Talk:9/11 truth movement/Archive 4

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Obvious Wikipedia Bias

Upon reviewing many articles on Wikipedia concerning the 9/11 Truth Movement, I find it is very obvious that Wikipedia is heavily biased in support of the official conspiracy theories produced by government appointees who generated the 9/11 Commission's conspiracy theory and NIST's accounts of what caused the three tallest WTC buildings to collapse even though these reports defy basic laws of physics as pointed out by many highly respected engineers of many disciplines. Articles on Wikipedia about the 9/11 truth movement that begin by citing the government's official conspiracy theory as absolute fact, before presenting anything about the 9/11 Truth Movement, is an obvious case of prejudice.71.35.168.182 (talk) 02:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I was going to say, "Verifiability, not WP:TRUTH", but "official conspiracy theory" is too far away from WP:NPOV to be appropriate even here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the concept of an "official conspiracy theory" intrigues me. HiLo48 (talk) 07:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

It's typical of a Truther to use such a tern; their theories are so absurd that they have to lower what happened to the level of their views by using such a term. Toa Nidhiki05 15:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

That is the purpose of the phrase "official conspiracy theory", and the reason people want to define conspiracy theory as any theory involving a conspiracy. Related is "official theory," which attempts to poison the well by mis-characterizing the sourced history of what happened on September 11 as some kind of malign propaganda construct. This article is supposed to be about 9/11 conspiracy theories as social/psychological/political phenomena. In the past it's often been used as a soap box for Trutherism, or a pov fork to tell the world "what really happened." Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Let me explain. You are making a personal attack against people who hold alternative views on the subject. Published polls have shown that millions of people do not believe the official theory that 19 hijackers just happened to destroy three skyscrapers and attack the defense headquarters of the most powerful military nation on the planet. They find this theory of the events is unreasonable, laughably foolish, incongruous and lacking any credibility. That is to say, they hold a view that the official mainstream view is absurd. There are also thousands of professionals and experts who hold alternative views which are contrary to the mainstream view. That is what this article is about. It is not about your opinion of those people's beliefs and your characterisation of said beliefs is not relevant and presenting them on a talk page is against our policy and unproductive. You are disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. It is not a place for you to express your opinion of those views or those that hold such views. Please remove your comment as it doesn't belong here. - Shiftchange (talk) 18:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

No. I am not attacking anyone. I never said 'Truthers are idiots' - I said that their theories are absurd. Further, please don't try and rationalize these beliefs - which are absurd - I don't care for them or how 'X random celebrity believes it'. It is a fringe viewpoint and they use fringe terminology. Millions of people deny the Holocaust, think the Earth is flat, or think NASA faked the moon landing... And they don't get any credence here either. Saying they are absurd and lack credibility is not an attack. Toa Nidhiki05 20:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

You are not being neutral either. Imagine making a comment on the Mormonism page that their beliefs were absurd. Some people question details of the Holocaust and if you added a comment that those people have absurd beliefs to the talk page of Holocaust denial article it would be removed because it doesn't help improve the article. Published polls do not state that significant percentages of people think the Earth is flat or think NASA faked the moon landing. - Shiftchange (talk) 04:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Aaaannnnndddd we have Godwin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.69.212.108 (talk) 15:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

To begin with, any use of "official conspiracy theory" in the Wikipedia voice fails WP:NPOV miserably, even with scare quotes in this article, and it approaches a WP:BLP violation. (If it were a WP:BLP violation it could be removed from talk pages, as well.) That being said, although most rational people assume that anyone using the phrase is a "truther", and hence immune to truth, it is possible that someone using the phrase may actually be helpful in improving the encyclopedia. That's not really the way to bet. Toa's comment does approach an WP:NPA and WP:AGF violation, but Shiftchange's comment contains enough lies that it should also be disregarded. "Thousands of professionals and experts" indeed; "hundreds" is possible, but "dozens" is really all that is verifiable.

As for the OP, "mainstream account" has been generally considered an accepted way to report the account of the 19 hijackers. Both "official" and "theory" are clearly misnomers. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Truthers don't trust the government's official report that 19 hijackers could do all that damage to America because they trust the government to protect them better than that. HiLo48 (talk) 21:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

You know, though this is totally WP:NOTFORUM my understanding is that most people who espouse a conspiracy theory are in fact just questioning the official version of events for legitimate reasons. Whether it is a warranted distrust of government, a failure to understand the scientific questions involved in some cases, or finding legitimate gaps in the official version that need to be addressed, the reasons for people subscribing to a conspiracy theory are really not as simple as some psychological defect.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, such as why was molten steel dripping from the towers before it collapsed, or why was there molten steel under the debris piles for weeks after the collapse, or why wasn't there any pancaked floors in the debris pile, or why was the collapse symmetrical? There are many unanswered questions, improbable coincidences and suspicious behaviour which has never been adequately explained. That is why the 9/11 truth movement has developed and gained legitimacy, not because we cannot accept government failings. We accept their failings and their corruption to vested interests more than those that instantly dismiss alternative views without question. - Shiftchange (talk) 04:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

