Talk:Scholars for 9/11 Truth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Self Advertizing and Ethics[edit]

No, no, and no. If you owned a publishing company and had an entry about your publishing company in your encyclopedia that gave you, the publisher, glowing praise would that be ethical? No it would not. Is it kosher? No it is not. Would I write an article about myself? No I would not.

Who created this entry and why? If the group needs a web-page to announce to the world that they exist I suggest Yahoo/Geocities. Not here! Wjbean

The article has survived four rounds of proposed deletion; it's not going anywhere. If you detect problems of bias in the article, please either correct them or discuss them individually on this talk page. Middenface 09:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge proposal[edit]

How do you fix that tag? SkeenaR 04:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)Got it.

I removed the merge tag because I reconsidered whether the proposal was the right thing to do and came to the conclusion that it is not. If anyone else has an opinion they would like to share please do so. We need to make this article over as well. SkeenaR 02:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

One needs to understand that this movement isn’t about promoting any conspiracy theory. They aren’t expounding any; all they are doing is questioning the science behind the official explanation. This needs to be made clear. H0riz0n 02:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

AfD[edit]

For the record, let me say that I am in favor of deleting this article. Should the AfD fail, I would like to recommend a massive rewrite of the entire article, a complete overhaul, beginning with the section that lists everyone involved with the project. Isopropyl 21:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Addition of (date) works[edit]

I am questioning the addition of every work ever published by this group. Remember, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Consider parallels at SCO-Linux; there is no need to list every contribution of a particular group to a debate. Isopropyl 23:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree that posting links the news stories that mention st911, like Paul Craig Robert's story in Counterpunch (Feb 6th), doesn't really count as a work of the Scholars group. Bov 23:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Mere collections of external links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding a list of content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia.

Source: WP:NOT

I added some, since people complained they did nothing. Now, people complain that I added to much... --Striver 00:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes Striver, You added too much. Also under works You added commentaries from other sources, which is clearly not their work. Should be reverted back to a list of links to articles. A human 02:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not crazy about the quotes. Many of them are just quotes from newspaper op-ed articles about this group.. Striver, it would be much better if you wrote this stuff in your own words rather than copying quotes from other places. Also the "impact" section is not appropriate, all it does is say how many Google hits the group gets. Rhobite 22:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

When will something happen with this? We want to have the page describe the scholars group, but we don't need to know what happened on each month. I don't want to be the one to just delete that section because obviously Striver put effort into it. Bov 22:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I completely agree the month by month view is annoying, I will work to try to clean it up. H0riz0n 03:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Deletion Question Cont..[edit]

For those of us who are now just discovering this topic and have been closed out from putting in our two cents...

  • Strong Keep -- This group is a fast growing movement across university campuses. The group is actively conducting talks on the subject, and petitioning for peer-review research into the matter. Unfortunately, we are all still to close to the issue. The 911 issue will be with all thoses that experienced it forever and it is still too early to exactly say what the final results of the 911 Challenge Movement will be. So we shouldn’t be hasty with any delete keys. H0riz0n 05:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is a great encyclopedia, but it has a serious bias, which is throught the whole encyclopedia and has especially to do with issues like Israel and 9-11
  • Agree, it's a strong keep. --Slipgrid 00:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Only keep it if it's a non-biased non-soapbox and acurately represents a neutral point of view. I disagree with the ST911 group's assertions, but I believe people should be able to know who they are, what they claim, and what others think about them, and why they are relevant. That means that the parts about them having no structural engineers as members, etc. must stay in the article so that people can see the truth of the matter when they come here looking for the truth. --Rcronk 16:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Criticism[edit]

Someone wrote in the critism:"...but no papers asserting the opposite are posted, that a Boeing 757 did indeed hit the building as described by dozens of witnesses at the scene." I am not aware that dosens of people either a) saw a 757 hit or b) could if shown two pictures distinguish a 757 from 747 or a 777 let alone a drone flying at 400 km/h. I think this sentence should be removed because in itself is neither supported or sourced. Any comments... H0riz0n 02:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

It looks like you haven't read the witness statements. If you are going to say they were all wrong, you should see what they actually have to say. Start here.
A number of these witnesses also correctly identified a C-130 flying over the area within a minute of the attack - that plane was later confirmed by news stories, providing strong evidence that witnesses were not just 'confused' and unable to distinguish between different types of planes.
Claims that they could not identify a plane at a high speed do not consider that witnesses were located all over the area - up high in multistory buildings, parked in cars, on the lawn, and even further - yet, they are all saying the same thing: I saw a commercial jet approach and hit the Pentagon. Except for 2 people located some distance away, not a single witness, of dozens, ever says, "I saw a missile!" or "You know, that sure didn't look like a commercial jet to me . . ." Bov 19:43, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Peer review[edit]

I am sick of people claiming that Jones's, Griffin's, and Fetzer's papers are peer reviewed. Peer review means a paper has been submitted and approved for publication in a reputable scientific journal. It has been approved by anonymous referees who are experts in the field. Nobody has ever cited a source which says that these papers are peer reviewed. Jones's paper is published in no journal and it uses a ton of nonacademic references. It's going to be published in a non-peer reviewed book, whose editor is an economist, not a scientist. Fetzer claims that his paper is being published in a book -- which he edits himself! Obviously it doesn't count as peer review to publish your own paper in a book you edit.

Unless someone cites sources describing how these papers were peer reviewed, please do not make this claim. Rhobite 15:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

As if you don't know this, it's junk science and that is all it is.--MONGO 15:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, the authors themselves says the papers are peer-reviewed [1]. It has been metioned in the media [2] and on BYU own website [3] where Jones is answering "he feels “a bit awkward” that some colleagues now question the peer review process his paper initially passed through. “My paper was peer-reviewed and accepted for publication before being made available on the Web with the editor’s approval,” Jones said. “The reviewers included a physicist and an engineer, I now understand. The review has not been shown to have been inappropriate and I believe it was appropriate.” Still, Jones said he willingly submitted his paper to another publication, where he is confident it will pass peer review a second time. ". It is you Rhobite, who claim that they are lying. You have to come up with a source that states that the papers are not peer-reviewed. Otherwise we only have your word on it. EyesAllMine 19:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Of course, the authors themselves are idiots. Intelligent design advocates say that ID and evolution are "two competing theories".. doesn't make it true. I'm OK with adding a note that these papers are purportedly peer-reviewed. Jones's own university questioned whether his paper was actually peer reviewed, which speaks volumes. My source is the fact that none of these papers have ever been published in a reputable scientific journal. That is the definition of scientific peer review. It is YOUR burden to show that they have in fact been peer reviewed. Rhobite 21:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
"Jones's own university questioned whether his paper was actually peer reviewed, which speaks volumes." No. They questioned the peer-review, but has apparently come to an understanding. Please read the link provided. I've shown that the jones paper has been and probably will be peer-reviewed again. EyesAllMine 17:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
They are going to be published by Elsevier, as far as I understand, so that is a very legitimate publishing organization and I know that there was a review process for that to happen. As for whether they are idiots, I will only say that I know that Steve is not one. 198.207.168.65 22:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Jones's paper is going to be published in a non-peer reviewed book, edited by Paul Zarembka, an economist with a decidedly left-wing slant. Although Elsevier is the publisher, it is still not a scientific journal. Rhobite 22:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Oddly, Jones is no longer mentioned on Zarembka's site: [4]. Has there been a falling out? Griffin's paper is now listed in place of Jones's. Rhobite 22:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't know about a falling out, although I think that if Jones is not going to be in that book, there's a good chance that's because it contains some amount of junk science, which he appears to advocate against. I wasn't clear on whether he was going to stay with that book or not. He is for real, though, so it's only a matter of time before he has a credible publishing outcome, if this one isn't it. But I agree with your assessment on Zarembka and this is a big problem in the 9/11 movement right now, that people without any science background are going around trying to talk to the public about the science. There are those who advocate that anyone can understand that the collapses could be from demolitions because it's common sense when you really look at those collapses and consider the points. I agree with that. But then having those people turn around and try to pontificate about the science behind it -- on the radio, in print, etc -- does everyone a disservice. Bov 06:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Rhobite and Bov, it says "Abstracts of chapters (full text also available under ScienceDirect subscription)" on the link. All chapters are not mentioned. EyesAllMine 22:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I looked at the Elsevier page, which I have access to, and it does not yet list Chapter 23, so it is not clear if Jones will be in it or not. Either way, I don't know that, for example, engineers or physicists were called on to peer review the parts written by scientists because the overall book is not scientific alone, but covers a broad range. Probably the best solution to this is to directly ask for the credentials of who reviewed the book and who is being included in the final version. We can't know who exactly reviewed the book, but we should be able to ask what fields they were in. However, I don't have the time or the incentive to do this. I believe that a peer review process is extremely important for advancing sceince, however, the situation with 9/11 is tricky because it is so politically charged and infused with both government lies and nonsense theories - nutty stuff from both the researchers and the government. The reports are deceptive, there are no precedents, and the evidence is muddy. That said, I think a peer review of Jone's work would be hard pressed to refute many of his claims, despite the opinions of some (i.e., certain engineers) who are not backing up their own claims with scientific research or evidence, but hand-waving. 198.207.168.65 01:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

