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

By the way, you still haven't addressed any of these concerns above on this subject, and it's been literally months. You shouldn't just walk away from discussions, come back to revert if someone changes it, and then make further changes without discussing them. --Haemo (talk) 18:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Of what relevance is it that a non professional (in RF) commissioned the study? Bush was not a professional engineer so does that invalidate the NIST report? Of what relevance is it that Dewdney supports conspiracy theories? It is irrelevant as long as the study was performed as claimed (it was filmed). He can't be too vocal about it anyway as I have never heard any of them apart from what is mentioned on the WP page. Are you accusing Wireless Concepts Inc of faking the results at his request? You overlook that NO prominent experts as far as I know have contradicted the study. It is dishonest to use opinion from before the study was carried out to prove that they have. As I said before, you are free to add any professional opinions contradicting Dewdneys study that were made after the studies publication. If Sirbu's original opinion is correct then there must be many such made since 2003. Wayne (talk) 12:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

There's no constraint that professional opinions on this subject have got to be from a certain point in time. The subject is cell phones, not someone's opinion on them. RxS (talk) 13:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I've compromised to leave the Sirbu paragraph in. I've put the section in date order and added another cite for expert opinions so that everything is in context. See what you think. Wayne (talk) 13:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

At first glance, it seems to cover all the relevant studies without bias.

There was an earlier informal study showing that cell phones do not interfere with aircraft navigation, and that they do work near the ground. It was informal because the tests were in violation of Federal law. It might not qualify as a WP:RS, but it might also have been the best possible source at the time. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

If it was me I'd add that source to the sentence mentioning Sirbu as I have no problem with sources not normally reliable as long as they are verifiable however no one (not even Dewdney) has disputed that they worked near the ground so it doesn't seem to contradict Dewney's study. Wayne (talk) 00:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I am proposing that Flight 93 conspiracy theories be merged back into this article. As it stands now, that article is a poorly sourced POV fork that doesn't have nearly enough information nor reliable sources to stand on its own. Any objections? Ice Cold Beer (talk) 08:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Support strongly, per my arguments in the section above. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 12:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

If that's the case, then you fix the neutrality, or dispute it if you don't have the time. This article is already too long. --Pwnage8 (talk) 16:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't really have a problem merging the article back into this article, I only did it to save space. Noah¢s (Talk) 21:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I had already disputed the neutrality, and had started to fix it before I proposed the merger. However, article size is never a reason to create a POV fork or to spinout an article that does not have the reliable sources to show notability. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 02:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

If you fix the neutrality, then it's not a POV fork. And it's reliably sourced. --Pwnage8 (talk) 02:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It is clearly not reliably sourced. There is not a single RS in that article discussing Flight 93 conspiracy theories in depth. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 02:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

There's at least two. --Pwnage8 (talk) 03:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

There are more than two. But they don't discuss Flight 93 conspiracy theories extensively. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so there are more than two. And I don't quite understand what you mean by they "don't discuss them extensively". Most of the sources used are only about Flight 93. If it's an issue about getting better sources, I don't see why the page should be merged. --Pwnage8 (talk) 17:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The subject of the spinout article is Flight 93 conspiracy theories, so we need sources that discuss the conspiracy theories, not just Flight 93. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 17:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I support the merger proposal. {Jazz2006 (talk) 03:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)}

Support Same things so should be in the same article. 79.71.196.217 (talk) 20:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Support. Flight 93 conspiracy theories is very thin and would benefit from the high quality of the 9/11_conspiracy_theories article. JGerretse (talk) 00:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I've just completed the merge. Thanks for your input, folks. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 17:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Fictional Film "Able Danger"

A film entitled "Able Danger" "based on true incidents" centering around a 9/11 conspiracy will be playing at the Brooklyn International Film Festival Friday June 6 at 8PM.[17],[18]. The director will be available for questioning after the film. Of course this is nowhere near article worthy at this point but if any editors plan to be in Brooklyn Friday night this would seem of interest Edkollin (talk) 01:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Aaron Russo interview

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nD7dbkkBIA

Should this be included?

(Dchall1- please do not delete again on the grounds that the interview is conducted by Alex Jones. This is a respected politician, freely and independently speaking about his own experiences. Jones is effectively silent throughout, doesnt put words in Russo's mouth, so the fact the interview is by Alex Jones is irrelevant. How dare you delete my post on this discussion! How is Russo's experience supposed to be taken seriously if people ignore it just because it's on the Alex Jones show? If youre on a jury, you don't not listen to witnesses because they're left, right black or white- you listen to what they actually say. It's mentioned elsewhere on wikipedia, anyway.) Autonova (talk) 17:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Respected politician? I don't have sufficient vocabulary to explain the error of your ways. Errors of his ways are quite easy to express. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Ironic that you had an error to correct.[19] --Pwnage8 (talk) 17:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I was considering stating that "respected politician" is such an obvious oxymoron as to go without saying, but decided to speak to the specifics of the issue. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

If the 'errors of his ways' are easy to express, then express them. If you can logically prove that Rockefeller never said what he's claimed to have said to Russo, then please present that evidence. Autonova (talk) 20:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know to "prove" anything. You need to prove that Rockefeller did say that, noting as has been done many times, that Jones and Russo are not credible sources. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

One problem with this is you can not use YouTube as a cite due to copywrite issues. That being said he is a mildly notable public figure. This accusation should belong in the "New World Order" motive as an additional cite only with a line or two in the advanced knowledge sub article. Another consideration is External Links. "Terrorstorm" and "Loose Change" are linked and this is in a similar vain Edkollin (talk) 03:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Questions

What steps are being taken to ensure that all viewpoints, no matter how weird, are being allowed in wikipedia in general and to this article. What steps are being taken to notate comments and edits to Wikipedia articles that are originated in the Bush administration, by politicians, corporations, Nations, or by Skeptical organizations. I do not mean block them, but a note that would flow as follows. Example of a message that would notate who edited an article might look like this: " This edit has been traced to (X)corporation, (X) nation, the white house, pentagon or Skeptical Inquirer, (X) politician (Senator Congressman, Governor Etc) or some other organization, church or government agency". I believe such notation would be informative and useful, especially if politicians are trying to change articles to a more favorable view of themselves, or governments are trying to cover up something. (NOTE: I do not understand the warning at the top of the talk page. If this question falls under the warning, please let me know and I will either change the question or remove it) Magnum Serpentine (talk) 21:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

In the above example, (X) stands for the name of the organization or personMagnum Serpentine (talk) 21:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

How in the world do you expect us to determine that information, much less notate it? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Two thoughts come to mind. First, this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. As long as assertions are supported by reliable sources, it doesn't matter who makes the edits. Bin Laden could edit the page so long as his edits were verifiable. Secondly, you may wish to take a look at WP:FRINGE, which covers policies on inclusion of fringe theories. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 21:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Financial Times Magazine article

This Sunday the magazine published a lengthy article on the 9/11 Truth movement. I noted it in this articles and the 9/11 truth movement sub articles mainstream media sections. The cite said that the NIST report on building 7 is due out in August. I put that and other information from the cite relating the NIST investigation of the building 7 collapse in the Controlled Demolition Theory sub article. The Financial Times article is broken down into three separate cites and I used these in the articles. thepeoplesvoice.org combined the three parts into one page but I had doubts that would pass reliable source muster.[20] Edkollin (talk) 07:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Results of google search

This statement is made in the article

As of June 2008 a Google search of "9/11 conspiracy" comes up with 615,000 links.

I just did that search and got 619,000 links.

More importantly is the contrast with the search "9/11 truth" which yields 1.3 million links —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.233.52.60 (talk) 17:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:GOOGLE#What_a_search_test_can_do.2C_and_what_it_can.27t — BQZip01 —

 ^talk 23:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I put in because that is what the cite claimed. I did what you did the day I put it in the article and got 616000 something links. But I can not put in the article my or your experiments because that would be original research. I put put in in because it demonstrates internet interest in the subject. "June 2008" might need to be reworded. That was the month the article came out there is no mention of when or if it was the cites author who did a google search. Edkollin (talk) 08:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The BBC is claiming 7.9 million for "9/11 conspiracy" and 22 million for 9/11 truth. [21] I do not know why there figures are so differnt Edkollin (talk) 20:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The quotes. From google.com

Results 1 - 10 of about 642,000 for "9/11 conspiracy". (0.28 seconds)

Results 1 - 10 of about 7,870,000 for 9/11 conspiracy. (0.09 seconds) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.29.237.240 (talk) 16:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

These results are so different because the use of quotes, narrows the search to when the items occur next to each other. I getroughly the same as B.B.C.'s result when I omit quotes, (thanks to the above user, I figured this out". That aside, both sets of searches seem to indicate that "9/11 truth" or 9/11 truth gets more hits than "9/11 conspiracy" or 9/11 conspiracy.

I haven't checked out the variations for 9-11, 9 11, September 11th, Nineleven, Or Nine Eleven. Which for the purpose of this article would constitute original research, and not be publishable. But I think a reference to the BBC article is in order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.233.52.60 (talk) 17:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Project for a New American Century doesnt exist

footnote 165 linking to newamericancentury.org leads here http://ns1.cpanel.btnaccess.com/suspended.page/

maybe someone can change it to the archive http://web.archive.org/web/*/www.newamericancentury.org/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.29.237.240 (talk) 16:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The Conspiracy Files (BBC documentary series)

I recently posted at Talk:Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center about the upcoming broadcast of The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 - The Third Tower on BBC2 tomorrow (6 July 2008). I thought people here should be aware of that, as it might lead to increased traffic here as well. I've also noted over there that this series has now done two documentaries on 9/11 conspiracy theories. The first, seemingly titled 9/11: The Conspiracy Files (not sure about the placement of the series title in the program title) was broadcast on Sunday 18 February 2007. The second one, as I mentioend above, is being broadcast on Sunday 6 July 2008. I'm posting here to make sure people don't get these two documentaries mixed up. I'm also not sure of the broadcast dates in other countries. Note that our article on The Conspiracy Files is (currently) mainly about the US series of a similar name, with the BBC one only briefly mentioned. Anyway, I came here to see whether the documentary is mentioned here, or whether its mention has been discussed on the talk page or in the talk archives - can anyone help? The links to the earlier documentary, possibly relevant for this article, are: here, here, here and here. Currently (from a cursory readong of the article), this article has the following mentions:

• "Q&A: What really happened. The Conspiracy Files. BBC (16-02-2007). Retrieved on 2008-07-04." (in the references)
• BBC Two The Conspiracy Files: The Third Tower Airdate July 6, 2008. Retrieved on 2008-06-23. (in the external links)
• BBC Conspiracy Files 9/11 at Google Video (in the video links - a dead link, was probably a copyvio)

