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 organization:
Emblem-important.svg
This is not a forum for general discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories.
Any such messages will be deleted.
Toolbox

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)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on 9/11 conspiracy theories. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

YesY Archived sources have been checked to be working

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Pravda Putin Claims[edit]

Pravda claims Putin is "threatening to reveal the truth about 9/11" but haven't seen any source beyond that. Anyone want to write a piece on that? is there enough info? --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 04:23, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Has he been listed as another proponent of these theories? I'll bet it's nothing we haven't already heard before from other kooks. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 02:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
A little common respect is in order here. Wikipedia is not FaceBook. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 06:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Safe to say its just more nonsense from bad sources. Sounds more like urban myth looking at the very poor sources for anything connected. Earl King Jr. (talk) 09:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
It could be. But Putin has already gone along with the moon landing conspiracy nonsense, despite the fact that his KGB ancestors knew the US landed on the moon. He's been doing things like that just to spite the west. Maybe spewing the same old 9/11 conspiracy delusions will be another part of it. Or maybe it is just a rumor. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 19:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Can anyone find the original news article from Pravda? Probably worth a blurb here. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 07:51, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Article does not mention the most common theories correctly[edit]

Recently editors ArtifexMayhem, and Tom harrison reverted content related to alternative theories (This edit here), without giving a reasonable summary. Issues with these reverts are:

  • Current background section reads, "The impact and resulting fires caused the collapse of the Twin Towers and the destruction and damage of other buildings in the World Trade Center complex."Very unclear sentence, also appears to be unsourced. WTC7 should be linked directly, since its a very common talking point of people who question the mainstream version. My edit there is based in part on a BBC source, we can change the other reference if that is the issue.
  • The external link section should link directly to an example, otherwise why do we have the section proponents and opponents in the first place.
Do you support above article improvements, if not explain why not.
This is a paradox of the page itself. Wikipedia must follow the Ruling Party line on all subjects. The only sources it may cite are the Party-approved sources. To discuss any contending parties or ideas, Wikipedia must look through Party lenses. Wikipedia cannot link to unconventional sources. Hence, if we can find a Party review of the forbidden youtube video, we can use that. Otherwise not. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 16:50, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
BBC is a reliable source. Do you object to the inclusion of content sourced based on the BBC source? prokaryotes (talk) 17:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Should I presume I am the editor addressed as "you"? I was responding to the comment, "external link ... to an example". To be clear, BBC yes, "external link", no. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfarney (talkcontribs)
Thanks for your clarification, Grammar'sLittleHelper. Anyone against inclusion of content sourced from reliable sources such as the BBC (part of the previous edits)? prokaryotes (talk) 17:46, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Are you suggesting that a source does not exist for the statement "The impact and resulting fires caused the collapse of the Twin Towers and the destruction and damage of other buildings in the World Trade Center complex"? That is a perfectly sensible and clear sentence, and ample sources exist for the statement on the main 9/11 page. I would strongly object to presenting that as anything other than fact; the "people who question the mainstream version" embrace fringe theories, and we can and should discuss those theories without lending them credence—per explicit Wikipedia policy. As to the BBC source, it's a blog entry, not a reported piece. Dyrnych (talk) 17:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Currently none of the references includes a cite which supports the paragraph's lede intro segment, "9/11 conspiracy theorists reject some or all of the following facts about the 9/11 attacks:", in regards to the article scope. There are two links to the official report, which are fine, one reference unavailable, one reference about flight 93 (not discussed here). In fact the current paragraph as it stands resembles original research. Hence, why we have to add a source which supports the claim , "9/11 conspiracy theorists reject...". prokaryotes (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Additional there is no reference supporting the claim that cts reject the damage of other buildings.prokaryotes (talk) 18:07, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
The main text on the BBC page is written by a BBC editor: "About this blog: Welcome to The Editors, a site where we, editors from across BBC News, will share our dilemmas and issues. Here are tips on taking part, but to join in, all you need do is add a comment." This qualifies under the following clause of WP:RS: "Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control." Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 18:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Building 7 has been described as the "Achilles heel" by 911-Truthers. I also don't think Popular Mechanics is a reliable source, they even have a webpage touting UFO's. Raquel Baranow (talk) 18:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
   I have no idea how you think that Popular Mechanics site is "touting" UFOs. If you actually read the articles, they dismiss all UFO conspiracy theories.Kdb1965 (talk) 14:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Alternative BBC source to outline cts[edit]