The real disservice is that anyone would claim that they know controlled demolition happened or that there was a deliberate coverup or any of the rest of this zaniness. It is a real slap in the face to all those people that died on 9/11 and a total disservice to science in general to expect anyone to believe that these events happened as the conspiracy theorists would like you to think...not one shred of their opinions has any proof of anything that would give credence to this nonsense. Profiteering at the expense of the dead with this stuff is rather sickening.--MONGO 08:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

>>>"or that there was a deliberate coverup"

Are you serious? Even the FBI admits they knew years in advance that these attacks were being planned, but Condi Rice covered that up by saying they had no idea -- can we say, 'cover-up?' There are many levels of deliberate cover-up in the story of 9/11. Whether or not they extend to 'zaniness' is unknown, but to claim there were no 'cover-ups' when the many little ones are already in mainstream press seems pretty zany itself. This is not some great Administration that goes around pure as the driven snow - these are the guys who, today, tell photographer Brian Steidle, a former Marine captain, to stop showing his photos to anyone. Does Brian Steidle do a disservice to the world by exposing what's going on? The Bush Admin thinks he does. 'Cover-up' is their middle name. The only ones profiteering off 9/11 are the defense, oil and insurance industries among other friends of the Bush Admin.Bov 19:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see, so this has nothing more to do with anything other than your dislike of the Bush administration...as if the Clintonians did nothing to coverup Monica....the price the U.S. paid for the ineffective and limp wristed foreign policy of the Clinton administration was 9/11...Clinton's failure to act effectively and with decisiveness after the 93 WTC bombing, the USS Cole, the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania sent the wrong message to the islamofascists. As I said, you're pulling at straws Bov, just like the piece-meal selective quote of a portion of my previous comment...a specialty amoung conspiracy theorists is to take small sections of others comments and twist them into something opposite of what they stated in full.--MONGO 16:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
MONGO: Please refrain from making what appear to be personal attacks. I know you are an admin, and, as far as I can tell, a good productive one. Don't slip on a simple policy like WP:NPA by seeming to say that fellow editors "must be smoking crack" (in your last edit summary). There are people of good faith on both sides of this issue. Dick Clark 16:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Dick Clark: I stand by all I post, even edit summaries...only fools would believe that there was a deliberate government coverup, or even that the government was negligent in regards to 9/11...there is no good faith when editor's sole purpose is to push moronic POV's that have no basis in fact and misquote my comments in an attempt to twist what I wrote. Please refrain from assuming that I make personal attacks, when an editor uses only a small portion of my comment and attempts some kind of word play. Happy editing!--MONGO 17:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
MONGO: You are also clearly POV-pushing here. If you want to make the case that the scholars associated with this group are practicing pseudoscience, go ahead and make your case within the boundaries of Wikipedia policies and guidelines (i.e. using actual sources, rather than your own assertions; there are plenty of notable entities who are on your side on this). You don't get to trash WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA under any circumstances, even when you feel provoked by people who you consider to be of lesser intelligence than you. I would again request that you refrain from personal attacks on other editors, such as calling their POVs "moronic" or calling them "fools." Also, you are clearly violating WP:NOR insofar as you state, without sourcing, that "only fools would believe that there was a deliberate government coverup, or even that the government was negligent in regards to 9/11". You don't get to make such assertions with your editor hat on, and, if you do, you aren't abiding by the community's standards. Cheers, Dick Clark 17:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Dick Clark: You are clearly POV pushing here. I've made my case (oh, which happens to be the same version supported by every mainstream press and every sane government) on many articles related to the events of 9/11. Bov and the others here know fully what the arguments are, so as a newcomer here, I would say that you are attacking me...how uncivil of you. Bov can't help it if he wants to take small portions of my comments and misrepresent them...that is what politically inspired conspiracy theorists do. "Scholars for 9/11 Truth"...what an oxymoron.--MONGO 17:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
MONGO: Civility is clearly defined in real terms at WP:CIVIL. I would argue that my above defining of your behavior as uncivil wholly jives with the following example of incivility offered on the policy page: "judgmental tone in edit summaries ("fixed sloppy spelling," "snipped rambling crap")". Either you are willing to be civil or not. If you persist in arguing that you have some special right (in certain cases) to be uncivil, we can move to RfC, a process which I find totally boring and a big waste of time. It is unacceptable, though, for any editor (particularly an admin) to openly and unabashedly violate Wikipedia policy. Cheers, Dick Clark 18:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Small point: please do not use the word "jives" when "jibes" is called for.Edison 14:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Under no circumstances do you threaten me...if you have a problem (and it appears you do) then follow through. I am not being uncivil, nor have I spoken unkindly of any editor here...what on earth are you talking about? I haven't argued that I have any special rights...you seem to indicate that I have argued that I have special rights, but I haven't arued that I have special rights. How have I been uncivil? Did I label any editor here wrongly? I see that you have a real beef with my comments and I find that perplexing...do you think there is such as a thing know as a real Scholar that is in search of real truth regarding 9/11? I still don't understand where you see that I have argued about having a special right to be uncivil. Are you a "Scholar for 9/11 Truth" for if you are, then I could see why you would find my arguments against this ad/spam article to be uncivil. Otherwise, you are making absolutely no sense whatsoever.--MONGO 18:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Mongo: Please do not understand my previous statement to be a threat. I am simply operating on my understanding of Wikipedia policy/procedure. My understanding is that when an editor refuses to comply with policies set forth by the community, and refuses to reform his or her behavior, other editors have the responsibility to request compliance, and, if such requests are met with disdain (and no improvement in the behavior), to then proceed to RfC. I explained earlier that your edit summary ("must be smoking crack") that seemingly denigrates other editors is a personal attack and a breach of civility. Additionally, your assertion that "only fools would believe that there was a deliberate government coverup, or even that the government was negligent in regards to 9/11" is uncivil, is a personal atack (WP:NPA) against editors who are espousing the conspiracy view (their own advocacy activities here are in violation of WP:NPOV as well). Now, it may offend you that some would suggest that the government was less than upright in its handling of 9/11, but Wikipedia is not censored. No view, no matter how ridiculous you personally may find it, is rightfully subjected to ridicule. If the community decides that a topic is notable enough for inclusion in the encyclopedia, all editors should do their best to contribute in a constructive manner, allowing our readers to peruse the available notable, verifiable sources, and come to their own conclusion. Now, I am skeptical of the claims made by folks referred to in this article. To answer you question, no, I am not personally a "Scholar for 9/11 Truth." In fact, I personally think that most such folks are pretty crazy, or at least jumping to some unwarranted conclusions. Does that mean that it is okay to lambast them and editors who agree with them? No. The community has established parameters for including and excluding information in articles. Let's play by the rules. Dick Clark 19:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

All that and you respond by calling them "crazy" and yet somehow I guess I am the only one that is making personal attacks. Okay.--MONGO 19:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
MONGO: The difference is that I clearly couched my own opinion as such, and not as incontrovertible fact. Another difference is that I am arguing for a rigorous adherence to Wikipedia policy in spite of my own opinions. I am not using my opinions as an argument for or against a particular edit. I was answering the direct question that you asked me above. Dick Clark 20:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Dick Clark: You called them crazy.--MONGO 21:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Here are my words: "In fact, I personally think that most such folks are pretty crazy, or at least jumping to some unwarranted conclusions." So either they are crazy, or jumping to unwarranted conclusions. That means that I didn't say that they were definitively crazy. Dick Clark 21:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
"Jones's paper is going to be published in a non-peer reviewed book," ... according to Rhobite :) May we have a source please? EyesAllMine 22:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I rather have Dick Clark calling me crazy than MONGO calling me "a nice guy". Any day. --Striver 00:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

It's unlikely that an editor such as yourself would be considered a nice guy by anyone after you tell a bunch of them to fuck themselves.[5]--MONGO 04:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, i said "fuck you", but i dont rehash cheap shots ad inf.--Striver 05:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPA and don't forget it. Or just keep it up and make my day.--MONGO 05:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
What personal attack? I am sorry if i made any of the sort. Please be assured that it was not intentional, and i would appreciate that you could specify how i made a personal attack, so i can avoid doing it in the future. And yes, we are still in not so friendly terms.--Striver 11:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
In fact, try reading this quote from your link:
"people make mistakes, often learn from them and change their ways."--Striver 11:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
We are badly diverging from talking about this article. I'll assume good faith that you will stop thinking people are out to get you.--MONGO 11:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I am sick of people citing the non-peer-reviewed NIST, FEMA, and 9-11 commission reports as reliable sources. The 9-11 commission report, for example, claims that the core of each twin tower was "a hollow steel shaft". Resorting to such a huge lie on such a critical matter renders it highly questionable in general. The FEMA and NIST reports candidly admit that they didn't even study the collapse of the towers, only events leading up to the collapses.

At least the scholars of 9-11 truth are inviting all theories, and demanding all the evidence. That right there is more than the government can claim.