I'm also looking at the 9/11 conspiracy theories#Media reaction section, which seems a bit of a hodge-podge or mish-mash at the moment. There seems to be no rhyme or reason over which articles or documentaries get mentioned. The films and books in the template, for instance, are not mentioned at all. Also, Zeitgeist, the Movie is not mentioned. I understand that this article may not be the right place to cover the various documentaries and books, but people will come to Wikipedia looking for information on these topics, so Wikipedia should probably try and organise at least a semi-coherent article or timeline on this. I note we do have Category:Films based on the September 11, 2001 attacks, and Category:Documentaries about the September 11, 2001 attacks, and September 11, 2001 attacks in popular culture and List of audiovisual entertainment affected by the September 11, 2001 attacks (the most clunky title I've seen in a while), but this all seems a bit disorganised at the moment. Would it be an idea to have two articles focusing purely on the films and documentaries about 9/11? Carcharoth (talk) 09:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm pleased to see someone else getting involved with this. The problem at present is that this whole area has become a battleground in the culture wars between those who believe in every conspiracy theory going, and those who wish to block any mention of the controversy, or use content forking, in contravention of our policies, to restrict non-governmental sources to "Controversy" articles such as this one. As the events concerned recede further into history, and as the discredited Bush administration begins to stand down, we may be able to attempt a more balanced coverage of this area, as we effortlessly manage to do in similar areas of controversy from history such as the John F. Kennedy assassination. We should begin with a dispassionate review of our coverage of this whole area, with a view to streamlining it and making it conform with policy. --John (talk) 12:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why Zeitgeist isn't mentioned in conspiracy theories. 9/11 really isn't a large part of it, at least according to our article. And the John F. Kennedy assassination still has more credible (as in not violating the laws of physics) alternative explanations than 9/11 (planes are harder to miscount than bullets), and probably more current credible discussion. Just last month, I recall a news story about performing (something like) spectral analysis on the various audio tapes to determine if all the bullet sounds had the same "signature" and also an attempt at echolocation of the shots. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

You may think so, I may think so, but the BBC seems to hold a different opinion. I think my points above still stand. --John (talk) 21:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Forgot to follow this up. I found the BBC documentary interesting. It let people say things in their own words, but in the end, by the implication and the way it ended, it came down fairly squarely on the side of those saying that there was no conspiracy. It covered a fair amount of ground and a fair number of the arguments, and did a good job of presenting the various points. It certainly left me wondering just why consipracy theories are so pervasive in today's society - something about being unable to prove a negative I think, but maybe also something to do with the relationship between some of the American people and their government and the media. I'm sure it will be studied by sociologists for generations to come. Carcharoth (talk) 19:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

video that cover that devloping of the conspiracy about the Jews

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hB5rBmmOaDU

I add this video as it give good back ground about how the issue was developed.Oren.tal (talk) 19:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Youtube videos may not be added to articles, even as external links, unless the source is indicated, and that source is at least credible. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

World Trade Center Design Investigation

This sections as any section can be rewordeed but it should not have been deleted because it does not voilate the biography clauses. The statement that the wife of the trade center's structural engineer and a representative of the buildings' original design team were members of the society’s investigative team are undisputed. The Associated Press and the teams lead investigator both agree on that point. As for the charge of "moral corruption" which I am going to assume is the basis of your objection I would agreee that just by itself would at best border on slander (they are not bieng accused of actual corruption ie fixing the investigation). But thier actions were givin a robust defense and that for me makes this a non-slandouras piece. Edkollin (talk) 19:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It still needs rigorous sourcing. The only reference cited by that section was a dead link that the Internet Wayback Machine hasn't heard of. There is also the implication that he somehow supports the conspiracy theories, which is unsubstantiated and (from what I have seen) wrong. Hut 8.5 21:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is the link [22]. This section is not about specific theories but alleged "pattern of behavior on the part of officials investigating the September 11 attack meant to suppress the emergence of evidence that might contradict the mainstream. So whether that particular scientist believes in the theories is irrelevant to this section that he is discussing a pattern of behavior. meant to suppress the emergence of evidence that might contradict the mainstream is. Goggling the articles title shows Conspiracy theorists of all sorts did seize upon this when it came out. Edkollin (talk) 00:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The source is fine, though these allegations concern the mainstream viewpoint of the construction and design of the World Trade Center, as opposed to the conspiracy theories which concern the mainstream account of the events of 9/11. I think this would be better off in Construction of the World Trade Center or Collapse of the World Trade Center rather than here. Hut 8.5 20:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Editors Note: 9/11 vs Anthrax case

The difference in mainstream reputable source response is striking between the two cases. Almost immediately after the FBI claimed Bruce Ivins did the anthrax attacks a whole of reputable scientists,journalists editorials public officials have doubts about the conclusions. It should be noted that as of this writing the 9/11 like the U.S. government CT's it remains on the edge of the debate. My POV is with this very different climate that if some "evidence" shows up of government involvement it will be taken seriously something I believe is unlikely ever to occur with 9/11 "evidence" Edkollin (talk) 16:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Control of Words

Various antagonistic entities in the media use the control of words to marginalize free speech.

"Conspiracy theories" is one of these expressions. As long as one accepts word usages in ways that ones detractors put forth, they fall into the trap and surrender to the label.

Note that Wikipedia has an article entitled "conspiracy theories", and it seems to be dominated by those who would dismiss any evidence contrary to the 'official theory'.

That gives us two articles then, that support official theories of the World Trade Center Incident.

I would suggest that those Wikipedians with evidence to alternative scenarios should establish a Wiki article with a title that is acceptable to their views and research, and for a link to be provided on the World Trade Center Attacks page, and that their article should be moderated by qualified representatives of that research.

--APDEF (talk) 14:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

That would be a WP:POVFORK, which is prohibited by Wikipedia guidelines. Furthermore, WP:FRINGE (a guideline) strongly suggests that mainstream analysis of fringe theories, such as 9/11 conspiracy theories, should be included in this article. May I suggest you read the edit history of this talk page before making proposals which have been considered and rejected previously? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

And...we already have "alternative viewpoint" articles...such as this one.--MONGO 15:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

that will be like losing control. But who control Wikipedia ? I dont think(). But you may think to to know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.245.39 (talk) 09:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Protected edit request

{{editsemiprotected}}

Suggested external link addition to:

VIDEOS

Title: Who Killed John O'Neil

URL: http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-3857917663523144457

Thanks!

Mokeyboy

Google Video doesn't make for a brilliant external link. The videos already listed are from recognised sources (eg BBC, CBC) or have become notable in themselves (eg Loose Change). This video doesn't appear to be either. We have too many external links here anyway. Hut 8.5 18:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Origins

The origins of these theories are not sourced and they seem to be misrepresented stating that "websites, books, and films have been put forward" with no mention of what prompted their creation. The article continues "Although mainstream media report that al-Qaeda agents conspired to carry out the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks, members within the 9/11 Truth Movement say..."

The Jersey Girls page by itself would be a much clearer explanation of how the theories originated. However, there is more to the origins than just the Jersey Girls: this article and the William Rodriguez article should be referenced too. Here's my proposed text:

Immediately after the collapses of the Towers and Building 7, eyewitness testimony referring to explosions, along with features of the collapses caught on film that resembled footage of controlled demolitions, led many people, including some news anchors and engineers, to suspect that explosives had been pre-planted within the buildings.

Shortly after the attacks, William Rodriguez told CNN:

“ We heard a loud rumble, then all of a sudden we heard another rumble like someone moving a whole lot of furniture. And then the elevator opened and a man came into our office and all of his skin was off. ”

In 2005, he recalled the locations of the two rumbles, the first from below, and the second from above.

Rodriguez and the Jersey Girls, four widows of WTC victims, were instrumental in the creation of the 9/11 Commission.

Even before the commission formed, a minority of people took the view that the only reasonable explanation for the supposed anomalies in the official account, and the perceived cover-up, was that (a faction of) the government either deliberately allowed the attacks to take place, or were actively involved in the planning and carrying out of the attacks. Many of the questions the Family Steering Committee submitted to the 9/11 Commission seemed to the committee to have been left unanswered.

On March 25, 2002, on KPFA's Flashpoints with Dennis Bernstein, Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) said "We know there were numerous warnings of the events to come on September 11. ... What did this administration know and when did it know it, about the events of September 11? Who else knew, and why did they not warn the innocent people of New York who were needlessly murdered? What do they have to hide?".

After that, it can continue with "Members within the 9/11 Truth Movement..." as it does now.

Please comment if you have a better improvement for the Origins section. Dscotese (talk) 04:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this should be added. There's a difference between suggesting the attacks could have been prevented or that officials were incompetent and suggesting the attacks were deliberately organised or permitted by the government (which is the view that this article covers). Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center has a good section on the development of that particular theory. Hut 8.5 20:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is a difference. It's like the difference between a chicken laying and then sitting on a fertilized egg and the bursting forth of a baby chick. Or the difference between the origins of a theory and the descriptions of the theory that subsequently appear. Don't you think the "put[ting] forward" of the "websites, books, and films" is not a sufficient description of origins? If you think it is, I'm open to conversion. Perhaps the section should be called "Background and Reception"? Or perhaps you feel that the path from 9/11 attacks to conspiracy theories should not be presented? Dscotese (talk) 23:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You haven't got any references that these events were the origins of the theories though, so this is WP:OR. The origins section isn't very good, but as it's well covered at Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center (and 9/11 Truth Movement) and this article is too long already it might be better to add links to those articles. Hut 8.5 19:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

There are no sources that anything mentioned in the section was an origin or a reception of the theories. Really, since any selection of information to be included constitutes research, I think you are perverting the intent of WP:OR, but since the article is too long, I will work on shortening it and providing links to the other articles that cover the subject well, as you suggest. Dscotese (talk) 02:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Since from your comments above you are trying to add information that these events were connected to the origins of the theories you need references. If you had a reference which said something on the lines of "the conspiracy theories grew out of the same initial skepticism that produced the Jersey Girls and the Family Steering Committee" then your section could be included, otherwise you are interpreting the information to conclude that it has something to do with 9/11 conspiracy theories (hence the original research). Hut 8.5 06:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

If you check out September 11 attacks#Domestic_response, you'll see that President Bush's speech, the contingency plans that were formed, and the hate crimes discussed are all part of the "Domestic Response" - even though there is no RS that calls them part of the domestic response. These activities in the government and the country that followed the events can be represented as "Domestic Response" without a reliable source because you don't need an RS to state the obvious. In the same way, the problems people had with the mainstream account can be represented as the origins of conspiracy theories. As I suggested, we can call this "background" instead. This is why I call your use of WP:OR here a perversion. Dscotese (talk) 14:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The information quoted there is clearly part of the topic of 9/11 and clearly falls within the subject of the domestic response (a header which is only there for organisational reasons). It is less clear that criticism of the competence of officials or of inquiries into 9/11 has something to do with the origin of the conspiracy theories. Information shouldn't be included in this article if it has no relevance to the article's subject. Hut 8.5 17:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's suppose that the conspiracy theories really did NOT originate in the criticisms you mentioned. It's pretty obvious that such criticism has been worked into the theories by now, and those claims are obviously founded in part on the experiences of the Jersey Girls and William Rodriguez. This is why I suggested using Background in the section title and changed it to Initial Reception. Background and Initial Reception would be much more helpful to those researching the topic, and it allows the introduction of the articles about the Jersey Girls and Rodriguez. Also, the use of "Origins" is unwarranted since there are no reliable sources that point to the origins of the conspiracy theories. Anyway, is there some Wiki Policy that suggests that we should suppress the introduction of the Jersey Girls and/or William Rodriguez for some reason? Dscotese (talk) 04:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

We already have background information in the "Mainstream account" section. Given that this article is too long already and that the background is covered in other articles I don't think we can justify adding more. I would be surprised if there aren't any reliable sources at least mentioning the origins of the theories. Hut 8.5 20:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

removed Mineta paragraph

However, the 9/11 Commission report concluded, based on testimony from the other members who were in the bunker and overhead the conversation, that the young aide was referring to Flight 93, and that the young aide first entered and stated that the aircraft was 80 miles out "at some time between 10:10 and 10:15", after Flight 93 had crashed, but was believed to still be on its way toward Washington, D.C. Mineta did not know at the time what the orders referred to, and he learned only later that 'shoot down orders' had been given that day. However, it has been suggested that the orders spoken of could have been an order not to shoot down the approaching plane. This theory is based on an interpretation of the young man's question as an expression of his surprise about the order. Therefore, because shooting down the approaching plane would be the accepted action, the unusual nature of an order not to shoot down the plane would explain the young man's putative disbelief. Still others believe that the young aide's repeated questioning was due to ethical concerns over shooting down a commercial aircraft with innocent civilians on board. . Although Mineta later clarified that he believed the order being discussed was indeed a shoot down order, the 9/11 Commission found that "A shootdown authorization was not communicated to the NORAD air defense sector until 28 minutes after United 93 had crashed in Pennsylvania". Yet, this was due to NORAD military commanders themselves failing to effectively pass the President's and Vice President's shoot-down orders to fighter pilots in the air, and the report goes on to say that, "In short, while leaders in Washington believed that the fighters circling above them had been instructed to "take out" hostile aircraft, the only orders actually conveyed to the pilots were to 'ID type and tail.'"

preview

---

I am removing the above paragraph for the following reasons:

1. I think the 9/11 report does not say this about the Mineta testimony. If you think it does, please give a page number.
2. wanttoknow.info is not a valid source for the claim made
3. MSNBC does not give a source for its statements; it may be naive reproduction of hearsay. This is not an RS.
4. Mineta restated his testimony in 2006/2007 or so.