Above editors raised concerns in regards to a BBC reference. Alternatively, take this one from 2011. http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-14665953 Anyone take issue with that BBC reference, in order to identify the cts part of the article scope? prokaryotes (talk) 18:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Support I support the inclusion of above reliable source (WP:RS), in order to outline important article content, and is in agreement with the article scope. prokaryotes (talk) 18:30, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

RFC: Update of Background section per BBC 2011[edit]

No consensus has emerged from this discussion. While it is certainly the case that we should remove theories that aren't backed up by reliable sources and/or give more prominence to those that are covered in such sources, no specific sections were noted as being particularly problematic other than the background section, which has since been improved. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 10:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

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

The article has multiple issues, among them the lack of explaining the actual conspiracy theories in the background section. The background section begins with "9/11 conspiracy theorists reject some or all of the following facts about the 9/11 attacks." References, either do not mention conspiracy theories, or make misleading claims such as, "..fires caused the collapse of the Twin Towers and the destruction and damage of other buildings..."

  • Suggestion (A): Update the current background section in accordance with this BBC article (2011), for the five most prominent 9/11 conspiracy theories.
  • Suggestion (B): In particular add the following content based on an edit for two of the BBC's listed conspiracies, (read the edit here).

Either support A and/or B, or oppose the article addition, with a brief explanation why. Use the discussion section to make suggestions and for general input. - prokaryotes (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Survey[edit]

  • Support (A and B) Per my proposal above. prokaryotes (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose both A and B, at least in the form that the editor has chosen to use. There is no reason why the particular claims deserve special prominence, even if the citation in question is used. Dyrnych (talk) 00:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
The reason why to add the content discussed here, and deserves more prominence, is because the BBC notes, "..the five most prominent 9/11 conspiracy theories.." (status of 2011) prokaryotes (talk) 01:35, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
That is a fine example of begging the question. Note also that the section in question summarizes the disputed facts of 9/11 and doesn't assign prominence among those facts in terms of what conspiracy theorists dispute. Dyrnych (talk) 01:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
But do you realize that the lede of that section and at least the first paragraph content in respect to the lede outline, and the towers - is not referenced? This is particular an issue because i never heard of a conspiracy which disputes building damage. The part on towers is just to meddled, not clear enough. Alternatively, we could break the article lede with related content down and move it into a background sub section.prokaryotes (talk) 02:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
It's a summary (not a lede), references occur later in the article with respect to each conspiracy theory, and "some or all" suffices. Dyrnych (talk) 02:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose both A and B as per Dyrnych Earl King Jr. (talk) 04:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose both since the linked edit is grammatically incorrect and there is no evident problem to fix anyway. Guy (Help!) 10:11, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
"edit is grammatically incorrect" -- Thank you Guy. prokaryotes (talk) 13:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Actually I was wrong, it is just that any bullets or whatever were not rendered. It would make sense as a bulleted list of statements, but not as paragraphs. So, what problem does it fix, exactly? Guy (Help!) 15:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Nutshell: We should use the BBC source to outline the 5 most prominent cts. So far i am only concerned with the towers. The background section(intro paragraph) is vague, unclear, and meddled, and unsourced in parts. With the lack of enthusiasm for RS based edits here, i guess the article will just stay the way it is now. prokaryotes (talk) 19:48, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Moot, Oiyarbepsy has made the edit, other edits have happened since. Guy (Help!) 15:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support (A and B). This article is overlong and needs pruning. Also, it lacks structure, so it is hard to identify the conspiracy theories precisely and to explain why (if at all) they should be rebutted. Arrivisto (talk) 13:45, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