71.128.166.192 04:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

This "Mongo" is an admin for Wikipedia? Wow, that proves my suspicions about the credibility of this service. Here we have a Wiki staff member pushing his subjective views on 9/11 and resorting to childish defensive behaviour just so he can defend the official government propaganda. All this "Mongo" can do is accuse everyone who questions the official story as being "unpatriotic" and a "bush-hater". If this is the kind of juvenile tendencies the Wikipedia staff members promote, then Wikipedia's credibility cannot be taken seriously. This "Mongo" is not even an expert in physics, mechanical engineering and such and here he has the nerve to attack the expert analysis of the Scholars for 9/11 Truth.

This "Mongo" has violated his admin privileges in the most blatant manner. He is nothing more than a typical pro-government story supporter and that is - he responds with the same immature rubbish of repetitive denials (seen throughout the web) in order to promote his own political viewpoints. The sad thing is, since he is a Wiki admin, any criticism that may be directed towards his childish behaviour is well within his power to edit and censor. I would not be surprised that he would abuse his administrative powers in order to censor anything that may identify the personal attacks and insults in his posts. "Mongo" is a direct slap in the face of the Wikipedia's reputation to maintain a public venue for neutral discussion and information.

To anyone who still blindly holds on to the official government propaganda, DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH before accusing others of being "unpatriotic". And please don't ever dare to call any of us who question the official story as a group that spits on the face of the 9/11 victims and their families. The FACT is, is that even 9/11 families have already questioned the official story and have persistently called for a new and complete 9/11 investigation. Read the sources below before you pro-government story supporters resort to such cowardly name-calling:

Respected Leaders and Families Launch 9/11 Truth Statement Demanding Deeper Investigation into the Events of 9/11:

Real patriots question their own government and don't allow themselves to blindly follow a potentially tyrannical authority.

Archival McTannith 09:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

External Links[edit]

ST911 is a group of researchers -- if we link to every external site by or about each of these researchers we will be linking to hundreds of websites. We already have a page specifically for Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11, where researchers can each have links to their own page and information. This page is about the group, not each of the individuals within the group, which is what Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11 is about. Steven E. Jones and Morgan Reynolds each have their own pages already. Bov 00:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I provided an expanded review of the society's positions that was neutral as a description of the society's positions. That, I thought, was part of the idea of Wikipedia. I have noticed persons who are acutely biased against Scholars exerting influence on this board. Now that I understand how Wikipedia operates, I will ask anyone who ever places confidence in any of your articles, "But how do you know they are true?" Because this case demonstrates in a vivid fashion that your entries can be warped and biased beyond recognition. I founded the society, yet you do not even accept my date for its founding or the number of its members! I conclude, based on this experience, that Wikipedia is a massive fraud and deception. Disgusting and unreal!

James H. Fetzer Founder and Co-chair Scholars for 9/11 Truth

No, you presented your argument. "X is true because of Y and Z" is different from "SF911T believes X is true", as the former purports that Y and Z are true when they are in fact your beliefs. You have your own webspace to lay out your complete argument, which is fine. It's not wikipedia's responsibility to repeat that information, especially as it's already mentioned on our 9/11 conspiracy theories page and is by far not unique to your group. What we're trying to do is represent your unique views. You are welcome to make factual corrections (as another editor has put back in), but this is not a place for you to air out your views. --Mmx1 11:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

>> "I conclude, based on this experience, that Wikipedia is a massive fraud and deception. Disgusting and unreal!" This type of emotional and irrational response is typical of those asserting that commercial jets didn't hit buildings on 9/11, but that instead, something else did - missiles or military craft or something. The website of this group promotes this idea exclusively, even though a number of members do not support such claims. -

Concerned citizen and wikipedia user:Wow. Some of you guys are admins?! jeez. And you are saying things haven't been covered up?! The way you are automatically insulting the character of the messenger, without debating the evidence is appauling.

I have feeling that Wikipedia is a manipulated organization that covertly adheres to governmental authority in some way shape or form. The admins of this site are now showing their true colours. They are a bunch of self-righteous defensive individuals who can't face the scientific facts being constantly presented to the public. Wikipedia should not be trusted because it's starting to show all the characterstics of a pro-government story whitewashing tool. Read more about the origins of Wikipedia here:

Thank you for deleting all the new links in the media section, it again confirms the bias overhere. Apparently Wikipedia shills in control don't like testimony of NIST whistleblowers or the recently televised panel from C-Span. Shame on you!

To Mr. Fetzer: Explaining revision[edit]

To explain the revisions, wikipedia abides by a strict policy of Neutral Point of View. We are not here to air our your group's theories, only to describe your group. This is not the place to explain what lead to your views, only the views your groups hold. Also, keep in mind WP:AUTO. It is considered bad form to write about yourself or groups that you are personally involved in. Your factual corrections are appreciated (I presume the individual you removed is no longer with SF911T), but please refrain from inserting commentary written from your POV. The article is supposed to describe the group neutrally, not serve as a showcase for its arguments--Mmx1 19:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

It is inappropriate for User:Ombudsman to revert to Fetzer's version of the article. This article is about the Scholars for 9/11 Truth group, it is not a platform for them to promote their conspiracy theories. Fetzer added large amounts of text which present his own beliefs about what happened on 9/11. I'm disappointed that experienced Wikipedians are reverting to his version simply to prove a point. Rhobite 20:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
"This article is about the Scholars for 9/11 Truth group, it is not a platform for them to promote their conspiracy theories."
I agree with this. I think a concise write-up of beliefs they share should be able to be included, but that the main area to describe alternative theories should be on the 9/11 conspiracy theories page, (although I wish that could be renamed). The unique contributions of the group should be noted, not the general beliefs about things like the temperatures of the fires, that many other researchers share. Bov 21:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

COMMENT[edit]

In that lightMmx1, perhaps you would delete the blatant advertising and POV in the "Criticism of Scholars For 9/11 Truth" Section? I did a fine job with npov and you put it back to those horrible sites and references? These are the things that this organization does not want a part of. Each of those links is to an advertising site that has little to do with the organization. Why not keep this as a wikified page instead of a propaganda page. I see you liked that I pulled the superfluous medals from the honorable. I think I missed a couple more. You going to pull them or me? Tell me how to comment the edits so it shows what I am doing on an edit page? 911 Eyewitness 20:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

First, I did not revert your page (you can see by clicking on "history" tab above), but I agree with it. That section describes mostly in-fighting between the conspiracy theorists; you'd do better to ask another conspriacty theorist about it. It is mostly NPOV by my judgement and looks to attribute beliefs to groups. As for edits, below the edit box there's a place to put edit summary. I have no idea what you're talking about with regard to medals. --Mmx1 00:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Critique Section[edit]

There are major problems in POV with this article in the section on criticism. There are also major problems that the "Scholars for 911 Truth" are going with anything other than controlled demolition in NYC. Study by members and others in areas outside that continue but it is not conclusive enough for their official endorsement. For you to have this absolute fabrication is merely advertising for the sites that they link to. I am going to delete that section if a rewrite is not done. 911 Eyewitness 19:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

news[edit]

  • www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2006/260306Scholars.htm --Striver 02:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for Returning to AfD[edit]

It is still too early to bring this article back to AfD, since any such effort will be clouded by editors who would see such an action (rightly) as disruptive and thus vote without reference to the merit, or lack of merit, of the article. However, the serious questions raised in both AfDs remain, and they are compounded by the important isues raised above. This is a strong candidate and deletion and I suggest that this be brought back to AfD in June or July. Eusebeus 10:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Why is it a strong candidate for deletion? Which of the criterias for deletion does this article meet? EyesAllMine 17:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Compare "Scholars..." to "PNAC"[edit]

As a reflective exercise, I recommend the disputants in this debate juxtapose the "Scholars for..." page with the "PNAC" page [6]. In doing so myself, I've noticed two communities that have the scent of diametric opposition to each other, even though they address what appear to be entirely different topical matters. Despite their obvious differences, making the content of the "Scholars ..." page isomorphic in structure and organization with the "PNAC" page may resolve the underlying disputes about bias on the "Scholars..." page. It has been my humble observation that absolute rules are often bent toward particular ends, meaning Wikipedia's NPOV policies which make for good theoretical guidelines appear to be falling short in bringing about actual consensus of opinion on this particular matter. Relative isomorphism, which in this case implicitly accepts the pervasive nature of biased reporting, would likely provide the most even-handed compromise.--Zegna 22:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I should note that the PNAC is a frequent target for people who think they pull the strings in the White House, and the article was probably started up by people attacking the group. This, on the other hand, has been written in order to sell SF911T. I think the current PNAC layout is pretty clean and NPOV and should be a model for this page. Uh, what's relative isomorphism? --Mmx1 19:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Relative isomorphism is a phrase I coined to refer to the method of comparison I described above (I'm unaware of how it might be used in other contexts). I'm using it here to describe a means of representing two seemingly different systems of belief, the PNAC movement and the 9/11 Truth movement. While these movements have different causes, they both represent movements in the social and political domains, or at least so they have been cast as such in the debates surrounding their existence. When such debates arise, naturally advocates and critics will have relative viewpoints that skew the favor of "neutrality" to their side. Hence, guidelines for neutrality can slide into a gray area as different sides manipulate the language of neutrality to imply their right to their positions (a process which I personally feel is normal and necessary to these kinds of movements). By requiring all sides to adhere to a particular homologous structure which supercedes language, which I'm calling isomorphism, you enable their relative biases to be diametrically juxtaposed. Because PNAC's page has been apparently accepted by the Wikipedia community, despite whoever may have actually initiated this page, the 9/11 Truth page should probably be structured in a similar manner. Thus, any potential biases on the 9/11 Truth page can be symmetrically aligned with potential biases on the PNAC page (or any other comparable page that's widely accepted).--Zegna 22:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The articles may be comparable, but the organizations are not. PNAC is a real organization with a real budget and real notability in the mainstream media. Scholars is a living-room organization with no notability in the mainstream press, and deserves to be Afd'd. Morton devonshire 02:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Unlike S9/11T, PNAC has achieved real goals in the real world. They have achieved the "New Pearl Harbor" they spoke of needing in "Rebuilding America's Defenses". TruthSeeker1234 22:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

merge from The National 9/11 Debate[edit]