My conclusion is that the paragraph has no basis in sources upto now, so it needs fixing before we can put it back. Kaaskop6666 (talk) 19:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

---

update: I am asking the editor who wrote it, for clarification. Kaaskop6666 (talk) 11:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Suggested Historical Precedent

I propose to change

“ Conspiracy theorists sometimes bring up historical examples of where a government is known or alleged to have carried out or planned activities similar to those hypothesized as explanations for the September 11 attacks — often false flag operations. ”

to

“ In some historical examples of false flag operations, a government has carried out or planned activities similar to those hypothesized as explanations for the September 11 attacks. ”

I propose this change for these reasons:

• Who brings up these examples is not important to the subject.
• "...examples of where" is poor grammar.
• Other important classes of historical examples that are not false flag operations should be mentioned explicitly, just as "events that inspired conspiracy theories" are.

Please critique this change if you feel it does not improve the article. Dscotese (talk) 04:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The statement is currently unreferenced, but later on the article cites [23] as a reference for a similar claim. Since this is an unreliable source it can only be used as a reference for the views of the conspiracy theorists, hence who brings the claim is important. I suggest we remove the sentence entirely, since it's redundant to "Conspiracy theorists, such as those associated with the 9/11 Truth Movement, argue that the similarities between the motives..." in the same paragraph. Hut 8.5 06:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. Enigma ^message 16:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

If source is reliable only as CT viewpoint then change wording to something similar to "Conspiracy theorists cite examples of where they allege that governments planned or carried out activities similar to those that they hypothesize governments carried out in relation to the attacks". Edkollin (talk) 18:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The only reason I see to keep the sentence is the Wikilink to False Flag, which is helpful. Perhaps it is best to remove the sentence and rewrite this sentence to maintain that link:

“ Conspiracy theorists, such as those associated with the 9/11 Truth Movement, argue that the similarities between the motives between the attacks and the examples they cite, indicate that they are both plausible and operate with a long-term, hidden, agenda. ”

I propose the following, which eliminates "motives between the attacks" (which doesn't make sense to me) and states Hoffman's argument more clearly, and attributes it to him. (If we want to attribute it to "conspiracy theorists" we should provide references - the only one we have points directly to Hoffman's page.):

“ Jim Hoffman argues that the similarities between authorities' actions surrounding the attacks and their actions surrounding the false flag operations he cites, indicate that they are both plausible and may operate with a long-term, hidden, agenda. ”

Dscotese (talk) 03:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

We already have eight sentences along the lines of "Jim Hoffman says X" and we really don't need another. We could just add "false flag operations" or something like it to the list of examples. Hut 8.5 09:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

That still leaves "...similarities between the motives between the attacks and the examples..." which doesn't make a whole lot of sense. If you can fix it better than I just did, please go ahead. If you can see your way clear to avoiding the use of "conspiracy theorists" as a label, that would be nice too. I left it in since it seems important to you. Dscotese (talk) 05:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Flight 93 Important Omission

The Passenger who saw "white smoke" in the toilet - whose telephone call was pulled from most mainstream media almost immediately. The "White Smoke" is a classic case of what you would expect to see if an Aircraft depressurizes - such as when the structure breaks open - due to a missile perhaps. This really is the most important piece of evidence and their is no mention of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.41.88.201 (talk) 19:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Quote: At 9.58am a 911 call - the last mobile phone contact from Flight 93 - was made from one of the airliner's toilets by passenger Edward Felt.

Glenn Cramer, the emergency supervisor who answered it, said on the day: "He was very distraught. He said he believed the plane was going down. "He did hear some sort of an explosion and saw white smoke coming from the plane, but he didn't know where. And then we lost contact with him."

Glenn Cramer has now been gagged by the FBI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.41.88.201 (talk) 19:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

References? Hut 8.5 21:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

No such hypothesis was rejected

"Published reports by the US National Institute of Standards and Technology REJECTED the controlled demolition hypothesis.[4][5] The community of civil engineers generally accepts the mainstream account that the impacts of jets at high speeds in combination with subsequent fires, rather than controlled demolition, led to the collapse of the Twin Towers.[6]"

Actually the controlled demolition hypothesis was never mentioned in the original reports. There is only a brief mention that they will be analyzed in the article 4 summary?? Also citation 5 is a dead link.

That isn't true. See NIST NCSTAR 1, p. 146, where the report explicitly states that the investigators found no evidence that the Twin Towers were brought down with explosives. I will fix the reference. Hut 8.5 19:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Correct, Hut. They didn't find evidence. However, the word "rejected" gives the impression that they investigated the hypothesis, which actually didn't happen. A hypothesis is an if-then statement, so a "hypothesis" without a test is NOT a hypothesis. That test is the investigation (IF it were a controlled demolition, THEN we should find X, so we look for X). You look for it during the investigation, THEN you can reject the hypothesis once that evidence is not found. It is more accurate to say that they "ignored the demolition hypothesis, precluding it as unworthy of investigation". If you read that page that you quoted (p. 146), you will find that nowhere does it say what was done, what was looked for, or offer any details of an investigation. It simply makes a claim that the "squibs" were windows blown out by compressed air, and the structure below it "provided little resistance" leading to free fall, and because this conclusion was reached a priori, the demolition hypothesis was not investigated, as shown by the single paragraph in the entire report that mentions it, right next to some absurd idea that the building was hit by a missile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.168.92.105 (talk) 18:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

"Rejected" does not imply that they investigated the hypothesis, merely that they refused to accept it. [24] They clearly did decline to accept it, since they explicitly noted in their report that they found no evidence to support it and they have said that they found "conclusive evidence" that a different factor was responsible for the collapse. It is not true that they ignored the hypothesis, since they did mention it in the report on the collapse of the Twin Towers and created an FAQ to answer the claims made by it. It is also not true that they thought it was unworthy of investigation, since in the investigation into the collapse of building 7 they did investigate the idea and concluded it didn't happen. (If you want to add claims like "precluding it as unworthy of investigation" to the article then you need to find a reliable source to back it up.) Hut 8.5 21:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Saddam involvement as conspiracy theory

An anonymous editor has introduced the claim, on the article Conspiracy theory, that the notion of the involvement of Saddam Hussein's Iraq in the 9/11 attacks has been regarded as a conspiracy theory. Is anyone on this (possibly more active) article aware of any serious discussions of that idea? --FOo (talk) 06:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Responsibility for the September 11, 2001 attacks subarticle has a section on alledged Saddam involvement. Edkollin (talk) 18:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Which is hardly evidence that this alleged involvement has been regarded as a conspiracy theory. Phiwum (talk) 00:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Unless someone can find a source describing this particular idea as a conspiracy theory I recommend you remove it from that article. Hut 8.5 09:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Why would it not be a conpiracy theory?. Because it is espoused by people not associated the 9/11 truth movement?. Edkollin (talk) 05:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

We need a reference before labelling any particular theory as a conspiracy theory. Hut 8.5 07:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Other Theories

A few quick questons. Why is President Bush's behavior listed in the Other Theories section? How is that an alternative conspiracy theory? Also, why not include the Micro Nuke Theory, Judy Wood's Space Laser Theory or David Icke's Reptilian Shapeshifting Aliens Theory? They aren't any crazier than the No Plane Theory or the Jewish Involvment Theories and seem about as popular. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.55.240 (talk) 07:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Jewish Involment theories are believed by large if not majorities of people in the Muslem World and elsewhere. These theories have been given extensive media coverage in the Muslem world. The other theories even controlled explosion are not nearly as close in "popularity" Edkollin (talk) 06:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The directed energy weapon theories have received some coverage (e.g. the Financial Times articles). We could certainly give them a mention. Hut 8.5 06:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

While they were given coverage they have few adherents and are rejected by the truther community. 911 conspiracies are those held by that "community" and we should exclude more than a sentence or so mention of other theories that are not significant. To do otherwise we would need to add every theory held by more than 2 people. Wayne (talk) 09:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not our place to distinguish between theories rejected by the mainstream, if they're covered in the mainstream media. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not here just to mimic the mainstream media(whatever that is in 2008). While the mainstream media and 9/11 truth movement should have an important say on this article for obvious reasons their opinions about what happened on 9/11 or what defines a 9/11 conspiracy theory they should not be the only word on article worthiness. Popularity based on polling by respectable polling organizations should be one factor in determining article worthiness. Edkollin (talk) 16:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

We determine what we cover primarily by coverage in reliable sources, not by polls of how many people believe them. Yes, this is a fringe view, even by fringe theory standards, and so it shouldn't get much coverage even in an article like this - a short paragraph at most. Hut 8.5 18:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I am still at a loss as to how President Bush's behavior is considered an "alternative theory". That is more of a clue as to his alleged involvement or foreknowledge of the attack. Also why not include a section on alternative demolition methods? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.78.2.181 (talk) 22:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting issue

Because of the "9/11" start to the title, the link at the top sends you back to Talk:9. Enigma ^message 06:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

There are a quite a few pages (and more redirect pages) like this one, with the slash [25] I believe subpages are disabled the article namespace, so the "9/11 conspiracy theories" article is not a subpage. But, we need subpages for talk pages for archiving and other purposes. Thus, the situation with this talk page being a subpage of the number 9 talk page. --Aude (talk) 06:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Fabled Enemies

There seems to be a “no way no how” philosophy towards putting this particular 9/11 conspiracy video in the external links section of the article. I just do not understand why that would be. Although having a somewhat different topical emphasis [26] I just don’t see any basic differences in tone or accuracy with the other video’s that have been allowed to remain in the external links. Edkollin (talk) 06:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I think this article has too many external links. Dinosaur is a featured article and there is a huge amount of information available on the internet about it, yet the page has only 15 links, compared to 30 here. --Hut 8.5 19:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

This article has and should have many external links because there are many different conspiracy theories. I’m not overly knowledgeable about dinosaurs t so I will use an article closer to this topic the 9/11 commission article. There are only so many ways to say what that report said so limiting external links for that article is a good idea. Trying to limit external links in this article to a certain number is trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. All it does limit the variety of information available to readers to confirm to a Wikipedia article guideline. A guideline is not the same thing as a hard and fast rule a point unfortunately forgotten by many Wikipedia editors. As for Fabled Enemies I have known about that video for awhile and my initial inclination was the same as yours. But I came the review I linked above took time to watched the video and concluded that although this video although similar to others video’s of its ilk to the has somewhat of a different emphasis at points and thus may provide additional information for the reader who is so inclined to watch. Edkollin (talk) 08:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy on external links can be found here. Regarding the number of external links, it says that "links in the External links section should be kept to a minimum". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Missing important information

In the "Jewish involvment" section of this article there is NO mention whatsoever that (over one hundred?) Israelis students and "artists" have been rounded up by the FBI after 9/11 and many of them with alleged links to the Mossad. As far as I can remember it is "mainstream" knowledge and well documented. Why has this important information been completely ommited? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SSZ (talk • contribs)

See this archived discussion. Proof of Mossad activity is not proof of a conspiracy, or even of a conspiracy theory. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Please watch this report from Foxnews:[27] It says literally that "they (The Israeli mossad) might have had advance knowledge of the events" and ends up by saying "how could they not have known" since they were spying on Arabs in the United States prior to the acttacks of 9/11.