  • Just so everyone knows, I changed the section to that particular wording and modeled it after Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. I feel this wording is best, since it states the facts as facts and doesn't give the conspiracists any credit for accuracy. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
It's easy to frame a topic in your prefered term. However, there are also many official statements or reliable sources which differ, and those are certainly not conspiracy theories. My point being, you need to exactly identify certain statements or views, otherwise you are not objective. prokaryotes (talk) 08:28, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • If a reliable source support it, then it's not a conspiracy theory. This is about all the theories that reliable sources don't support. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 14:29, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • "If a reliable source support it, then it's not a conspiracy theory". Au contraire! A conspiracy theory is NOT inherently unreliable or "wacko"! Rather, a conspiracy theory is one that suggests that, contrary to received opinion, the true facts have been distorted or concealed. Provided a conspiracy theory is capable of disproof, it is a valid theory awaiting scientific rebuttal. See Karl Popper's "Conjectures & Refutations". Arrivisto (talk) 13:45, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • The problem with these theories is that, for believers, no amount of evidence will ever disprove it. They merely expand the conspiracy to claim the new evidence is part of it. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:49, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • "The problem with these theories is that, for believers, no amount of evidence will ever disprove it." So what?! The point of the page is to explain to rational and disinterested persons what the fringe theories are; and if the page is to serve a purpose it should examine such "fringe beliefs" and reject them if and when found wanting. Continual plugging of the official line rather than explaining why the fringe theories are faulty becomes reminiscent of the "thought police"! Arrivisto (talk) 14:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep in mind that this is not a forum for discussion of the subject, personal opinions, or the opinions of others. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 17:57, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Some users could do with a careful reading of WP:FRINGE and, indeed, the FAQ at the top of the page. We're not required to present fringe theories as plausible, nor are we required to present them from the perspective of believers. Dyrnych (talk) 00:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The following facts[edit]

Any edit that treats what happened as anything other than fact will get a revert from me. It puts this entire encyclopedia in disrepute when fringe beliefs are given similar weight to established historical fact. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:55, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I fear you seem to miss the point! This page is not a justification for 9/11 conspiracy theories, it is a description thereof. Nor is there an implicit suggestion that the conventional view is wrong; rather the page simply states what "conspiracy theorist/fringe believers" object to. So your knee-jerk reverts are ill-advised and undermine the purpose of this page, and make the issue less clear. It is also unscientific and dogmatic to talk about "established historic fact" when all versions of history are subjective; and in this particular case there are valid reasons to query some aspects of the official version of the events. Arrivisto (talk) 14:15, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
— The reputation of Wikipedia is neither so lofty nor so fragile that it would suffer from a suggestion that the US government might be wrong. Wikipedia is still a creature of the Internet. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 18:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
True, but neither do we portray conspiracist claptrap as if it were valid. Guy (Help!) 18:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
US Gov't might be wrong? And so is Popular Mechanics, Time, The Times of India, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the BBC and Le Monde? C'mon, with that many sources from that many countries, it is not merely an issue of the official view of the US government. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:42, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

That said, if someone does want to create a section listing the prominent conspiracies, you could add one, but I think it would be redundant. We have some listed in the lead section, and to some extent in the Types of Conspiracies section. Such a section would make the most sense, in my view, as a subsection (an ===heading===) of the Background section. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I did precisely that, but you reverted it! Also, how on earth could, on a conspiracy theory page, could a section listing the theories be redundant?! Arrivisto (talk) 11:23, 9 February 2016 (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.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 22 external links on 9/11 conspiracy theories. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

YesY Archived sources have been checked to be working

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:15, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Reptilian aliens[edit]