It's about an event that this group has announced and is sponsoring, but we don't have enough information about it to require splitting from this article. It should be turned into a section in here. Night Gyr 18:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I merged it inTruthSeeker1234 15:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Junk Science?[edit]

I am very curious about the charges of 'junk science' which MONGO and others have been leveled at Jones. I have never heard anyone specifically state how and where Jones has deviated from the scientific method, or where he has gone wrong. Has anyone done a formal critique of Jones' paper? Note that when skeptics accuse the government of 'junk science', they back it up with rigorous analysis, such as this -[7]

MONGO? Mmx? Anyone?

TruthSeeker1234 15:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Just as no respectable journalist would spend an ounce of energy on Bohemian Grove world-domination theories, nobody will spend time on Jones' Junk Science. Morton devonshire 17:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

If you claim that such conspiracy theories are "junk science", you should explain in detail as to why that is the case and you must use legitimate scientific arguements and scientific sources to support your opinions. If you do not do this you would be proving nothing but your arrogance and ignorance on the subject matter at hand. Archival McTannith 09:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

No reputable journalist has spent any time on Jones' Junk, other than to place it in the category of conspiracy fabrications. Morton devonshire 15:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but why is it junk Morton devonshire? Something must have led you to this opinion. I find his paper persuasive, and very scientific, but if you can just point out where he is wrong, perhaps I'll start believing the official story again. That would be a relief. TruthSeeker1234 23:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Where shall I begin. Hmmm, for starters, he's not qualified to render the opinions he renders. He's a physicist, not an engineer, has no training in engineering, never written professionally on the subject of engineering, has no experience as a structural engineer, never even interned with a structural engineer -- yet he opines on the subject of structural engineering. Sorry, that doesn't qualify as WP:RS -- look it up. Morton devonshire 02:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Speaking as a degreed engineer, I know that physicists are perfectly capable of analyzing the effects of gravity on materials and structures. Edison 14:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

That's an answer to a different question, Morton. Jones does not claim to be a structural engineer. His paper is on the physics involved. Your assumption that only a structural engineer is qualifed to comment on the collapse of the WTC is wrong. What would a structural engineer know about explosives, or molten metal, or conservation of angular momentum, for instance? Getting to the full truth about these unprecedented events will require input from various specialties.

Now, the question I asked was NOT "Is Jones a reputable source for WP?". The questions are, "Where has Jones gone wrong in his physics?" and "How did Jones deviate from the scientific method" and "How do you come to the conclusion that his is junk science?" TruthSeeker1234 03:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

If Jones' work had any merit, a reputable third party would have published his work. He is armed with just an opinion on the matter. Looking through his work, I see not one source that identifies that a controlled demolition expert was consulted, nor do I see any evidence that a single other reputable engineer or another physicist has bothered to substantiate his claims. That is why his work is junk science.--MONGO 09:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Question MONGO, shall we delete any reference to material which does not identify that a controlled demolition expert was consulted, and/or delete any reference to material whch does have a single other reputable engineer or physicist to substantiate its claims? Shall we call this the "MONGO doctrine"?
Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for the investigation of phenomena and the acquisition of new knowledge of the natural world, as well as the correction and integration of previous knowledge, based on observable, empirical, measurable evidence, and subject to laws of reasoning. Jones and the scholars are the ones who want to include all the data, for example molten metal. Molten metal is observable, empirical, meausureable, and subject to the laws of reasoning (i.e it goes directly to the temperature achieved. ) TruthSeeker1234 15:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
The empirical data may be correct -- I don't know one way or the other, but Jones and his accolytes go one step further when they draw conclusions based upon metallurgy -- that's the point where you need to be an expert, and Jones is not. Morton devonshire 18:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Above, User:TruthSeeker1234 asks "What would a structural engineer know about explosives, or molten metal, or conservation of angular momentum, for instance? " I would be very suprised if a structural engineer did not know quite a bit about explosives and conservation of angular momentum. The "molten metal" question would require a metal fire specialist (which Jones, apparently is not). (For what it's worth, I think Jones' work as junk science, as he is not and did not consult any relevant experts, but I'm saying a structural engineer might very well be a relevant expert.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I believe the issue of whether Jones consulted a "experts" or not is irrelevant. He is a physicist, and his paper addresses the issue of the event's physics. To become a physicist you simply MUST know about the things he talks about in his paper and you MUST know a fair deal about the properties of metals. You do not need to be an expert in these fields to understand the melting points of certain metals, what they look like, how they act, etcetera. His claims about aluminium and thermite can easily be verified by anybody, and indeed I intend to find out for myself whether he is speaking the truth or not. Perhaps you should conduct some experiments yourself. Frantically attempting to discredit his paper because he didn't consult "experts" shows nothing but desperation. If you can scientifically debunk his paper, that's all well and good, but until then, what ground do you have to stand on? Coconuteire 22:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Erm, I've read Jones' literature and one thing glared out at me: why didn't he go with sources more specific to the argument? That indicates pretty lazy research on his part or bad research (in which case, one might presume the guy was out to make a quick buck off the 9/11 hysteria going on at the time) or more likely, the guy went with the sources that he had access to and would grant him the time of day. Structural engineers are indeed relevant sources for his argument, but there are far better ones out there. So again, why not utilize sources more relevant to the argument? Aside from being a security risk, I'd tell this guy to take a hike, too. Shadowrun 12:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Look at it from the following perspective for a moment:

Assume that the "conspiracy-theorists" are right with what they say. Now think about the potential consequences: You would effectively have a US-government guilty of mass-murder, high treason and probably a list of other offences as long as my arm. If this were to be proven, the said government would not just face impeachment, but in all certainty some far more serious consequences. In addition, i think you could safely say that no one in this world would touch the United States of America with a barge-pole: i leave the political implications of that to your imagination. Given those circumstances, you could pose the question "if it was like that- would people really want to know?", and more specifically you could ask "would the scientific and political establishment want to know?" That may not explain wether or not Prof. Jones' theories are junk-science. What it *does* mean is that the possibility that the opinions of some of his colleagues may be tainted is just as real as the possibility that his expertise is worthless.86.41.210.214 16:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Notable Former Members[edit]

The section offers no reasonthis student was notable - though it clearly attempts to imply- but not say- he was killed for his membership (i clearly am deeply skeptical, why kill a lowly student instead of say a prof?). I think this section merits deletion unless someone can write a NPOV explanation of why this kid is notable.216.207.246.230 20:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion[edit]

The placement of a {{prod}} is inappropriate. WP:PROD states {{prod}} should only be used for "uncontroversial deletion candidates." Since this article recently went through an AfD without consensus, it can't qualify as an "uncontroversial deletion candidate." I'm removing the tag. --mtz206 (talk) 00:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, someone just beat me to it. --mtz206 (talk) 00:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Unverifiable according to Wikipedia standards[edit]

Most of what this article said was unverifiable by Wikipedia standards (See WP:RS), relying completely on the Scholars website for support. Morton devonshire 00:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Morton devonshire: You have in effect created a straw-man AfD here. You've deleted the seemingly pertinent content and then summarily filed an AfD. I thought Wikipedia was about consensus. I am trying my best to assume good faith here. I would encourage all those taking part in the AfD to review the article history. Dick Clark 02:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • You're doin a pretty bad job at assuming good faith then. Morton had nothign to do with the AFD. I nominated it after stumbling across this page. - pm_shef 02:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
So did you have a reason for doing this? Rkrichbaum 14:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

People that care about this article might be able to find something from news coverage worth adding: http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=%22Scholars+for+9%2F11+Truth%22&btnG=Search+News Some comparison of the article in its current state to its longer version http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scholars_for_9/11_Truth&oldid=54197907 may be warranted as well. I'm not sure why the links to the WP pages for some of the groups' members were deleted, for example. Шизомби 03:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