Reports of this have been dismissed by officials from several law-enforcement agencies, and the Justice Department have labelled it an "urban myth". [28] --Hut 8.5 19:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

That's not my impression by watching the above 4 videos from Foxnews TV. May be you have different sources.

I cited my source above, in case you didn't notice, and the reports in the link above seem to be the same ones denied by officials in the link I cited. In addition, we can't use YouTube as a source (it fails WP:RS and the video violates copyright law). Hut 8.5 07:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I can easily say that I have seen occurences when a US Government spokesperson/representative has provided missleading or plain erroneous info to the press. In some cases with the White House admiting to the fact. I can mention the case of US CIA agent who was outed.—Preceding unsigned comment added by SSZ (talk • contribs)

Here's what the FOX News report says on the subject...

Since September 11, more than 60 Israelis have been arrested or detained [...] some of the detainees also failed polygraph questions when asked about alleged surveillance activities against and in the United States.

There is no indication that the Israelis were involved in the 9-11 attacks, but investigators suspect that the Israelis may have gathered intelligence about the attacks in advance, and not shared it. A highly placed investigator said there are "tie-ins." But when asked for details, he flatly refused to describe them, saying, "evidence linking these Israelis to 9-11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It's classified information."

[...] prior to September 11, as many as 140 other Israelis had been detained or arrested in a secretive and sprawling investigation into suspected espionage by Israelis in the United States.

What shall we add to the section, then? That the Mossad are active in the US? That they are good at their jobs? That they are not, in fact, suspected of being involved in the attacks? The nearest thing to a conspiracy theory that this report offers is the suspicion that they had information that they didn't share. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

This does belong here because while it hints investigators believed in LIHOP it is not directly stated. It belongs in the subarticle 9/11 advanced-knowledge debate#Foreign government foreknowledge Edkollin (talk) 00:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Invalid citation

The 52 citation is no longer valid. That is a bais statement as is.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.53.8 (talk • contribs)

Added a different reference for that statement. Hut 8.5 19:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Bob Pugh YouTube video

I know that using YouTube videos is forbidden, but some die-hard 9/11 conspiracy freak posted a YouTube video by a man named Bob Pugh, who claims to be a freelance videographer who works for various news agenices and is used to bolster the "alternate theories." Where would something like this fit into the article? ----DanTD (talk) 13:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I can't see this in the this article even if it was not youtube. The man is not an expert on plane crashes and while he is pointing out that what he saw is unusual compared to other plane crash sites he has been at he is not questioning the official story or espousing a conspiracy theory. The size of the hole issue is mentioned in the article so this would be nothing new. That being said this is interesting footage so if you can find a non You Tube version of this (his website?/reliable news organizations that ran his footage?) this could be an extenal link to the Pentagon attack article or better yet if you could contact him this footage would be valuable for some sort of collection Edkollin (talk) 08:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Psychology/IQ of 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists

First of all, this is a serious question. If you are a 9/11 conspiracy theorist, you may wish to stop reading at this point. The rest of this is a serious question. Has there been any type of scientific study on the psychology or intelligence level of 9/11 conspiracy theorists? This article seems to go to great lengths to explain the conspiracy theories themselves. But these theories are obviously ridiculous and therefore mostly irrelevant. What I would like to know is why they believe in such things. Is it a question of intelligence? Are they suffering from some psychological disorder? Or some combination of the two? What I want to know is to understand why they believe in such things. As a counter-example, if you go to the article on Anorexia, there are entire sections devoted to the "psychological factors that suggests how biases in thinking and perception help maintain or contribute to the risk of developing anorexia". But there are no such similar sections to 9/11 conspiracy theories. I don't know if there's been any serious scientific research into this question, but if there is, I would love to see this included in the article. I think that understanding why they believe such things is far more important than the beliefs themselves. 67.184.14.87 (talk) 15:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Valid question. Any sensible person will ask this. (Can't actually stop laughing, pardon me)Shovon (talk) 18:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know of any scientific studies on 9/11 conspiracy theorists specifically but the article in the criticism section links to the conspiracy theory article which should have that type of expert sourcing. In addition in the Media section we do have quotes from columnists theorizing (LOL) why 9/11 conspiracy theorists believe as they do. Most accounts that I have read from people who have interviewed 9/11 conspiracy theorists describe them as seemingly intelligent and normal (In some cases to the bafflement of the interviewer) and have described those attending 9/11 CT gatherings as having successful careers Edkollin (talk) 08:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Amazingly here is a a extremely well sourced article that has been published within the last day that I will add as an external link to the conspiracy theory article [29] Edkollin (talk) 09:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Quote: "What I would like to know is why they believe in such things". Because governments are known to lie. 911 is a bit different to Anorexia so can't be compared. Although you would not know from reading the article or talk page very few would argue that the official account is 100% true just as very few argue for the more extreme conspiracy theories. The answer lies somewhere in between and the only unknown is exactly where on the scale the truth lies. The biggest problem for the theorists is that too many believe that all conspiracy theorists believe the most extreme conspiracies and thus are all tarred with the same brush. If you check what the majority believe they are calling for an investigation because the government is lying not that they believe any single theory. Enough conspiracy theories have proven to be true that it is almost a public service to examine them. That article Edkollin posted mentions Iran/Contra as an example and who doesn't remember some of the conspiracy theories around invading Iraq which proved to be true. I was labled as a left wing nutjob for a paper I wrote debunking most of Colin Powells presentation to the UN yet I was later proved right on every single point. Wayne (talk) 17:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but there's a huge difference between Iran-Contra and 9/11 conspiracy theories. Perhaps that's what's wrong with them. They lack the critical ability to tell the difference between what is plausable and what's preposterous. BTW, I don't know if Iran-Contra counts as a conspiracy theory that proved true. It's been a long time, but as best I can recall there were no conspiracy theorists alledging Iran-Contra or an Iran-Contra "truth" movement prior to when the scandal broke. 67.184.14.87 (talk) 04:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

In the article it was assumed that because believers in one conspiracy theory tend to believe in other conspiracy theories you should group them together. I agree there are differences. One in the Iran Contra or Kennedy Assassination eras there was there was no publicly available Internet to speak of. The other difference is that the "mainstream media" took them seriously. Tonight 45 years after the event NBC Nightly news ran a story about a Discovery Channel Investigation that supported the "official story" that there was one gunmen that fired from the sixth floor of the Texas book depository. The cable channel spent time and money to do the investigation. Very different from 9/11 theorists which have been treated as a freak show and very different then saying "NIST released a report that debunked conspiracy theories". Since the web 2.0 era is so different then the era these experts grew up they probably should not make assumptions Edkollin (talk) 06:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Another difference between Iran-Contra and 9/11 is that while the Iran-Contra scandal was true, conspiracy theorist have concoted the notion that it was going on even before Ronald Reagan was elected. ----DanTD (talk) 15:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

In the Iran-Contra case we had a special prosecutor with subpoena power to demonstrate those theories were accurate. In this case "no way no how" will there be an independent investigation with subpoena powers to prove 9/11 conspiracy theories true or false. The Democrats coming into true power mostly believe in the "incompetence" theory but even more importantly with Bush leaving office and the financial crises people just want to move on and forget. That trait has always been much stronger in America then many other places. Edkollin (talk) 20:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the IQ of someone who looks at information in a critical way will be higher than someone who blindly follows it simply because it comes from a federal source. Im just guessing. Autonova (talk) 20:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

One should also probably look at the possibility that some of the on board believers of the conspiracy theories may not actually be "believers" per se. The extremists may be looking for attention and "their moment in the spotlight", or others may be going along with them for similar reasons, perhaps looking for something interesting in an otherwise unfulfilling social life. Not saying that any of that is true, just brainstorming here, but things like this have been known to happen. -koval- 05:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you're correct about groups, Autonova, but there are big differences within each group. People who have been through Large Group Awareness Trainings (LGAT) tend, as a group, to be more objective in their observations than the general population, regardless of their I.Q. This is more about objectivity than intelligence. Freud says that there is a form of paranoia which sees causal connections which really do not exist, but given all of the information available in our complex world, that abnormality will be more prevalent in more intelligent and better-informed people who have more data to manipulate. Supporters of the Official Conspiracy Theory (OCT) like to simplify their thinking by assuming that all dissenters are paranoid, which is clearly not the case. There was a recent psychological finding that having a minority viewpoint is not pathological if other people agree with you. What takes objectivity and the willingness not to seek "cheap closure" is to recognize that the undeniable data someone gives you is not dependent upon the explanation that comes with it. Fritz Perls defines "bullshit" as "anything that comes after the word 'because.' " Wowest (talk) 15:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Why? Because the official narrative is not plausable, the countless coincidences that occurred, the physical evidence that has been brought forward, eye-witness testimonies and because of the suspicious behavior of related parties. - Shiftchange (talk) 13:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Psychology/IQ of adherents varies with the particular theory

Given the history of media reporting on 9/11, there is no way to have a firmly held opinion on the topic without accepting one conspiracy theory or another. Some of these theories are mutually contradictory, of course.

First, we must consider the observable events.

Buildings were shown with black smoke billowing out of their middles. News footage showed people who had apparently jumped to their deaths rather than endure a less certainly deadly but more certainly painful experience. This kind of horror would naturally bring up all kinds of personal belief conflicts. Would jumping to a relatively painless death to avoid continuing pain of possibly burning to death be a mortal sin? And then, to everyone's amazement, the two buildings we were shown suddenly collapsed in a manner Dan Rather spontaneously compared to "controlled demolition." Eye witnesses said that the first tower was hit by a small commuter plane and the second was hit by a white aircraft with a circular, blue logo near the nose. Then, the news began to come from the networks rather than the local stations.

We were quickly given a "complete" explanation -- the Official Conspiracy Theory, or OCT. Twenty-one Arabs, with the help of other fellow conspirators, had hijacked four airplanes and had flown them into three targets while one had been diverted by brave passengers whose motto was "let's roll." When one of the Arabs turned out to have been dead for a year and another turned out to be alive in Florida, the number was ramped down to nineteen, all of whom had similar photographs available. Two Muslims, clearly pictured, whose passports had previously been stolen in the United States and Israel, protested their innocence, but their claims were disregarded. Several other accused terrorists came forward, but their claims of innocence were officially ignored with an explanation that the culprits were other Muslims with similar names who coincidentally all looked alike.