Note: This was originally posted at User talk:Supaflyrobby

If you wish to add a section about reptile aliens causing 9/11, please discuss it at Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories. While such ideas certainly belong on an article about Icke, I doubt they belong in an article about 9/11. Thanks, Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:40, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

It's a conspiracy theory about 9/11, clearly, so it would not belong there. I am reverting, and please bring your comments to the talk page
  • Since it's your material, the onus is on your to justify it. While you would naturally expect everything on the article to be fringe, this is way more fringe than everything else there. Several of your sources did not back up your claims about Icke's conspiracy, like the public survey that merely said 4% believed in alien reptiles, but nothing about reptiles and 9/11. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:37, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
@Oiyarbepsy:, @Ian.thomson: Perhaps you missed the Time Magazine mention cited by User talk:Supaflyrobby: "They are our leaders, our corporate executives, ... and they're responsible for the Holocaust, the Oklahoma City bombings and the 9/11 attacks". Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 19:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
What's needed here is at least secondary, preferably tertiary mainstream academic or journalistic sources which describe Icke's delusions about 9/11 in the broader context of 9/11 conspiracy theories (or perhaps his general ideas as they are used by 9/11 cranks, or his 9/11 conspiracies in the even broader context of conspiracy theories in general). Ian.thomson (talk) 06:41, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Actually, I think I am going to let this one die. I wanted to make the section on Icke mainly because the novelty of his lunacy amuses me. Could I spend the time and scour to pull it off? Sure, but it is probably not worth it just to slight some conspiracy theorists. Supaflyrobby (talk) 09:55, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


The material has been restored and removed again. Its sources are three works by Icke himself, and a Time article that doesn't mention 9/11. As I said, we need non-primary sources which describe Icke's general ideas in a broader context of 9/11 conspiracy theories, or Icke's 9/11 ideas in a broader context of general conspiracy theories. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Icke is a crackpot, we do not cite him directly, we rely on reliable independent sources to establish the significance of his statements and give context. Guy (Help!) 08:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
I think crackpot is too kind a descriptor for Mr. Icke. However, if whoever did restore it is hellbent on keeping the material up, I will help-a-brother out and point you in the right direction, but you will have to do the legwork yourself. Supaflyrobby (talk) 13:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
I guess I am the "whoever" but I am not hellbent. Icke is constructed of same material as Donald Trump, and he attracts the attention of major media with the same mysterious charm. We find his theories discussed in The Atlantic Monthly], Time Magazine, The Guardian, and The Sun. The Daily Mail reports that On September 20, 2001, nine days after 9/11 — the lizards blew up the Twin Towers, according to Icke — Pamela and Icke were married in a simple ceremony at Newport county court on the Isle of Wight. Now that we have a RS citing Icke's lizard theory of 9/11, can we keep it off this page? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 18:31, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I was not trying to be rude with the "whoever" comment, you are just an editor I do not know. You have obviously done your homework. Indeed, Mr Icke does have the uncanny ability to attract publicity, especially in his home UK. I did watch part of his "9/11 was an inside job" video and I must say it was one of the most bizarre things I have ever witnessed. It's a long and winding diatribe that might be of use to folks who are really into Cannabis or LSD-25. Based upon the WP:RS's that you have presented, I have little choice but to vote Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supaflyrobby (talkcontribs) 19:00, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
@Oiyarbepsy:, @Ian.thomson:, who opposed including this material on the page, I am looking forward to actual discussion on the Talk page. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 22:37, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
(Was the discussion before fake or something?) As I said earlier, my issue with the material was the sourcing.
The Atlantic, Time, Guardian, and the Sun articles don't discuss 9/11, so using them risks WP:SYNTH. The issue is not whether he's notable in a broader context, it's whether he has noteworthy ideas about 9/11 or whether 9/11 conspiracy theorists have used his ideas in any noteworthy way.
The Daily Mail article would be a start, but there's just the throwaway line. Really, without going into synth, all it would let us say is "Icke believes lizards were involved in 9/11."
The following sources probably have something about Icke's views on 9/11 or how 9/11 conspiracy theorists have used Icke's ideas, but I just woke up and still need breakfast:
*Internet Fictions by Davies, Kirchhofer, and Leppänen
*Rough Guide to Conspiracy Theories by McConnachie and Tudge
*A Culture of Conspiracy by Michael Barkun
*Suspicious Minds: Why We Believe Conspiracy Theories by Rob Brotherton
Ian.thomson (talk) 00:31, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
@Ian.thomson: Perhaps you missed the Time Magazine mention cited by User talk:Supaflyrobby: "They are our leaders, our corporate executives, ... and they're responsible for the Holocaust, the Oklahoma City bombings and the 9/11 attacks". Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 19:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)/ Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 00:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Ok, again, just woke up. Between that and the Daily Mail, we have enough for "David Icke believes that lizard people disguised as world leaders are responsible for 9/11." Ian.thomson (talk) 01:02, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. In poking around, there are books reviewing his ideas, too, but sometimes the work in "notabl-izing" the books is not trivial. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 01:10, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
He does have a book on 9/11 called "Alice in Wonderland and the World Trade Center Disaster" that I found when I was writing the original post. I am not saying I am planning on reading it, but based upon the reviews it seems like he weaves a pretty far reaching web. I suspect that is how he manages to lure people in. If he just hit people with "Reptilian Aliens" right out of the gate he would lose them. Like any good propagandist, he starts small with digestible Emotional ploys, then builds upon that. I was honestly planning on ditching this section, but since you worked to bring it back I will happily pitch in if you need me to.Supaflyrobby (talk) 02:46, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