All of that stuff was eliminated because it's not verifiable, except with reference to the Scholars web site, which is not permitted by Wikipedia rules. The stuff comes out. Morton devonshire 06:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
WP:V states "Material from self-published sources, and other published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves, so long as:" (and then lists several provisions). I know you've read that section, so the best take I can make for your actions is that you're interpreting it in an aggressively narrow way. Perhaps some of the removals might have been warranted, but certainly not all of them. Шизомби 17:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
This article and its citations do not fall under any of the exceptions -- it's blog-based, and therefore unreliable. Morton devonshire 17:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I dont think members of organizations have to verified outside of the organizations webpage. Considering that would call for removing almost all member associations on every wiki page including Bush's link to Skull and Bones etc. I am particularly worried about the wholesale removal of information before this article was placed for deletion as well. It seems in bad faith. --Zer0faults 14:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I deleted unverifiable information -- blogs are not reliable sources according to Wikipedia. Somebody else Afd'd it. Morton devonshire 17:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
You are flat out incorrect in stating that blogs are never allowed as sources. As I noted on your talk page, "The Reliable Sources guideline (not a policy) states the following: Personal websites and blogs should not be used as secondary sources. That is, they should not be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website. Since the owner of this website is the subject of the article, even blog-like portions are acceptable for this and only this article....<snip>" Dick Clark 18:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
The worst part is this information was even attempted to be verified just removed. A quick google search shows James H. Fetzer admits to being a member with 2 other people listed in the original article, Steven Jones and David Ray Griffin. I dont think we will find a better source for Fetzer's involvement, other then himself. --Zer0faults 14:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
See WP:AGF I did check the sources, and found them to be other blogs and opinion pieces, lacking in the objective journalistic standards required by Wikipedia. Morton devonshire 18:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
If the group itself, and Metzer say he is part of the group, I think it can be factually stated that he is. If the opinion piece is written by himself, or the articles appear in a newspaper or its his own homepage, I think that meets the standard. I think they know what group they do or do not belong in. --Zer0faults 19:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
That covers 3 people. The rest is apparent puffery. Morton devonshire 19:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia: What it doesn't say[edit]

This link, titled 'Wikipedia: What it Doesn't Say', was removed from the article, and rightly so, but it may be of some interest to editors. I'll leave it here so it doesn't go even though we're removing it from the article. Cheers, THE KING 19:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

pov questions[edit]

The following text currently appears in the intro (above the TOC) of the article:

These questions include: What caused building #7 to collapse? Where is the science that explains how all three WTC buildings collapsed close to the speed of gravity? What is the source of molten metal which was observed pooling in the rubble? Why was the vast majority of the evidence immediately discarded and/or is inaccessible to independent researchers?

I am of the opinion that these questions are worded in such a way as to cast discredit upon tradional scientific views about 9/11. For example, 'where is the science...' hardly belongs in an encyclopedia, and clearly suggests pov. If you can tell from the text which side of an argument one stands on, it could be argued that the text is pov. However this is so blatant that it needs rewording, and i suggest moving to another section in the article. Possibly something to the effect of 'disagreements with the scientific community' What are other editors thoughts? THE KING 19:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, these claims would probably be best treated with direct quotes from the organization's website. Claims by this organization are very controversial, and we should avoid giving undue weight to the claims such as using the encyclopedic voice in describing them. Let's take quotes from such sources in informing the reader of the group's views, and then let's offer quotes from notable critiques of the group. I would say the David Horowitz Freedom Center article is a good start on that last bit. Dick Clark 19:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Would everyone feel more comfortable if they were rewritten as such:

What caused building #7 of the World Trade Center to collapse? How did all three WTC buildings collapsed close to the speed of gravity? What is the source of molten metal which was observed pooling in the rubble?

I removed the last question and reworded the second to remove the science bit. Does this bring it more inline with NPOV?--Zer0faults 21:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
That certainly brings it more in line with NPOV. Its a step in the right direction - although i'd personally like to see them all moved to a subsection in the article... But yes i think we can all agree to your version zer0. THE KING 07:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


I disagree with these edits. The text is NOT worded in such a way as to cast discredit upon tradional scientific views - that would simply be an incorrect interpretation of the sentence - but in such a way as to state that how all three WTC buildings collapsed close to the speed of gravity is not accounted for scientifically in the official version of events. That is, of course, a major point repeatedly made by the group's exponents. If it helps uninformed readers to better understand it point, further annotations could be included. Likewise, the question Why was the vast majority of the evidence immediately discarded and/or is inaccessible to independent researchers? is also a point often brought up by Jones, Fetzer, von Bülow and others. It is only pertinent to mention it here. If you know of reputable sources that question the veracity of these points, add the respective claims to make sure that the article does not improperly tend to either position. Rkrichbaum 09:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Membership[edit]

I'm not sure a fact tag is needed for Andreas von Bülow's membership. I think it's sufficient under the section of WP:V I quoted above in Talk:Scholars for 9/11 Truth#Unverifiable according to Wikipedia standards that the organization claims him as a member. Given the plausibility that he would be a member of such an organization in light of what we know about Bülow, and the absence of any denial that he is a member by anyone (except some wikipedians), I think WP:V has to have its way. Шизомби 20:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Like you, I would accept that source. I was just noting that the previous citation offered didn't support the claim, and thus led to the deletion of the subject's name, etc. I would expect that this discussion among interested editors would help resolve that one way or the other. Dick Clark 20:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I figured that was why it was put there. As I said, I don't think it is deserved. I think unreasonable criteria are being placed on the article by people who don't like it. I don't really care one way or the other about the group itself, about which I don't know much. I just don't care to see WP's guidelines and policies being ignored in a POV way. Neither the pro- nor the anti-Scholars for 9/11 Truth POV warriors should have the upper hand, ideally. Шизомби 20:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Same this is for all of them, some are being removed even though I have provided 2 sources and a homepage. It seems someone just wants the list to appear small. --Zer0faults 20:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
If you can find reliable sources, include whoever you want. Otherwise, it's just puffery. Morton devonshire 23:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Please follow the concensus of the community. People do not need to verify through secondary sources what groups they are members of, when both the group and the person state it. First hand account negates need for seconday source. --Zer0faults 00:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
You and DickClarkMises do not constitute consensus. Morton devonshire 00:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
You did not even dispute the idea that the user and the organization both state they are members, then no secondary source is needed. --Zer0faults 00:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
If the user says so, it's acceptable, but that only accounts for 3 people. The rest is unverifiable by Wiki standards. Bye now! Morton devonshire 00:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I would direct interested parties to a discussion of Wikipedia policies with regards to this article at Morton devonshire's talk page. I suppose this discussion should be moved to this talk page... Dick Clark 18:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


Critique[edit]

"As of February 2006, the website was pointing readers to sources which some members of the 9/11 Truth movement say lack credibility and scientific merit, are packaged as entertainment and distort evidence in favor of their claims.[citation needed] A related concern has been that the website effectively ignores the websites and original work by some of the most respected long-term researchers of the 9/11 attacks[citation needed], such as CooperativeResearch.org, FromTheWilderness.com, 911Truth.org, OilEmpire.us, 911Research.WTC7.net, Ratical.org/ratville/CAH/, and WTCEO.org. In contrast to the scholars group, most of these researchers believe that commercial jets with real passengers did hit the buildings on September 11 2001."

I can find any support for this statement on there website, so I have moved it to this talkpage: Where do they state that they belive there wasn't planes going in to the towers? Actually the whole critique section is based on the groups alleged belief that no planes hit the buildings, but I cant find support for that at all on there website. Please enligthen me or rewrite.EyesAllMine 06:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

This criticism section was orginally put in by Mr. Fetzer himself (see here) and later edited and reedited, thus distorting it beyond recognition and deleting most of what it orginally said. The (original) information is being provided by the website of Sf9/11T and is therefore suitably sourced. It is also relevant, since they are obviously more inclusive in accepting members' theories and speculation than other 9/11 groups and websites. It says "some" members of their group speculate on the possibility of no Boeing in the Pentagon, e.g. The orignial information should be properly summarized and put in again. Rkrichbaum 11:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

No it was Bov who wrote the critique section first: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scholars_for_9%2F11_Truth&diff=42122495&oldid=41989835 And the whole critique seems to emerge from one mans article namely Green, why does it get so much space in the article? EyesAllMine 13:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, my bad. But Fetzer obviously accepted both paragraphs and added his authoritative comment which refutes the criticism that the Scholars group "effectively ignores" other websites and original work. Maybe the first part would be enough, something like that:
"Although most activists and researchers in the 9/11 Truth Movement have been positive and excited about the formation of a scholars group and most would agree that it is an important step for the movement to take, some also express concern that members of the scholars group and its website are promoting debunked theories which discredit the movement.[8][9][10]"
Rkrichbaum 14:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Well I still fail to see where the website promotes debunked theories. Could you point me to it? EyesAllMine 14:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

You are right, this is merely an opinion. Better now? Rkrichbaum 17:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Much better. Still this part is a bit odd: "only one side of a serious and divisive debate within the 9/11 movement is presented for contemplation. Similarly, papers asserting that a plane did not hit the Pentagon are posted on the front page, but no papers asserting the opposite are posted, that a Boeing 757 did indeed hit the building as described by dozens of witnesses at the scene." as this is the official explanantion. They dont provide papers that fire made the two towers and building seven collaps, either. They are examining the accounts, and therefore the critique is misguided in my oppinion. And who has published this criticism anyway? is it just Bov? EyesAllMine 10:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


This is a mighty long argument - and it rambles, frankly. The basic issue is, should this article (Scholars for Truth) be deleted. I believe it should not because nothing in the article (as opposed to statements the authors may have made elsewhere) is inaccurate: Scholars here are not maintaining anything but that the information so far made public is woefully insufficient for a matter of this gravity. They have banded together to demand a more thorough investigation than the public have to now been treated to; and they demand this for very good reasons that there are a dozen or more very very weak links in the official explanation of what happened. So the article should stand.