Everybody I know immediately accepted the OCT, with the exception of Teresa, a university librarian, who immediately thought "so THAT's why the Republicans stole the Florida election," and began collecting and distributing printed material and, later, DVD's.

The psychological phenomenon here is called "closure." If an event is traumatizing enough, people with a low tolerance for ambiguity or vagueness with latch onto the first explanation they are given. Another psychological phenomenon at work is "cognitive dissonance." If the most logical explanation for an event contradicts cherished values, it will be rejected in favor of a more convenient explanation which does not produce such conflict.

In China, during WWII, the Japanese committed the intentional mass murder of hundreds of thousands of civilians, women, children and all. The motion picture "The Last Emperor" was not permitted to be shown in Japan until newsreel footage documenting one of these atrocities was deleted from the Japanese version. Governments do things like that.

During the second half of the twentieth century, the newly-formed CIA repeatedly overthrew democracies in Latin America and other parts of the world, replacing them with military dictators for the benefit of American corporations. David Horowitz's "Free World Colossus" documents several of these events, most particularly during the 1950's.

In any event, the introduction of alternative theories of what may or may not have happened on 9/11 leads to a skepticism concerning the OCT.

Some historical events cause susceptible people to continue to believe in the OCT, however. For one thing, CS Lewis's "Narnia" books for children, vilify all religions other than Christianity and lump them all together into one competing religion followed by anyone with a rag on his head. For another thing, Arayan hate groups vilify all other races, including the Semites (Arabs, Jews and all that).

The most intelligent and objective position possible concerning the holes in the OCT is that "we do not know." That's the simple truth.

Just because we don’t know what Oswald had for breakfast doesn’t mean we don’t know who killed Kennedy.… — NRen2k5^(TALK), 08:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems unfair to lable Theorists as Schizoids. Most of them are unlikely to fit into that bracket anyway. The problem they seem to have is that they only read works that agree with their beliefs. That it is not unreasonable to believe that hijackers of two planes with even crude flying abilities could 'guide' (not fly) those planes into two of the worlds tallest buildings, which would then collapse after the resultant impact, is somthing they cannot accept. Why? Dozens of credible witnesses saw a plane hit the Pentagon, not so! say the Theorists, why?. The reason seems to be simple statistics, there will allways be a minority of people who not accept evidence of any kind. Sad but true.Johnwrd (talk) 03:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Other theories

Other theories concerning 9/11 devolve from a series of remarkable coincidences.

• Larry Silverstein acquired an interest in the property six weeks before 9/11
• Tenants were moved around creating two vacant floors
• The twin towers were slated for demolition, but a permit for controlled demolition was rejected because of the asbestos contents of the towers.
• Silverstein had special insurance in the event of a terrorist attack.
• The official WTC photographer was fired and forbidden to take any more pictures of the WTC for any reason whatsoever.
• Patrols by bomb-sniffing dogs were eliminated.
• Loud noises were heard coming from the two emptied floors.
• Dust was everywhere
• One of the elevators was labeled "out of order" and remained in that status for weeks.
• Over the weekend of September 8th and 9th, tenants were informed that electricity would be turned off. This made security cameras and other security equipment inoperable, although electricity was available for certain other purposes. People identified as "engineers" were crawling all over the buildings this weekend.
• Dan Rather described the collapses, as they occurred, as resembling controlled demolition.
• The metal from the building was shipped out of the country hurriedly, with only selected "engineers" permitted to examine it.
• This metal was transported under tight security.

All of the above led to the theory that Larry Silverstein had something to do with the collapse of the buildings, and that someone else took it down for him.

The strong minded would, of course, still reject both theories in favor of the recognition that "we do not know," but hundreds of people marched on Larry Silverstein's office, demanding the he turn himself in, and thence to the police department, demanding the he be arrested for murder.

Those who accepted this theory were now involved in a somewhat larger conspiracy theory. Airplanes were hijacked as a cover for the controlled demolition. However, the addition of more coincidences led to another larger theory:

• Some of the alleged hijackers were given visas over the objections of State Department employees in Saudi Arabia on orders from on high.
• Aluminothermic residue was found in the WTC dust.
• Money wired to Mohammed Atta was traced to the Pakistani ISI.
• The head of the ISI was having breakfast with members of the House and Sentate Intelligence Committees on the morning of 9/11.
• A congressional investigation revealed that more than one foreign government was involved in funding 9/11. The Bush White House redacted dozens of pages from their report, despite a request by Saudi Arabia that the names of the foreign governments be revealed to the American public.

Up to this point, the difference between believers in the OCT and the other available theories is that:

• The skeptics are noticeably more intelligent, more objective, less dogmatic and more resistant to authoritarianism than the average American.

Still more theories

There are other theories in this vein, but there comes into play a third category of theories:

• (1) The towers were destroyed by mini-nukes
• (2) Shape-shifting reptilians were behind the evil men who did this
• (3) There were no airplanes at the WTC
• (4) The towers were destroyed by beam weapons from outer space

IMHO, nobody in his right mind believes any of these four theories, although people who are in their right mind appear to be promoting theories 2,3 and 4. I met a man who was promoting theory (1), however, and IMHO he was seriously emotionally disturbed.

That brings us back to closure. Something truly abhorrent happened on 9/11 -- so abhorrent that many people will grasp at the OCT. However, the OCT is full of omissions, distortions and contradictions among the reports of various federal agencies, and a lot of people have rejected it. Some of these people, however, still have a relatively low tolerance for ambiguity, so that, rather than accepting the simple fact that we don't know exactly what happened on 9/11, they will latch onto the theory that shape shifting lizards from another dimension were responsible.

First, you're confusing conspiracy (which is an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act) with conspiracy theory (which is narrative genre similar to folklore or urban legends that argues for the existence of grand conspiracies riddled with factual errors and methodological flaws).

Second, and most important, article talk pages are for discussing how to improve the article, not for discussing the topic itself. This is an encyclopedia. It is not a soap box to push an agenda nor is it a place to spread 9/11 truth spam. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 16:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

We shouldn't be covering absolutely every conspiracy theory that has ever been thought of relating to 9/11. If any of these theories has been covered in any reliable sources (rather than just on conspiracy websites, blogs, forums etc) then they might be suitable for inclusion. Hut 8.5 20:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I think someone else established the doctrine that "conspiracy websites" are reliable sources for what "conspiracy theorists" believe, just not for what is actually true. Wowest (talk) 16:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

There are some very strict restrictions on that, see WP:SELFQUEST. If we're trying to decide whether a particular theory is significant enough to be included then it's best to use independent sources. If I make up some theory and put it on a self-published website I shouldn't be able to add it to Wikipedia - it clearly won't be significant enough. Hut 8.5 20:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Excellent point, Hut 8.5. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

out of date link?

This link: ^ "The Top September 11 Conspiracy Theories". Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State (28 August 2006) (footnote 10) seems to refer to a page taht no longer contains the material cited.

Fixed. The link (and possibly the article) was apparently revised on 19 September 2006. That page looks outdated and like a pretty lame defense for the "official theory" to someone who has studied the 9/11 issues in depth. But whatever, the link works now. The Original Wildbear (talk) 09:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Israeli Involvement

Israeli Involvement in 9/11:

(Carl Cameron's reports for Fox News on Israeli involvement are no longer available on Fox's websites which denies they ever existed, but I did see them a while ago and they were along the same lines.)

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7545.htm

http://www.giwersworld.org/911/is-spies.phtml http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=4577 http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/govknow.html http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/9_11_facts.html http://www.infowars.net/articles/december2006/071206Haas.htm http://www.911review.com/articles/usamah/khilafah.html http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2007/02/16/counterpunch_on_israel_and_911.php

--Wool Bridge (talk) 09:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Israeli foreknowledge is already covered in 9/11 advance-knowledge debate. Hut 8.5 20:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Mental health of conspiracy theorists

ABC News has just published an article about the mental health of conspiracy theorists:

http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=6443988

We should try to work this into the article. 67.184.14.87 (talk) 17:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Not really relevant here - it only mentions 9/11 briefly. Hut 8.5 20:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps in conspiracy theories? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

appeal

Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's our commitment.

I have been doing a little research on this subject, and for me there are many strange questions. I do not see them addressed in this article. I would like to contribute, but do not know how to start. Things that come to mind are:

• news reports of a FAA official destroying a tape;
• pres. Bush's explanation in december 2001 of his behaviour;
• the story which D.Rumsfeld told of his experience that day, and his being untraceable till 10.30 that morning?
• the story which D.Cheney told, and the testimony Mr. Norman Minita gave about his whereabouts;

Are these bits of information welcome in this article? How should I begin? Thanks for your help. Kaaskop6666 (talk) 20:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The place to start is to find reliable sources for these claims. Who says these things? Where are they coming from? What sorts of evidence do they have to offer? When you are claiming to offer testimony from particular individuals, it would be maximally useful to have either a reputable source (e.g. a newspaper) quoting them, or an official transcript of courtroom or legislative proceedings, or whatever other reputable source is available for those words or claims. --FOo (talk) 07:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

And then use Wikipedia:Citation templates. This may seem obvious but bear with me: Rephrase the material cited if you're not using it in quotes. Using the language directly is tempting, as it seems safely verified that way, but of course then you're in plagiarism country; no one's going to bust you for it, but it can be deleted or would have to be changed. Don't be afraid to use quotes if they really capture the information more succinctly than a paraphrase would. Or clarify the cite with a quote, inserted just before the second (and last) tag that says '</ref>' Anarchangel (talk) 07:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Kennedy assassination: "alternative theories"

Since that is a featured article, why has this one been labelled as a conspiracy theory? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.68.239 (talk) 11:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Assuming you're talking about Robert F. Kennedy assassination#Alternative theories (and not JFK, where the article is at Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories) the section discusses two theories, one of which is definitely a conspiracy theory and the other arguably isn't, and the sources cited don't use the term "conspiracy theory" whereas there are plenty of references describing 9/11 theories as "conspiracy theories" (indeed few describing them as anything else). Hut 8.5 18:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Boarding passes

RE:BOARDING PASSES I have read that none of the 19 terrorists had boarding passes. Any info on this. What was the name/s of the agents at the airport gates - where is their testimony available? I believe I have/would never be allowed on a plane without a pass( and I have flown decades before 911 or airport security was even dreamt of. 159.105.80.141 (talk) 12:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

This is not a forum. If you have a suggested edit to the article, say what it is, and back it up with references to sources. Hut 8.5 14:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Flight manifests

Should there be a section of analysis of the flight manifests? Seeing as evidence of a a suspects presence at the scene of the crime is generally considered important. http://www.911hardfacts.com/report_17.htmAutonova (talk) 03:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

NIST analysis a response to conspiracy theories?

From the article:

"Later, as media exposure of conspiracy theories of the events of 9/11 increased, US government agencies and the Bush Administration issued responses to the theories, including a formal analysis by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) about the collapse of the World Trade Center..."

I think it would be more correct to say that NIST's factsheet-- the item cited in the footnote following this text-- was NIST's response to these theories. The NIST failure analysis itself was the result of a much broader demand for a technical analysis of the WTC collapses. The report would have been written even without the conspiracy theories.

