Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Many of these questions arise frequently on the talk page concerning the 9/11 conspiracy theories.

Information.svg To view an explanation to the answer, click the [show] link to the right of the question.

Former good article nominee 9/11 conspiracy theories was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
March 29, 2006 Peer review Reviewed
June 3, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed
August 12, 2006 Articles for deletion Speedily kept
Current status: Former good article nominee
This article has been mentioned by a media organisation:
This is not a forum for general discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories.
Any such messages will be deleted.

Semi-protected edit request on 17 September 2015[edit]

Please change this sentence: "The plane crashes and resulting fires caused the collapse of the World Trade Center." To: "The official government position as supported by NIST is that the plane crashes and resulting fires caused the collapse of the World Trade Center due to structural failure."

Reasoning: This is an explanation of alternate conspiracies as a counter point. The beginning sentence is a conclusion. Grantk9 (talk) 23:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

But the government position as supported by the NIST isn't an alternative conspiracy theory, it's reality as observed by a large number of highly trained and qualified experts. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
It's not "reality", it's a viewpoint. Bear in mind that a large number of highly trained and qualified experts also do not believe the US Govt's conspiracy theory to be tenable. (talk) 04:32, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
A fringe minority of individuals usually speaking outside of their field is not "a large number of highly trained and qualified experts." Ian.thomson (talk) 05:17, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
If that were the case, that would be the case. However, that is not the case, so it is not the case. They are not fringe, not a small number, and not speaking outside their area of expertise. Surely the Wikipedia is robust enough to survive a little diversity of opinion? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 05:05, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Gparyani (talk) 03:47, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Removal of Washington Times source was an error[edit]

earl king Jr. (talk · contribs), this edit ( was obviously erroneous. (1) The source reference was not in the lede as stated in the comment. The source was in the body. (2) Arnaud De Borchgrave was a senior editor of the Times. His statement is not opinion and not a blog. He was summarizing dozens of articles previously published by the times with the authority of a senior editor. The source is worthy of the Wikipedia. You are turning this into another edit war and I am asking you politely to back off and quit deleting content and sources. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 05:17, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I guess his record is not so good at that paper though he was a legit journalist no doubt. [1] He was more or less fired from that gig. Also why do you want to include that citation? It seems like a rehash of stuff already covered. Also it seems in the opinion area. Earl King Jr. (talk) 10:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

The Rainbow Connection[edit]

This isn't exactly academia, but it's also not exactly pulled from the author's ass. Plenty of hyperlinks to reliable mainstream sources, though shrouded in weird humour. I'm not calling it "the truth", but next to a lot of things that have crossed this Talk Page, it is certainly worth a glance. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:14, October 14, 2015 (UTC)

Request For Video Replacement[edit]

I think it a bit uncouth to embed a security video from outside the Pentagon that shows the word "KABOOOOM" as the explosion occurs. This is a bit insensitive to the families of victims and those sympathetic to their loss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dizziewiki (talkcontribs) 15:00, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2015[edit]

The author uses "which" within the first paragraph where "that" is correct (and "which" is incorrect). This is a pretty endemic error, but it'd be nice to start to swim against the tide a bit and make corrections as we go. People ape what they see other apes doing; they don't verify with authoritative sources (i.e., look in a dictionary) so each case of this is making the situation worse. I fix these errors when I can on Wikipedia but in this case you've blocked me. (talk) 00:53, 27 November 2015 (UTC)