The vast, vast majority of their ideals have been debunked time and time again with logical reasoned thinking. This madness has to stop, there are immutable facts that are being distorted and twisted by this collection of philosphers and creative arts\drama "scholars", out of their entire "Member List" aprox 4 of the entire list of over 200 names have ANY relation to structural engineering. This should be deleted, as pure hokum.Macktheknifeau 22:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a notable group. If you think their work is "hokum", start a blog. SkeenaR 09:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

For one, the members often call themselves experts, eg "EXPERTS CLAIM OFFICIAL 9/11 STORY IS A HOAX", despite the fact many of them are no-where near "experts" on the field of structural engineering. Steven Jones - Only "published" work on the matter is in a Marxist Economic Journal. Out of the 76 "members", the most common academic discipline was philosophy, with 9 members, Litrature\English and Psychology with 5 each, Theolgy 4, Humanitys 3. They have 5 physicists (although 1 is actually a lab technician). Engineers? 2. 1 of which is the Jupiter Bomb, Alien letter toting outcast Petit and the other's work has focused mainly on the stresses of dentistry.

These guys are really in the position to talk about how the various buildings collapsed. The entire group is comprised of psudeo-experts. Macktheknifeau 09:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

You are definitely entitled to your own opinion as long as you keep it on the discussion page. SkeenaR 17:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Zer0faults[edit]

For those interested, an RfC has been filed regarding User:Zer0faults at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Zer0faults. Any comments would be appreciated. -- Mr. Tibbs 06:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I commented. Matt Devonshire2.jpgMorton DevonshireYo 01:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

a joke[edit]

this is a joke. James Fetzer is the 9/11 truth movement. You deny him the right to update it. If you had a bio of me and it was wrong, and I could not update it then wikipedia has a real problem. The problem with wikipedia is it thinks it can make a difference throwing up the same disinformation that is distributed on a daily basis by main stream media or the us government.

James Fetzer Video explaining how wikipedia denied him access to update his 9/11 truth movment.

http://www.blogtext.org/andy/article/5867.html

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 166.61.194.2 (talkcontribs) 16:02, July 17, 2006 (UTC)

Would one way of dealing with this dispute be to add the fact the Scholars for 9/11 truth is critical of wikipedia to the summary of the organisation? They feature this fairly prominently on their website (http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ArticlesWikipedia.html) and it could be a neat way of making clear to readers the dispute about this page? - jon_m (Talk) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.127.18.193 (talkcontribs) 19:18, July 17, 2006 (UTC)

I would like to know why the link to the critique of wikipedia gets removed again and again - with no discussion on the talk page. Please explain EyesAllMine 23:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
If a section on that organization's critism of Wikipedia were added, then the link could be added as a reference. Otherwise, it doesn't deserve a link (IMHO). (Also, this section is a joke. The founder doesn't get veto power over an article.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Amplifying — if critism of Wikipedia were a major tenent of the organization, then such a section should be created. Otherwise, not, and the link shouldn't be there. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The real joke is that anybody takes James Fetzer seriously. There is no "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" -- it's just Fetzer in his den with a computer and internet access. Matt Devonshire2.jpgMorton DevonshireYo 01:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting theory, Mr Devonshire... How did Fetzer manage to make up the 100 or so names on this list? (Scholars for Truth Membership) Self-Described Seabhcán 22:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I could find 100 names of scholars who are unlikely to run google checks for their name. I don't theink anyone of us would want to cast doubt on Mr. Fetzer's ability to do likewisem although I'm not suggesting he actually did. Personally, I think it's a real group of non-scholars. (And I'm Dr. Rubin, if you care to address me in a more formal manner.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
"Non-scholars"? What are you basing that on, Dr.? Self-Described Seabhcán 23:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
The lack of scholarly activity on the site — badly written and clearly false statements in discussions, etc. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
What about Volume 23 of "Research in Political Economy", published by Elsevier and also their own "Journal of 911 studies". For an organisation which is less than 6 months old, thats pretty good going. Self-Described Seabhcán 00:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Apparently, we have wildly divergent opinions of the definition of "scholarly" work. Morton devonshire 00:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, some people seem to only accept work as 'scholarly' if they agree with the conclusions. Self-Described Seabhcán 00:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Well - i just put the critique back in then - there doesn't seem to be any valid argument to leave it out. EyesAllMine 07:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Dr. Rubin's reason for reverting your revert. Perhaps the links home should be at Criticism of Wikipedia?Self-Described Seabhcán 09:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok? But it is this article that is critiziced, not all of Wikipedia. How about noting then that the group itself has a different oppinion about this article and claims that is is faulty, and then reference it with the link EyesAllMine 13:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
That might fall foul of the "self-reference" rules in wikipedia. How about we put a "This article has been mentioned in the media" notice on the top of the talk page, with the link? Self-Described Seabhcán 13:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Just for the record - it is this link were talking about http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ArticlesWikipedia.html "what Wikiepdia doesnt say about S9/11T" by James Fetzer. Is there a link to the self-reference policy? - I would love to read itEyesAllMine 13:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm having some trouble finding it, it was some time ago that I read it. The basic idea was that because Wikipedia content is mirrored and forked all over the place, and will eventually be issued as a printed encyclopedia, you should avoid refering to wikipedia or saying things like "In this wikipedia article" or "on this website". There was even a movement a while back to rename "External links", but that didn't get very far. (While I was searching for this policy, I came across the article self reference, which has in the "See also" section: Self reference. I thought that was funny :-) Self-Described Seabhcán 14:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 :) - So what is the argument for leaving this link out of the article? EyesAllMine 19:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I have no objection. But others seem to. Self-Described Seabhcán 19:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

What wikipedia is NOT WP:NOT[edit]

Wikipedia is not webspace. The group's founder can write whatever he wants on his own webspace but his view is not appropriate for this article under WP:AUTO as it is not a neutral description. --Mmx1 04:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Reversions of Francespeabody's edits[edit]

I'm not saying that all of his edits around 06:23, 07 August 2006 are necessarily bad. The last one was quite definitely properly reverted by Mmx1, but they're all related, so I reverted all of them. A criticism section is quite appropriate, if properly sourced, but individual criticism's must be properly sourced. (It should be noted that I don't believe any of them are scholars in an appropriate field, but I'm going to try not to let that get into my edits.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

added references section/clean up[edit]

Things REALLY need to be properly cited with this section. rootology (T) 06:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Going through and changing all the links top to bottom to be properly set in external links for reading/analysis. Too many inline links. rootology (T) 06:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Alright, proper citation format is in place for all the inline links in the entire article now, I cut out bad/duplicate links, and add some material that meets WP:V and WP:RS that I found. rootology (T) 07:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Some additional cleanup as of this version. The "300 people" is spin vs. this group--they can cite themselves to say who is included, and they state they have scholars, faculty, and students. "300 people, include..." is a fair way to do this. Also, they do question the government account per sourced WP:RS stuff in the Overview. Both of these need to stay to maintain balance. rootology (T) 07:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Many of the references you added about individual members of the group are duplicates, or are attached to the wrong person. I've cleaned up a couple duplicates (and added some references to the criticism section where you placed a {{cite}} tag, but I've tried to avoid making substantive changes to the article. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I just want to make sure that everything comes up absolutely NPOV in the end with cites for anything that could be called into question from sites that meet WP:RS and WP:EL. rootology (T) 17:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Criticism section[edit]

I'm going to remove this "numerical breakdown" because it appears to be made up out of whole cloth by someone. A twenty second look at the Who Are We part of their site reveals at least 30+ engineers, not "two". rootology (T) 16:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Readded last sentence, which as written was horribly POV, and needs to be actually cited or else it wll have to go soon. rootology (T) 16:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Much cleaner[edit]

The article is much cleaner now and a lot closer at least to being NPOV. All it needs is proper citation for the Conclusion and Criticism sections. rootology (T) 20:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The last batch of edits[edit]

I will be offline and have to go right now, but yeah, the POV chunks that mxmx1 deleted were accurate. Could someone readd the removed criticism section? Yes it's unsourced but I wasn't even planning on removing unsourced bits myself for several weeks (if at all) to give people time to collect citations. rootology (T) 02:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that unfinished work should remain "ONLINE" until someone else does the work for you? That is complete B.S. I could put up Vandalism and say "Please someone take the time to find sources for each of the questionable items I posted but no one else edit them until some random nice person, at some random time does this good deed for me!"