There may have been other NIST publications that were specifically in response to the conspiracy theories; if so, perhaps one of them would be even better to mention here. 67.164.125.7 (talk) 04:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The NIST report was mainly in response to the conspiracy theories and it WAS NOT a technical analysis of the WTC collapses. It was an analysis of the events leading up to the collapse only. Without the conspiracy theories it is likely the FEMA report would have stood. Wayne (talk) 23:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Israelies who died in attacks

I was reading over this section and noticed the following: "Five Israeli citizens died in the attack, including one who was killed fighting his airplane's hiijackers. [172][citation needed]"

I would like to mention two things, one hijackers is spelled incorrectly, and 2 there is no evidence provided about the fighting. The news story linked says that the Israeli's who were on the planes were on flight UA 175 and AA 11. There is no conclusive evidence of anyone fighting back on these flights, much less the Israeli citizens on the flights. The flight that did fight back was flight 93. I think this needs to be stripped from the article, or cleaned up a bit to make it more vague. TWilliams9 (talk) 16:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I've removed this claim, it had been flagged as needing a reference for more than a month. I'm not sure the figure of 5 dead is accurate either, since the source cited merely says that five Israeli victims were remembered in a service, not that they were the only 5 victims and [30] says "The Israeli consulate later confirmed that 7 Israelis died in the 9/11 attacks" and [31] says four died. Hut 8.5 19:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View on Articles on Fringe Topics

In articles on fringe topics, we are not supposed represent the fringe theory as if it is a legitimate viewpoint or on some kind of equal footing. Instead, we're supposed to fairly represent all sides of an issue per reliable sources. If reliable sources reflect a particular viewpoint, then we're supposed to represent that viewpoint as well. In a case such as this article, I doubt if there are many (if any) reliable sources that claim 9/11 was a conspiracy by the US government. Even if there are any, weight should be roughly proportional to the preponderance of reliable sources backing that perspective.

As a result, there seems to be a WP:NPOV issue with this article. This article should treat this topic in the same manner as reliable sources do. Thus, if Popular Mechanics, the BBC, ABC News, Time Magazine, Rolling Stone Magazine, etc. regard 9/11 conspiracy theory as outlandish speculation completely unsupported by factual evidence, that that's how this article should be written. To do otherwise, is against WP:NPOV.

In other words, the viewpoints of reliable sources are the standard by which we write our articles and judge its neutrality.

We can and should have detailed debunking of 9/11 conspiracy theories as that's what reliable sources have done and it is in accordance with Wikipedia policies. The Popular Mechanics article [32] and book are probably good starts. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

What article are you reading?. We have three sections devoted to disagreements with the conspiracy theorists. “Mainstream Account”, “Criticism” and ”Media Reaction”. The majority of the Media Reaction section consists of scathing criticism of not only the theories but the motivations and mental health of the theorists. In addition at several points in the article it is noted that a majority of scientists and other reliable sources disagree with the truth movement Edkollin (talk) 06:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, this is just my initial impression. First, there seems to be too many qualifications within the article. To use Hut 8.5's example below, we do not say that the majority of scientists believe that the electron is smaller than the atom. We simply state that the electron is smaller. We are not supposed to leave doubt where there is none. Second, we are not supposed to use the terminology of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists. Instead, we use the terminology of reliable sources. There is no such thing as the "mainstream account of the atom". There is simply the atom. Terminology such as "mainstream account" and "9/11 truth" probably need to be ripped from the article except for an explanation of what these terms mean within 9/11 conspiracy theory community. Third, three sections on debunking 9/11 conspiracy theory are probably not enough. Weight should be roughly proportional to the preponderance of reliable sources backing that perspective. I raised this issue on the Neutral Point of View Notice Board and I was told that if 90% of reliable sources disagree with a fringe theory, then it is perfectly acceptable for a fringe theory article to contain 90% debunking (roughly speaking). See the Apollo Landing Hoax article for comparison. As I said, that's just my initial impression. I have not made any changes to the article so far. I'm trying to keep an open mind on this subject and reserve judgment until later. My current plan is to read up on what reliable sources have to say on the subject before making any changes to the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Just because you could does not mean you should. This is an article dedicated to conspiracy theories so in my view a majority of space should go to explaining them. Also in my view a sentence that says a large majority of reliable sources/scientists think the 9/11 conspiracy theories are shit is a stronger statement then a blanket statement saying that 9/11 conspiracy theories are shit. Also we are dealing with different topics, There are a limited amount of Moon Landing hoax theories and a plethora of 9/11 conspiracy theories. The Apollo Landing article goes into detailed point by point debunking (not all sourced). This is somewhat similar to how this article read 2 years ago but it was changed because it was felt that the article was to long and unreadable. Of course in the intervening two years more theories and issues have emerged. Maybe the solution lies in writing a Debunking 9/11 CT’s sub article Edkollin (talk) 07:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic with the view that terms like "official" or "mainstream" should be dropped. State the overwhelmingly supported claims as if they are facts rather than alternative viewpoints. Phiwum (talk)

I do not see how terms like "mainstream" or " a vast majority of" convey that a statement is an "alternative" viewpoint."Official" might convey a point of view is part of a conspiracy Edkollin (talk) 07:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

"Just because you could does not mean you should". Well, I had previously raised this issue on the NPOV Notice Board and I was clearly told that "not only is it perfectly acceptable to do so, it is imperative to do so. WP:NPOV is a fundamental policy of the project." (emphasis mine).

"9/11 conspiracy theories are shit." Well, I would not use the word "shit". But certainly, we can come up with a sentence that follows WP:NPOV and is still encyclopedic.

"There are a limited amount of Moon Landing hoax theories and a plethora of 9/11 conspiracy theories." Have they all been covered by reliable sources? If not, they don't get mentioned here. Anyone can create a web site. Tomorrow, I can create a web site saying that 9/11 was carried out by Darth Vader from the planet Vulcon. That doesn't mean my theory should be included in the article. We have to wait until reliable sources start covering it.

"Of course in the intervening two years more theories and issues have emerged". I'm not sure I understand what you mean. If you mean that new conspiracy theories emerged that have been covered by reliable sources then yes we could consider them in the article. If you mean new conspiracy theories emerged but have not been covered by reliable sources, then they don't belong in the article.

"Maybe the solution lies in writing a Debunking 9/11 CT’s sub article". It's funny you mention this because I made the exact same suggestion on NPOV Notice Board and I was told no, it violates WP:POVFORK. We seem to have a policy on everything! :)

Just to let everyone know, this is what I've done so far. I've gone through the entire article and compiled a complete list of all the links within the article. We have about 900 of them. I'm now going through them one at a time and attempting to determine which ones are reliable per Wikipedia's policy on reliability. Then I'm going to read them or as much as I can. Then, I'll be able to make more specific suggestions on how to proceed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes there is a policy on everything and sometimes they contradict and sometimes they paralyze editors creating poor articles.. These policies are not holy grail just generally ways of doing things that will make for good articles most of the time. But yep Wikipedia has a policies for that to WP:COMMONSENSE,WP:Ignore all rules. All I know is that 9/11 related articles have multiple levels of sub articles because of the large amount of material. And as far as 9/11 conspiracy while there has been some recent reliable source developments involving the theories most of the developments have been in the debunking realm. At the end of the day it up to us to write articles that best serve our readers.

Unless President Obama or The New York Times etc literally say that 9/11 conspiracy theories are shit I don’t advocate using that language in the article. I used that phrase to emphasize a point Edkollin (talk) 08:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that anyone is advocating that the article should say 9/11 conspiracy theories are "shit". It appears as if we're getting a bit side tracked on a position that no one is taking. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I think A Quest For Knowledge needs to eat more sugar.

"But if 5 editors say the same thing, I think it carries more weight. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)" -- That one's from

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard

So, let's see. If four people agree with you, you must be right?

Eat sugar! 191,010,000,000,000,000,000 houseflies per year per mating couple can NOT be wrong!

http://entomology.ifas.ufl.edu/creatures/urban/flies/house_fly.HTM

O.K. dude. You are not talking about any kind of "fringe" movement, here.

As US News points out, we're talking about one third of the US population:

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060903/11conspiracy.htm?s_cid=related-links:TOP

You are talking about, roughly, one hundred million Americans, out of 303,824,640 (July 2008 CIA estimate.)

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html#People

Time magazine says:

"Thirty-six percent adds up to a lot of people. This is not a fringe phenomenon. It is a mainstream political reality."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1531304-1,00.html

The Washington Post points out that this highly significant movement is even more popular in New York City, where the WTC was located.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/07/AR2006090701669_pf.html

You might, then, ask why something YOU don't believe in should have been so wildly popular then, and, of course, increasingly popular now. It has been widely documented, in reliable sources as far away as Australia, that top officials of the Bush administration told 935 lies following 9/11, not counting any related to the 9/11 Truth movement, which these reliable sources were ignoring.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23098129-401,00.html

So, as Time continues:

"The Administration is certainly playing its part in the drama with admirable zeal. If we went to war to root out fictional weapons of mass destruction, is staging a fictional terrorist attack such a stretch?"

Of course, the movement has also been covered by the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/05/us/05conspiracy.html?_r=2&pagewanted=print

The Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/oct/23/september112001.usnews

And, of course, Rolling Stone provides some evidence that we're talking about a third of the U.S. population (even though they disagree with it):

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/11818067/the_low_post_the_hopeless_stupidity_of_911_conspiracies

There you go, kid. Where are your "Reliable Sources?"

Wowest (talk) 01:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

We are not interested in the prevalence of the viewpoint amongst the general public, but on its prevalence in reliable sources. (If we weren't, we'd have to rewrite atom to reflect the widely-held view that atoms are smaller than electrons. [33]) Very few, if any reliable sources support the conspiracy theories. The Time piece you cited above goes on to say "But there's a big problem with Loose Change and with most other conspiracy theories. The more you think about them, the more you realize how much they depend on circumstantial evidence, facts without analysis or documentation, quotes taken out of context and the scattered testimony of traumatized eyewitnesses." Both the New York Times and the Guardian have also published pieces attacking the conspiracy theories. The fact that sources report on this movement is an indication that Wikipedia should have an article on it, but it does not mean that we should give it any weight. Hut 8.5 11:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Problem With Second Paragraph

In the second paragraph we have this statement, "Some 9/11 Truth Movement members question the accuracy of the mainstream account of the attacks, and they are committed to further investigation." which is followed by "Others claim that...." and lists some of the major theories of conspiracy theorists. This seems not the best way to say it because it is not necessarily "others" making these specific claims, but actually many members of the movement members referred to in the first sentence actually making these claims. It seems to me that it would be more accurate to start the sentence with something like, "Some specific theories are that..." or "Some specific claims made by members are...", or any other similar statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.121.211.154 (talk) 12:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Saudi hijackers embarrass Bush administration

This article should note that the hijackers were mostly Saudi nationals, a fact which was of great embarrassment to the Bush administration. Yet the identities could have been easily manipulated to appear as if they were Iraqi agents to justify an attack on Iraq, which, according to sources like Richard Clarke, was the true intention of the Bush Administration upon taking office. The fact that the nine of the 11 hijackers were Saudis, not Iraqis, undermines the credibility of the conspiracy theory considerably, but does explain the administration's stonewalling of the 911 report.