That's a primary source, though. We really need other people writing about Icke, to ensure WP:DUE weight, avoid original research, because he's rather prolific, and because we don't want to encourage his fanbase into going "but this citation was fine" after inserting twelve-pages sourced entirely to his works.

Did the books I link to have nothing? I'm about to head out, so I don't have time to check. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:56, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I totally get that, and IMHO he does not deserve more than a paragraph or maybe 2 at the most in this context. Supaflyrobby (talk) 03:02, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Earl King Jr. (talk · contribs) just removed the text again on an WP:IDLI complaint. I have re-reverted his edit. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 05:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
It not a notable addition to the article, it is not even fringe theory. [1] Reverting and name calling a vandal in the process is not a sign of getting along with others to build an encyclopedia. Earl King Jr. (talk) 06:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Don't just rant, King -- Make your case. Argue against all the cites and sources. Collaborate, cooperate, and consult. Wantonly destroying the work of others is vandalism. Stop doing it. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 07:57, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
@Ian.thomson: -- sorry I blitzed on your sources. They look promising. I will check them out when I can. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 08:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2016[edit]

Like to add a section name Alternative ViewPoint or CounterPoint: Containing the following text:

911 was it Orchestrated?

1. Jet fuel is essentially "kerosene" and can not melt or weaken the very very high strength steel that was specially designed to withstand cat 5 hurricanes for 110 story high twin towers. The steel beams were vertical for 110 stories and as said very high strength special steel (not the re-bar type that the fool on youtube put in a "forge" at much higher temp than kerosene burns. It couldn't happen,

2. The fires burned "White" hot for 3 weeks in the basements.

3. Another mysterious building was destroyed but upon inspection the vault in the basement of building #7 had already been opened and emptied: the missing vault contents were the ENRON investigation Evidence that was going to be used to prosecute the ENRON culprits. Yeah... getting the picture?

4. Rumors are that NO JEWS went to work that day , they were "rumored" to have gotten a "jew" call to NOT go to work that day ( I would hope this is not true but that is the rumors and on top of that the Israeli President was rumored to be very happy about the towers coming down as he knew the USA would come to do the war for them using our young men and women and its still going on in VietRaqIstanYria, at the direction of foreign Trillionaires who control our govt thru "Campaign Donations" (payola)).