What are you like 12 years old? You don't get to post incomplete work and beg others to leave it alone until you or someone can finish doing the grunt work. Francespeabody 02:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Watch the personal attacks --Mmx1 02:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
"Are you saying that unfinished work should remain "ONLINE" until someone else does the work for you?" ...no, I asked to make sure that the POV stuff is kept off, because per WP:NPOV they don't belong in the article in the form they were in when they went up from your edit. And also, please chill out a little bit and watch the personal attacks? I'd love to cram the article full of sorts of stuff, but I'm not, and I won't, and if I catch POV stuff shoved in--pro-Bush, pro-Left, pro-Government, pro-Feltzer, etc., I'll take it out if no one beats me to it first. Wikipedia is not and shall not be pro-American, or pro-this or pro-that. It's pro-WP:V, pro-WP:RS, and pro-WP:NPOV. Everything else is irrelevant. rootology (T) 04:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Censorship from the Marine[edit]

You started it with your "bullshit. This is not Fetzer's webspace and verbatim reproduction of his POV will not be allowed" manifesto/response to why you keep reverting relevant information.

You are not Neutral and clearly your commitment to "United States Marine Corps" (Articles I've created) colors your opinion and exposes your motives for censorship but none of that is relevant to the idea that the article is about the group itself and not about "What others think" about the group. As a contributor, I have found the most adequate definition of the group and included it.

You are acting silly. It is like if you don't agree with a groups message you think it is ok to redefine the group for anyone looking for information about who the group is. I don't like the KKK but I am not editing the Wiki article to make it more "Black Friendly" or "Negative" about them. I would even cite their founder as a definitive source for who they are because that is the "OBJECTIVE" thing to do.

I know you drank the kool aid and are all to willing to blindly accept whatever anyone with a uniform tells you so listen closely... "Semper Fi yourself into some common sense." Francespeabody 02:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I am harsh and I do not pull punches but there is a difference between calling an argument bullshit and calling someone a "5-year old". Do you understand the term personal attack? And I take offense to your implication that any affiliation with the Marines would bias one toward "censorship". I am not a Marine, by the way, but I still take offense on their behalf. Besides, this is an encyclopedia, not a forum.
In answer to your example, would you want Robert Byrd to be writing the KKK article (or whatever leader they have nowadays)? Making statements like "The KKK has found that blacks have lesser intellect and are not human"? An encyclopedia is supposed to describe points of view in a neutral tone; not take on faith assertions from biased contributiors. Moreover, you misunderstand the definition of "citation". Citation means you use something as a reference to construct a different statement, not copy it verbatim. I believe that's more accurately called "plagarism". --Mmx1 02:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
First, please read WP:NPOV. Second, please lay off on the senseless attacks on people in the military. I'm fairly liberal, I think Rumsfeld and/or Bush are not the right people to be leading us, but that has nothing to do with servicemen. One of my best friends is currently serving in Iraq as a Ranger, so I took offense at that--and I'm probably the most left leaning person working on this article now beside yourself. rootology (T) 03:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

First, you excuse your attack and are critical of my comments? "Bullshit vs. 12 year old" is unequal in that your remark suggests the entire thought process of another person is to be regarded as equal to that which a male cow excretes, where as the other remark suggests the thoughts as having come from someone much younger. Is that Harsh or something more?

Second, I cited the indiviual and suggested that you re-read the article for proof but since you are too lazy here is the opening sentense. "According to the founding member James H, Fetzer..." article overview here.

Third, that the KKK thinks blacks inferior is a fact of the group and is stated in the opening sentence of their Wiki. "Ku Klux Klan (KKK) is the name of a number of past and present fraternal organizations in the United States that have advocated white supremacy". White Supremacy implies blacks and any non-white has lesser intellect and are less human and I have not sought to change or soften that definition.

You seem to forget that this is what they are and what they beleive. It does not matter if I take offense or disagree because it is the truth. Likewise, the group "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" was founded by James H, Fetzer and I cited his definition of the organization in the overview. You have no legitimate basis for removing that regardless of your opinion. Are you rushing over to the Klan article right now to make it less offensive to blacks? OH, why not? Because you know full well that it represents the truth and your thoughts on the matter are not relevant? Ok, now you get it. If you revert this article again, I will first go to the KKK site and look for similar "cleansing" and if you have not done it, I will come back here and revert this back to the truth. BTW, I know you are not a Marine, I was being sarcastic. If you were a Marine, your sorry but would be off in Iraq defending James H, Fetzer's right to say what he wants... and bringing your flavor of democracy to a group of people who are clearly begging for it. In between the rapes, torture and murder I do think democracy is being shown to them by the few Marines who can keep the dicks in their pants. Francespeabody 03:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you not understand the notion of a "neutral" point of view? Prefacing five paragraphs with "Fetzer claims" is not neutral. Should we insert the text of [[11]] with only the preface "The KKK believes..."? --Mmx1 03:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Look, Frances. I had been reading/following this for quite a while but not contributing, and we hashed out yesterday a relatively stable article that everyone seemed to agree with, that was thisclose to NPOV, and that had everything basically balanced out and cited (except criticism, but in the interests of complete fairness and not wanting to have everyone fight with 50 edits a day--so I left it alone after slapping on {{fact}} tags. I invite you start a sandbox version of the article--probably the best way, to keep people from fighting endlessly--with a version you want to see put in. Then just post the changes here, but the endless edit warring is just silly. FWIW, I want more content from BOTH sides in here as long as it's meeting V, RS, and NPOV. rootology (T) 03:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

My RV[edit]

This here is the version of the article I rv'd back to, my last edit from yesterday that had sat peacefully until this began tonight. rootology (T) 04:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


Motivations[edit]

Just so everyone knows where people are coming from. I don't have the patience to involve myself in the minutiae of who said what, particularly in the face of wholesale edits such as that exhibited here - and I applaud Rootology's hard work in bringing this to NPOV. Moreover, I am not particularly interested in which way this article slants and am willing to let the interested parties debate it among themselves. However, as an encyclopedia writer, I am aware that there are strict boundaries on what is acceptable and will enforce those boundaries against POV-pushing by involved parties that stamps all over the compromised, NPOV content that many people have worked hard to tweak and implement. The policy of WP:NPOV expressly forbids presenting a single POV masquerading as content, and replacing the body of this article with 13 paragraphs as a "citation" is a lie. A footnote is a citation. A 13-paragraph essay is plagarism.--Mmx1 04:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Self-published op-ed[edit]

"Scholars for 9/11 Truth" should at best be merged with the primary 9/11 conspiracy theories. Too many liberties are being taken in the this article to render it verifiable.--Scribner 18:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Such as? Everything is factual RS that I see. rootology (T) 22:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Also, look at the breadth of places they've been mentioned--they are RS now in and of themselves, clearly exist, and are mentioned/talked about by CNN, Fox News, one of the major newspapers covering Canada, a variety of other foreign and domestic sources... there is no good NPOV reason to merge them. rootology (T) 22:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Self-reference[edit]

As I've said before, the "External link" at Wikipedia: What it Doesn't Say by James H. Fetzer should be included ONLY in a section of the article, rather than as a self-reference. As a stand-alone external link, it is an inappropriate self reference. A possible draft sentence to be included in the body of the article.

The founder of Scholars objects to the content of this article in Wikipedia: What it Doesn't Say by James H. Fetzer.

Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the good edit. :) rootology (T) 17:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin, revert to early Augst?![edit]

Uh, this would be amazingly bad, and I advise you to not do any such thing based on criticism sections being removed. I was one of the people that removed many of the links, as they simply, flat out, did not meet WP:EL or WP:RS. A mass reversion of that magnitude/age would be a tremendously bad idea and would be reverted immediately if it was an RV. You can bring back an old version of the Criticism section, as long as any sources meet WP:RS and WP:V. Unfortunately, if the criticisms section cannot be sourced, it cannot exist forever--when I removed a link there myself I left a {{fact}} tag, with the attention of removing unsourced after several weeks, to give people time to source them. Unfortunately, they weren't, and others began removing them from the criticisms section. This is all valid and per policy, for something to be included the burden of proof is on the inclusionists. NPOV doesn't play a role--NPOV doesn't mean there has to be a criticism section if it can't be sourced. rootology (T) 16:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

All that's needed for an assertion that SOME critise the organization is a link to websites with such critism, WP:RS or not. A link was provided, and I don't know when it was removed. I'll reinsert it when I locate it. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Why does it not need to meet WP:RS or WP:EL? Can you source what policy says that criticism don't need to meet a core policy? rootology (T) 16:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
(Why didn't the ~~~~'s expand, anyway....) I gave a primary source (meeting WP:EL) for both assertions in the criticism section. Secondary sources of criticism obviously exist; do they need to be cited? (For what it's worth, the "Who are we?" page doesn't list any structural engineers among the full members, asserted might be changed back to "noted", after all.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Thats cool, so you can deleted Problem-reaction-solution citing RS, even thogh it is not needed to primary quotes, but you can ignore RS when critisizing s9/11t? Yeah, just as i thought...--Striver 18:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