That the majority of hijackers were Saudis is a fact that is easy to prove. Yes, it probably was something of an embarrassment, but we need a reliable source that actually says such a thing. Was this the reason why the Bush administration tried stonewalling the 9/11 Commission? That sounds plausible, but again, we'll need a reliable source that explicitly says such a thing. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The Saudi connection or the Bin Ladin family/Bush family business connections have been repeatedly noted by Conspiracy Theorists. These topics are discussed in the Responsibility for the September 11 attacks sub-article. But as noted this is not the place for blanket statements about the topic. If you have a reliable source that discusses your the theory that the Saudi nationality of most of the hijackers hurts the credibility of the conspiracy theories, then put it in the article. Otherwise this is interesting material for a message board,blog or a letter to the editor etc.Edkollin (talk) 08:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Edkollin, I don't think that the OP meant in the way that you took it (i.e. the Saudi connection or Bin Laden/Bush family business connections). I think what the OP meant was that the mere fact that the nationality of the majority of hijackers were Saudi was an embarrassment to the Bush administration in the sense that the Saudis are supposed to be allies. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

OP said this embarrassment hurts reliability of conspiracy theories. I know of no conspiracy theories based only on the Saudi nationality of the hijackers, usually the family connections have a part of them. If OP did not mean the connections only nationality how does this hurt the argument for conspiracy theories and how is it related to this article? Edkollin (talk) 05:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, my interpretation of the OP comments is that it hurts 9/11 conspiracy theories in two ways. First, Saudi Arabia is a US ally. If 9/11 was an inside job and you can make the hijackers any nationality that you want, it makes more sense to make the hijackers some other nationality. Second, it hurts the subset of 9/11 conspiracy theories that say that 9/11 was a means to gain public support for invading Iraq. In such a case, it makes more sense to make the hijackers Iraqis (not Saudis). Either way, I told the OP that we need a reliable source that actually says such a thing before it can be included in the article. That said, Rolling Stone's article titled "The Hopeless Stupidity of 9/11 Conspiracy Theories" touches upon this theme, but I'm not sure if it says it explicitly. Anyway, it's a starting point. [34]. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Theoretically since Bin Ladin was an alleged CIA agent or on the payroll his crew would be the more convenient to use then from a country that where there were problems with U.S. intelligence. But yes until a reliable source makes the argument the Saudi Nationality of the hijackers hurts the CT case it is not an article worthy topic Edkollin (talk) 07:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Jewish involvement

If you're going to include this as a theory or what have you. How are you going to keep a Nuetral Point Of View and include the ANTI DEFAMATION LEAGUE. They are the most bias source possible.

This answer is strictly about whether the source is ok to use not whether the section as currently written is neutral.

Sources may be considered reliable and verifiable even though the source is an advocacy source or the source is a party to a dispute.

"Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication."

The way I read it the anti defamation league was used to bring a neutral point of view to the section. It was felt that just stating the claims of Jewish involvement would leave a non neutral section. It was felt that organization meat the criteria laid out above.

You can go here Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard ask about and discuss specific sources Edkollin (talk) 05:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Video Link Fix

{{editsemiprotected}}

The video for the BBC Conspiracy Files 9/11 video doesn't work, a fixed video is here: http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=9072062020229593250&ei=mEW9Sfr5IKq6qAOEw9TCAQ&q=BBC+Conspiracy+Files+9%2F11&hl=en

 Done Thanks. —Ms2ger (talk) 19:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Prison Planet questions Flight Data recorder edit

As the article states this is not the first time that organization has made accusations against the article[35]. This is not my area of expertise so do or do not do what you wish.Edkollin (talk) 20:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

prisonplanet.com promotes insane conspiracy nonsense. It is not a reliable source by any stretch of the imagination. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Since the whole paragraph doesn't cite any decent sources (only Google Video, a forum post and photobucket) I suggest we just remove it. Hut 8.5 15:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. If there are no reliable sources to cite, it doesn't belong in the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Misunderstanding here. This never was in the article or a proposal to put it there. Just to inform Wikipedia editors that an an accusation had been made against us. Edkollin (talk) 06:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and I'm proposing to remove the paragraph that is the subject of the accusation ("A June 2007 video, attributed to researcher Calum Douglas of Pilots for 9/11 Truth...") Hut 8.5 07:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Removal of new paper

A new paper on thermite in the WTC has been published that has been widely reported in Denmark and in alternative US press, as well as Deseret News. For example, the Danish government-owned television channel TV2 has broadcast an interview and a discussion with the corresponding author of the paper, Niels Harrit. The discussion took place in a breakfast talkshow named "Good morning, Denmark". The interview, with English subtitles, can be found here. This is a significant event in the history of the movement as a search for the exact title of the paper ("Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe") on google returns over 17,900 matches, and it's only been less than 2 weeks . . . Locewtus (talk) 20:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Material relating to controlled demolition belongs in the sub-article on controlled demolition, not here. Hut 8.5 21:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Since the study was conducted at the University of Copenhagen as seems to have been discussed by a mainstream press and some others papers it at first glance seems to meet the standards for reliability. Probably a sentence or two here with a detailed discussion in the Controlled Demolition article. Before I am totally onboard with this I would like to to see the Deseret News and alternative press articles you speak of so I can see their take on this. Edkollin (talk) 07:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

"Probably a sentence or two here with a detailed discussion in the Controlled Demolition article."

The paper has been continuously removed from the demolition page with arguments that make no sense, like saying that Bentham is not reliable, but leaving up other Bentham articles. You can watch a video of the lead author of the article describing it [36] (over 30,000 views on YouTube in just days). The Deseret News article is [37], and the Raw Story news article is [38].Locewtus (talk) 19:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

That's an issue that needs to be discussed on that article, not here. We should not be including anything other than a very brief summary of the main points expressed by the controlled demolition article. And might I suggest that if you have to revert multiple people to make a change to an article you are the one who needs to discuss on the talk page. Hut 8.5 21:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The links do not work Edkollin (talk) 05:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Bentham Open has very strange membership and editorial policies that make the label ‘peer reviewed’ dubious. There’s an ongoing scandal over the publication of the paper in question. The editor of the journal didn’t even know about the paper, let alone have any hand in the peer selection and review processes. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 22:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I neglected to mention that she considered it a big enough insult to resign over. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 08:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

False assertion

"One of the most popular claims in these theories"

The story about "4000 Jews" appeared in Arab media after 911, but I have never seen it promoted by any 911 activists. I've seen actiivists who bring up the allegations about Odigo receiving a warning, as well as the story about the five Israeli men arrested when a woman named Maria called the police. But I have never encountered this "4000 Jews" claim from anyone. This appears to be a biased account coming from the anti-Defamation League. The ADL is not a reliable source for determining how many activists have cited the "4000 Jews" story as something distinct from the other claims I listed above. The ADL makes it a point to tar and feather people with blatantly false stories like the "4000 Jews" hoax. This section should be reworked to remove the claim that "4000 Jews" is one of the most popular stories and in general to eliminate the ADL influence on the segment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.127.187.78 (talk) 01:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The sentence as it written is uncited and original research. It should be replaced by a sentence describing the widespread belief of anti-Jewish/Israel theories in the Middle East with the appropriate citing. The section does note that several 9/11 CT websites are working to debunk these theories. Edkollin (talk) 04:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Vague generalizations

I've added a few more {who} tags to unsupported vague generalizations about "conspiracy theorists." We need documented statements, not derogatory "proof by stereotype." Wowest (talk) 22:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

If a "reliable source" says essentially nothing about the source of the vague generalizations which it is making, does that serve as an example of the issue that you are describing? For example, this ITN article, which is used as a reference in this Wikipedia article, talks about theories but never cites a source, other than mentioning "150 million web pages" devoted to the theories. If it obtained its information from some of these web pages, there is no indication which web pages it used. Out of 150 million pages, you could probably find pages which say just about anything you would want. But that wouldn't necessarily make it a prominent viewpoint for a movement. Given its vagueness, an article such as this ITN example probably doesn't serve as a good reference. Wildbear (talk) 03:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

UPS on the 81st floor of WTC2

I would like to report this site: http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/04/english-section.html

where I found these articles:

http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/02/ups-on-81st-floor-of-wtc2.html

and the NIST confirmation about UPS:

http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2008/03/nist-confirms-ups-on-81st-floor-of-wtc2.html

Could You add these links to the correct section of the article, please? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.41.205.37 (talk) 16:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Why? The article has too many unreliable sources cited at the moment, we don't need more. Material concerning controlled demolition should go in the controlled demolition article anyway. Hut 8.5 06:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

"Unreliable sources"? But, excuse me Hut, have you at least read the article? There are all the page numbers from Nist official reports, there is the official answer of the Nist spokeman and you tell us there are unrealiable sources? I think you're wrong. These articles speak about the WTC collapse, they don't speak about controlled demolition! The author never spoke about controlled demolition. I hope you read the articles again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.66.15.95 (talk) 05:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Section "In popular culture" (Merge discussion)

It has been suggested that the section "In popular culture" of the article World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories should be merged into this article. See also Talk:World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories#Section "In popular culture".  Cs32en  02:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Miles per hour

As far as I can tell, the Manual of Style doesn’t say how “miles per hour” should be abbreviated, but the miles per hour article says “mph” and “MPH” are the most common ways. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 09:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Believers

"A study of British believers of 9/11 conspiracy theories lead by psychologist Viren Swami of the University of Westminster found several common traits. They tended to have imaginative and inquisitive minds, believed in Democratic ideals, were suspicious of others, and mistrusted authority. They also tended to believe in other conspiracy theories, and liked to talk about the subject frequently with friends who shared their views. An unrelated survey of 1000 British adult 9/11 conspiracy theory believers also found a tendency to believe in other conspiracy theories while finding belivers had a propensity to jump to conclusions.[39] "

This believers subsection was deleted because it was "cherry picking". It would be "cherry picking" if there were numerous studies on the subject and I picked these two out because I liked the conclusions they reached or for some other personal reason . While there have been many scientific studies of conspiracy theorists in general these are the only two I have seen specifically of 9/11 conspiracy theorists. We have devoted a lot of space in this article to columnists and others who have there own theories on why CT believers believe what they do. Maybe it is just me but I absolutely fail to understand why that is ok but actual scientific studies of CT believers are not article worthy. Unless someone can come up with a valid problems with these studies I hope we can come to a consensus to return the section to the article Edkollin (talk) 04:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

"9/11 Truth Movement" is a neologism

I just want to draw everyone's attention to WP:NEO. If I understand this correctly, we shouldn't be using the terms "9/11 truth movement" or "9/11 deniers". 9/11 conspiracy theorists is probably the best phrase we can use. I don't even know what we should do about 9/11 Truth movement since it's an article on a neologism. According to WP:NEO, we're supposed to delete it. For now, I put up a {neologism} tag. Rather than post this on all the articles about 9/11 conspiracy theories, I'm posting it here. But WP:NEO applies to all of them. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources that say "9/11 Truth movement" is commonly being used

1. Barber, Peter (June 7, 2008). "The truth is out there". Financial Times. Retrieved May 23, 2009. an army of sceptics, collectively described as the 9/11 Truth movement
2. Powell, Michael (Sep. 8, 2006). "The Disbelievers". The Washington Post. Retrieved May 30, 2009. The loose agglomeration known as the '9/11 Truth Movement' {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
3. Barry, Ellen (Sep. 10, 2006). "9/11 Conspiracy Theorists Gather in N.Y." Los Angeles Times. Retrieved May 30, 2009. a group known as the 9/11 Truth Movement {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
4. Hunt, H.E. (Nov. 19, 2008). "The 30 greatest conspiracy theories - part 1". The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved May 30, 2009. A large group of people - collectively called the 9/11 Truth Movement {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
5. Kay, Jonathan (April 25, 2009). "Richard Gage: 9/11 truther extraordinaire". National Post. Retrieved May 30, 2009. The '9/11 Truth Movement,' as it is now commonly called