5. 1,600 FIRST RESPONDERS DIED, but not in the 1st day, rather they died days, weeks, months and years later from what is rumored to be nano-lead particle ingestion into their lungs.

6. Since jet fuel of that quantity burns off in less than 30 minutes and would not melt or even make soft that high quality steel, the question becomes what did melt the steel holding up the twin towers? Rumors are that the newly developed THERMITE NANO particle explosive was packed into specific floors (the same floors that planes hit directly) to make sure the towers came down AND the same NANO Thermite Explosive was also packed into the basement again to make sure the towers came down, which explains the 3 week "white hot" fires in the basement. *Thermite is normally known as an incendiary and burns white hot like phosphorous, but in the nano version its about 100 times more powerful and becomes more of an explosive.

7. Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD's) 's were never found at all period in Iraq.

8. The scuttlebutt is that there are 80 people who own more than 50% of all the worlds wealth and resources, AND they want the other half; thus using the foolish USA's military, they take a country , then order our guys out and move in their developers buying war ravaged property for nothing, and rape the resources, then on to the next area.

9. Similar to other govt cover-ups, All the evidence was covered or destroyed, and no independent studies were allowed at all. Strangely like the JFK assassination in which the Limo was immediately refurbed and all evidences (like bullet hole in windshield, bullet holes in seats, etc) were all destroyed, the substitute driver who did not speed up but actually slowed down until he was sure JFK was dead were never independently investigated, all the agents were on the chase car instead of Limo where they were sworn to be, etc ), all evidences of 911 are still suppressed.

References: [1]


INVENTPEACE (talk) 17:03, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done No. This isn't Infowars or Stormfront. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:06, 19 February 2016 (UTC)


References

  1. ^ Book by "Christopher Bollyn" : Bollyn.com with book named: "Solving 911 The Deception that Changed the World" .

The article does not mention anything about the camera's perspective toward the original World Trade Center towers![edit]

Hello everyone!

I've read through the 9/11 conspiracy theories article and it looks like to me that we never mentioned that almost every news source pointed their cameras to the same spot (North Tower to the right, South Tower, to the left, North Tower closer to the camera and the South Tower farther from the camera). If someone has some spare time to maybe add this to the main article and word it correctly for the people to read and understand it, that will be very awesome. You are more than welcome to post any suggestions, research information, and comments under the "Comments, suggestions, and research information" section. Thank you everyone and have a wonderful day! Torninterconnected (talk) 01:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


Comments, suggestions, and research information

Do you have an RS discussing the subject in the context of conspiracy theories? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 01:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
What Sfarney said. Bear in mind that the geography of Manhattan largely dictates that view, since that is what the cameras on tall buildings in Midtown and points north (where the TV studios are) will see. There's nothing south of the Battery before Staten Island, and Brooklyn's not a place where TV crews tend to congregate. Acroterion (talk) 01:12, 25 February 2016 (UTC).

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 9/11 conspiracy theories. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

YesY Archived sources have been checked N but failed to be useful/working

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:51, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

FF911Truth pic of backhoe with "molten steel"[edit]

I forgot where I read this, but the picture of the backhoe picking up some molted slag being cooled off that was provided by "Fire Fighters for 9/11 truth" was apparently cropped from a larger picture, possibly even before the 9/11 attacks. Does anybody know of any evidence of this? Even if it wasn't, I doubt the picture was originally taken by them. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 15:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 9/11 conspiracy theories. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

YesY Archived sources have been checked to be working

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Fahad al-Thumairy should be moved to another page[edit]

Fahad al-Thumairy's role in 9/11 is no longer a conspiracy theory. He probably should get his own page.

A New York Times article from today: Saudi Imam, 2 Hijackers and Lingering 9/11 Mystery. The "Saudi Imam" in the title is Thumairy.

I'm not certain of Wikipedia's rules on copyright laws so I won't quote anything. Instead, at the article Ctrl-F for "Thumairy".

AllThatJazz2012 (talk) 18:57, 18 June 2016 (UTC)