There's no secondary source that Problem-reaction-solution is used. Period. If you want to claim there's no secondary source for Scholars for 9/11 Truth, then we could delete this article too. If you want someone to believe that there are no secondary sources that there is criticism of this organization, you'll have a hard sell. The details of the secondary sources are not relevant, so.... — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Table[edit]

It's... ugly. Maybe just stick with the easier to work with list? rootology (T) 18:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

just trying to help... deleted if its un-improvable... --Striver 18:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
i know links are to be mminimised...but in order to fully represent membership, a link to http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhoAreWe.html would look better and provide greater accuracy. Mablespam 04:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Hypothesis[edit]

I added the {{disputed-section}} tag, because I don't think anything other than the first sentence is directly supported by the sources, and thus the section may consititute WP:OR. (I may fix the tag, later.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Debate[edit]

[12] --Striver 17:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


NITS[edit]

Feds challenge 9/11 conspiracies --Striver 16:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

i just e-mailed Mr Fetzer, asking him to create a picture galery so we can have pictures on their members. --Striver 18:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Theory and criticism edits[edit]

I've reverted Mablespam's 'updating' of the theory section - this wasn't referenced, and the language wasn't NPOV imo. If the scholars have come out with new research, though, it would be great to include this - but in a more npov tone, and with references. I may look at their website to see what the latest is at some point, but lack the time at the moment.

I've also put an updated criticism section back in the article. So far as I can tell, this is now not out of date; if any info in this is outdated, it would be good if someone could specify what this is. At any rate, whether or not you agree with the scholars, they are a controversial group so I think the article needs a criticism section Jon m

I removed the criticisms as a quick look at the members list http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhoAreWe.html shows many engineers in structural, civil, materials, and other pertinent fields including American Society of Civil Engineers.
The breakdown of members is no longer accurate. As for the theory section...should that not hold their theories - which i renamed findings as once scientific research and evidence is presented, it ceases to be theory, and becomes findings or conclusions. The theory section should not hold someone's theory on what their findings are, but their actual findings. This section is about the group and should contain the groups theories.
Also, the point of their findings is not that the gov't committed the attacks, but that their official explanation is full of holes, and that more scientific research should be conducted by an independent source.
I am new to this, and just happened upon this entry and viewed the theory section as a opposing PoV analysis of the group rather than info about the groups findings. Correct me if I was wrong.
well worded additions, btw. -Mablespam 05:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the info - have updated the criticism section.
re. the theory section, it would be great to add an updated account of the group's theory to the article. However, my understanding is that should report on the group's alleged findings, preferably with links: it shouldn't be a pov argument for their findings (just like the criticism section should report on criticisms of the group instead of a pov attack). The 'content' section on the Loose Change film is a good example of this imo see - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loose_Change_%28video%29#Content.
I still think theory is an appropriate term for what the scholars have developed: "In science, a theory is a proposed description, explanation, or model10 of the manner of interaction of a set of natural11 phenomena12, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment13 or otherwise falsified14 through empirical observation15. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition." For example, I'd view the Darwinian account of evolution as a scientific theory which is, by and large, factual.
Most of the 'findings' of the scholars are disputed, so you might want to refer to 'alleged findings', 'the Scholars have concluded that', etc... I think 'theory' may be a more elegant way to describe this, though... Jon m


Worth nominating the article for deletion again?[edit]

I know this has been nominated for deletion several times before. However, the organisation has now collapsed - most of the article refers to the defunct s911t The organisation might just about have been notable when it was in existence - for what it potentially could achieve in the future - but it no longer exists. We have a fairly long article, with POV problems (the scholars broke up in part because of disagreement re. what 'their' theory was, for example), for an organisation that from what I can tell never really achieved much; the organisation also no longer exists. Any objections if I nominate this for deletion again?Jon m 00:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:N#Notability_is_generally_permanent. From the guideline:
If a topic has multiple independent reliable published sources, this is not changed by the frequency of coverage decreasing. Thus, if a topic once satisfied the primary notability criterion, it continues to satisfy it over time.
So yes, I respectfully object. DickClarkMises 04:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Independent sources for Scholars for 9/11 Truth[edit]

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31]

  1. ^ Tooley, Mark (Aug. 23, 2006). "The Truth Behind 9/11". Weekly Standard. Retrieved June 6, 2009.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  2. ^ O'Neill Hill, Lisa (Sep. 10, 2006). "Distrust fuels conspiracy theories". The Press-Enterprise. Retrieved June 6, 2009.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  3. ^ Koehler, Tamara (Sep. 9, 2007). "Films question 9/11 attack roles". Ventura Country Star. Retrieved June 6, 2009.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  4. ^ Clow, Larry (March 29, 2006). "System breakdown". The Wire. Retrieved June 6, 2009. 
  5. ^ Conway, Brendan (Sep. 13, 2006). "The Path To Debate". The New York Sun. Retrieved June 6, 2009.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  6. ^ Hocknell, Helen (Sep. 26, 2006). "The trials of William Woodward". The New Hampshire. Retrieved June 6, 2009.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  7. ^ Fish, Stanley (June 23, 2006). "Conspiracy Theories 101". New York Times. Retrieved June 6, 2009. 
  8. ^ Hargrove, Thomas (Aug. 1, 2006). "Third of Americans suspect 9-11 government conspiracy". Scripps News. Retrieved June 6, 2009.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  9. ^ Jarvik, Ellen (Aug. 1, 2006). "BYU professor's group accuses U.S. officials of lying about 9/11". Deseret Morning News. Retrieved June 6, 2009.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  10. ^ Walch, Tad (Sep. 8, 2006). "BYU places '9/11 truth' professor on paid leave". Deseret Morning News. Retrieved June 6, 2009.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  11. ^ Mueller, Beth (Oct. 6, 2006). "Barrett goes for round two". The Badger Herald. Retrieved June 6, 2009.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  12. ^ Haidostian, Lisa (Jan. 24, 2007). "The gov't did it, speakers to argue". The Michigan Daily. Retrieved June 6, 2009.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  13. ^ "Conspiracy theory stems from lies in government". Daily Emerald. Aug. 10, 2006. Retrieved June 6, 2009.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  14. ^ "Backers hail 9/11 theorist's speech". Denver Post. Aug. 10, 2006. Retrieved June 6, 2009.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  15. ^ Popper, Ben (Aug. 7, 2007). "9/11 Doubters Doubt Each Other, Too". The Capital Times. Retrieved June 6, 2009.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  16. ^ Pope, Justin (Aug. 6, 2006). "9/11 Conspiracy Theories Persist, Thrive". FOX News. Retrieved June 6, 2009.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  17. ^ Long, Tom (Sep. 10, 2006). "A muted response from UNH". The Boston Globe. Retrieved June 6, 2009.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  18. ^ Kouri, Jim (July 23, 2006). "Activist Claims Bill O'Reilly Threatened Him; Files FCC Complaint". Hawaii Reporter. Retrieved June 6, 2009. 
  19. ^ Walch, Tad (Sep. 14, 2006). "BYU's Jones denies bias". Deseret Morning News. Retrieved June 6, 2009.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  20. ^ Serrano, Alfonso (Jan. 30, 2007). "Dangerous World Fuels Conspiracy Theorists". CBS News. Retrieved June 6, 2009.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  21. ^ Walch, Tad (Sep. 11, 2006). "Controversy dogs Y.'s Jones". Deseret Morning News. Retrieved June 6, 2009.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  22. ^ Fogg, Piper. "University Defends 9/11 Skeptic". The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved June 6, 2009. 
  23. ^ Blumer, Paul (Jan. 29, 2007). "Conspiracy theorists stir controversy at Union". The Michigan Daily. Retrieved June 6, 2009.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  24. ^ "Wisconsin Lawmakers Send Letter Seeking Dismissal of Lecturer". The Chronicle of Higher Education. July 24, 2006. Retrieved June 6, 2009. 
  25. ^ Spett, David (Aug. 30, 2006). "5 years later, 9/11 skeptics feel they're close to truth". The Villager. Retrieved June 6, 2009.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  26. ^ Ray, Turna (Sep. 3, 2006). "11/9, a conspiracy?". The Telegraph (Calcutta). Retrieved June 6, 2009.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  27. ^ "Theories About September 11th". FORA TV. June 25, 2006. Retrieved June 6, 2009. 
  28. ^ "Speaker: James H. Fetzer". FORA TV. June 25, 2006. Retrieved June 6, 2009. 
  29. ^ Rothschild, Matthew (Sep. 12, 2006). "Enough of the 9/11 Conspiracies, Already". The Progressive. Retrieved June 6, 2009.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  30. ^ Krause, Matthias B. (Aug. 12, 2006). "11. September – ein großes Komplott?". Der Tagesspiegel. Retrieved June 6, 2009.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  31. ^ Mauriac, Laurent (Aug. 12, 2006). "La religion du complot". Libération. Retrieved June 6, 2009.  Check date values in: |date= (help)