Use of the terms "9/11 Truth movement" and "9/11 deniers" by reliable sources

9/11 Truth movement

1. Feuer, Alan (June 5, 2006). "500 Conspiracy Buffs Meet to Seek the Truth of 9/11". New York Times.
   • the movement known as "9/11 Truth," [...]
   • The controlled-demolition theory is the sine qua non of the 9/11 movement
2. Powell, Michael (Sep. 8, 2006). "The Disbelievers". The Washington Post. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) (See also: MSNBC)
   • The loose agglomeration known as the "9/11 Truth Movement"
   • Author unknown, but often quoted by the 9/11 truth movement
   • Some days the 9/11 truth movement resembles an Italian coalition government
3. Grossman, Lev (Sep. 3, 2006). "Why the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Won't Go Away". Time. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
   • the 9/11 Truth Movement, as many conspiracy believers refer to their passion
4. Thornburgh, Nathan (Jul. 1, 2008). "The Mess at Ground Zero". Time. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
   • a new twist on the 9/11 Truth Movement
5. Barry, Ellen (Sep. 10, 2006). "9/11 Conspiracy Theorists Gather in N.Y." Los Angeles Times. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
   • a group known as the 9/11 Truth Movement
6. Tobin, Hugh (May 21, 2008). "Conspiracy theory lunacy". Australian Broadcasting Corporation.
   • the 9/11 Truth Movement in Australia
   • those in the 9/11 Truth Movement
   • groups such as the 9/11 Truth Movement
7. "The evolution of a conspiracy theory". BBC. July 4, 2008.
   • George Bush is hiding something, says the 9/11 truth movement
8. Barber, Peter (June 7, 2008). "The truth is out there". Financial Times.
   • an army of sceptics, collectively described as the 9/11 Truth movement
   • British MP Michael Meacher, became a touchstone in the 9/11 Truth movement
   • the 9/11 truth movement is fighting a kind of asymmetric war
   • the likes of the 9/11 Truth movement
   • Fenster thinks that the 9/11 Truth movement
   • Perhaps the 9/11 Truth movement is
   • by the 9/11 Truth movement
9. Monbiot, George (Feb. 20, 2007). "9/11 fantasists pose a mortal danger to popular oppositional campaigns". The Guardian. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
   • In fact it seems to me that the purpose of the "9/11 truth movement" is to be powerless.
10. Walker, Peter (Sep. 14, 2007). "Binoche falls for 9/11 conspiracy theories". The Guardian. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
    • Juliette Binoche has allied herself with the 9/11 'truth movement'
11. O'Connor, Rory (Nov. 16, 2006). "Joining the dots of ineptitude". The Guardian. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
    • Lance has actually done the 9/11 truth movement a distinct service
12. Hunt, H.E. (Nov. 19, 2008). "The 30 greatest conspiracy theories - part 1". The Daily Telegraph. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
    • A large group of people - collectively called the 9/11 Truth Movement
13. Kay, Jonathan (April 25, 2009). "Richard Gage: 9/11 truther extraordinaire". National Post.
    • The "9/11 Truth Movement," as it is now commonly called
14. Gibson, John (May 17, 2007). "Rudy Giuliani Squares Off With Rep. Ron Paul Over 9/11 at GOP Debate". FOX News.
    • The so-called 9/11 Truth Movement
15. Sullivan, Will (Sep. 3, 2006). "Viewing 9/11 From a Grassy Knoll". U.S. News & World Report. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
    • The film has made Avery, who was twice rejected from film school, the toast of the 9/11 Truth movement
16. Hayes, Christopher (Dec. 8, 2006). "The 9/11 Truth Movement's Dangers". The Nation. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) (See also: CBS News)
    • the so-called 9/11 Truth Movement
17. Manjoo, Farhad (Aug. 7, 2008). "The Anthrax Truth Movement". Slate. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
    • members of the 9/11 "truth" movement
18. Rossmeier, Vincent (May 16, 2008). "In the land of believers". Salon.
    • experiences with members of the 9/11 Truth Movement
    • a convention for the 9/11 Truth Movement
    • equating Christians with members of the 9/11 Truth Movement
19. Leonard, Andrew (Oct. 3, 2007). "Yet another horrible housing data point". Salon. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
    • usually associated with 9/11 Truth Movement conspiracy theorists
20. Gravois, John (June 23, 2006). "Professors of Paranoia?". The Chronicle of Higher Education.
    • the "9/11 truth movement," as the conspiracy theorists call themselves, to date.
    • arguments coming out of the 9/11 Truth movement
21. Harvey, Adam (Sep. 3, 2006). "9/11 myths busted". Courier Mail. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
    • what adherents like to call the "9/11 Truth Movement"
22. Taibbi, Matt (Sep. 26, 2006). "I, Left Gatekeeper". Rolling Stone. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
    • I have two basic gripes with the 9/11 Truth movement.
    • What is the theory of the crime, according to the 9/11 Truth movement?
23. Nelson, Rob (Jul. 7, 2008). "The Reflecting Pool". Variety. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
    • The 9/11 truth movement might believe
24. Kennedy, Gene (Sep. 8, 2006). "BYU Professor on Paid Leave for 9-11 Theory". KSL TV. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
    • Jones is a physics professor involved in what's called the "9-11 Truth Movement."
25. O'Neill, Xana; Grace, Melissa (Sep. 9, 2007). "Filmmaker arrested during city protest". Daily News (New York). {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
    • Jones is closely linked to the 9/11 Truth Movement
26. Walch, Ted (Sept. 8, 2006). "BYU places '9/11 truth' professor on paid leave". Deseret Morning News. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
    • the so-called "9/11 truth movement"
    • Jones and his high-profile role in the 9/11 truth movement
27. Ruelas, Richard (June 9, 2008). "Activist hungry for 'truth' about 9/11". The Arizona Republic.
    • Some of Gadsby's theories, and those of the 9/11 Truth Movement
28. Lemons, Stephen (Aug. 8, 2007). "The Yoda of 9/11". Phoenix New Times. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
    • outright lies of the 9/11 truth movement

Both terms

1. Bunch, Sonny (Sep. 24, 2007). "The Truthers Are Out There". The Weekly Standard. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
   • Leftwing causes converge with the 9/11 denial movement.
   • the loosely affiliated conspiracy theorists that comprise the 9/11 Truth Movement
   • not everyone involved in the 9/11 Truth Movement was so crazy
   • these 9/11 deniers

9/11 deniers

1. Manjoo, Farhad (June 27, 2006). "The 9/11 deniers". Salon.
   • converts to the "9/11 truth movement," the loose affiliation of skeptics who doubt the official story
2. Abel, Jennifer (Jan. 29, 2008). "Theories of 9/11". Hartford Advocate. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
   • Where on this spectrum do the 9/11 deniers fall?
   • The 9/11 deniers have another explanation.
3. Post, National (2008-09-27). "A tale of three candidates". National Post (f/k/a The Financial Post) (Canada). As recently as last year, Ms. Hughes was still peddling her preposterous views, appearing on a panel in Winnipeg with notorious 9/11 denier Barry Zwicker and others. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
4. "English-Arabic Public School Faces Harsh Critics". National Public Radio (NPR). 2008-05-15. But soon after the school is announced, you know, she began seeing herself depicted in the media and blogs as a Jihadist and a 9/11-denier. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
   • Refers to an individual, not to a movement or a set of organizations.
5. Goldstein, By Steve. "Few theorists insist terrorists were not behind attacks". Philadelphia Inquirer. Among the leading 9/11 deniers is French author Thierry Meyssan, whose book "L'Effroyable Imposture," or "The Horrifying Fraud," is a refutation not only of the official version of events but even of eyewitness accounts. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
6. ELLIOTT, By ANDREA (2008-04-28). "Her Dream, Branded as a Threat". The New York Times. In newspaper articles and Internet postings, on television and talk radio, Ms. Almontaser was branded a 'radical,' a 'jihadist' and a '9/11 denier.' {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
   • Refers to an individual, not to a movement or a set of organizations.
7. John, Ray, (2008-06-22). "How skeptics confronted 9/11 conspiracy advocates". Skeptic (Altadena, CA). Staking their fortunes almost solely on Internet-based content mayhave been the 9/11 deniers' biggest mistake. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
8. BETTELHEIM, ANGIE DROBNIC HOLAN; WES ALLISON; ADRIEL (2008-04-17). "INCOME INEQUALITY ON THE RISE". St. Petersburg Times (Florida). Iran's 9/11 denier - The statement - 'Again today he (Ahmadinejad) made light of 9/11 and said that he's not even sure it happened and that people actually died.' {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
   • Refers to an individual, not to a movement or a set of organizations.
9. White, Roland (2006-09-10). "Rebel MI5 agent says 9/11 planes were holograms". The Sunday Times (London). David Shayler, the former MI5 officer turned whistleblower, has joined the 9/11 deniers. 'We know for certain that the official story of 9/11 isn't true,' he tells the New Statesman. 'The twin towers did not collapse because of planes and fire. They were brought down in a controlled demolition. The Pentagon was most likely hit by an American missile, not an aeroplane.' Not that he thinks planes hit the towers. 'I believe no planes were involved in 9/11. The only explanation is that they were missiles surrounded by holograms made to look like planes.' {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
10. Gazette, LINDA GYULAI, The (2006-06-05). "Resisting the machine: Monsieur Bergeron goes to city hall". The Gazette (Montreal). Media organizations were calling for interviews with Bergeron. They wanted to know why he was a 9/11 denier. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
    • Refers to an individual, not to a movement or a set of organizations.

Did you bother to read WP:NEO because you just posted a bunch of irrelevent links? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

BTW, can you put your post in collapsable box since they're not germane to this discussion? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

We're not supposed to use neologisms

Since Cs32en spammed the previous discussion with irrelevent info, I'm starting a new one. Per WP:NEO:

"Neologisms are words and terms that have recently been coined, generally do not appear in any dictionary, but may be used widely or within certain communities....Wikipedia is a tertiary source that includes material on the basis of verifiability, not truth. To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term."

I looked up "9/11 Truth Movement" in the Oxford English Dictionary[40], Bartley[41], HarperCollins[42] and Merriam-Webster [43] and not one has a definition on this neologism.

According to WP:NEO, we should not be using neologisms in Wikipedia articles. Therefore, I propose that we no longer use the term "9/11 Truth Movement". Would any other editors like to weigh in on this topic? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

" 9/11 Truth Movement" not a neologism. As the Term "9/11 Truth Movement" has been in use 5+ years old it is not "recent". As demonstrated above and in the article itself "9/11 Truth movement" is not only widely used by reliable sources, there have been many articles, commentaries etc. in reliable sources "about" the 9/11 truth movement. Is the dictionary test applicable here?, this is a phrase not a word. I believe like in the mass media we should use both truth movement and conspiracy theorists. It also depends on the topic being written about of course.

As for “9/11 deniers” the term is extremely limited use and is confusing. What are they denying the government story? that the 9/11 occurred? Keep it out unless in a direct quote (if it is in a direct quote extra consideration should be used before using that quote) Edkollin (talk) 03:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

5 years isn't recent??? You do realize that the English language is hundreds, if not thousands of years old? Of course, it's recent. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 07:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)