So, it's back to forum posts, eh? Please leave, and take your trash with you. HiLo48 (talk) 04:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I would ask anyone challenging the use of the term "official conspiracy theory" in regards to the reports created by the 9/11 Commission, NIST, FEMA, etc., to look up the definitions of the words "conspiracy" and "theory". The 9/11 Commission's report theorizes that a conspiracy of hijackers carried out the events of 9/11. Since this theory was developed by appointees of US government offices, it is regarded as being the "official" theory of the conspiracy that took place. Obviously, one person did not carry out the 9/11 attacks, therefore it had to be, by definition, a conspiracy. By definition of the terms, the 9/11 Commission Report is an official conspiracy theory. The problem people have with the term is only due to some people's negative connotation of a very apt phrase. The phrase "conspiracy theorist" has been used in a derogatory fashion to label people who seek a verifiable, truthful version of the events. Were the appointees on the 9/11 Commission not "conspiracy theorists" by definition? Ask why anyone might be offended by labeling the members of the 9/11 Commission as conspiracy theorists. Those that would be offended are those who refuse to allow themselves a change in their world view, even when the evidence tells them they could be wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.148.114 (talk) 23:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

That's an unhelpful and silly word game. Pointless comment really. HiLo48 (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Word definitions are important when they are our basis of communication. The fact is, a conspiracy theorist is not a bad person by the true definitions of the words. I maintain that a conspiracy theorist is simply someone with a theory about a conspiracy. The phrase has been given certain connotations that are used in a derogatory fashion in order to attempt to reduce the credibility of some individuals. The whole point of this section, labeled "Obvious Wikipedia Bias", is to point out that the article does not begin with "The 9/11 Truth Movement is...", but rather begins by stating the opinions and theories generally proposed by government appointees and the mainstream news media, implying that this is the ONLY truth and that any contradictions that follow must therefore be an untruth. Shouldn't the article be about the 9/11 Truth Movement, since that is the title, and not just another iteration of the official account of what happened on 9/11? It is also notable that replies to my original post here immediately dodge the topic "Obvious Wikipedia Bias" and go on to question the validity of referring to the "official account", or the "9/11 Commission Report", or the "official conspiracy theory" as being one and the same thing. My observations have led me to believe that Wikipedia generally shows bias toward, and agreement with the single-minded mainstream news media sources that rarely entertain any theories other than those from "official" sources. In the case of 9/11 and, for example, the theory that there was compliance by some members of our government, their bias is extreme as evidenced by the near-complete lack of reporting on the 9/11 Truth Movement. So I ask again, why does an article about the 9/11 Truth Movement start with a statement of the "official account" (assuming some may prefer that terminology over "official conspiracy theory"), which is just one of many theories put forth about 9/11, and is not a theory generally held by those who consider themselves members of the 9/11 Truth Movement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.148.114 (talk) 01:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I have just edited the article by adding the following to the beginning of the first sentence in the first paragraph to read ""9/11 Truth Movement" is a term broadly applied to people and organizations that disagree, or question, or find fault with the official accounts of the events of September 11, 2001 and who believe the truth of these events has not been revealed, and generally call for a new, impartial investigation into 9/11. Briefly, the official account holds that..." and the rest of the sentence and first paragraph are unchanged. I believe this will be a demonstration of bias when someone at Wikipedia rejects my edit in favor of restoring the article's first paragraph that implies the official account is the only truth, rather than attempting to define the 9/11 Truth Movement. I strongly suspect that my edit will be discarded due to bias on the part of Wikipedia. Wait and see! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.148.114 (talk) 01:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC) As predicted, my edit was rejected within two minutes. This is an obvious case of bias because they will not allow the article to begin by defining the subject, but rather, by implying that one particular theory is the truth, which has nothing to do with what the 9/11 Truth Movement is about. Because of this, I find Wikipedia to be just another tool of a single-minded mainstream media and therefore they lack the credibility associated with those who research things scientifically and impartially. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.148.114 (talk) 02:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Top picture of demonstration is misleading

The foreground of the picture (9-11 Truth 1.jpg) shows two people holding a banner relevant to the 9/11 Truth movement with a large group of protestors behind them. This suggests that the picture shows a large protest for the Truth movement. But a closer look at the background reveals that this is just a protest against Bush and the war. These two seem to be somewhat tangential with regards to the message of the protest at large. 24.22.167.81 (talk) 19:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit Requests regarding polls

Hello, Wikipedians. I'm using a Playstation 3 browser, which makes editing the page myself (scrolling, specifically) near impossible. I'll need a hand. Please change "Of the people surveyed, those in lower education and income brackets were more likely to express disbelief in government accounts, rather than those in higher income/education brackets." TO "Of the people surveyed, those in lower education and income brackets expressed disbelief in government accounts more often than those in higher income/education brackets."

There is no question of likelihood when looking at past poll results. Either the respondent chose one option or they didn't. The "probability" is either 100% or 0%, after the fact. To extrapolate further and make any claim or suggestion about the likelihood of poor people believing the official story any more or less than the rich in future polls goes against the SYNTHESIS guidelines of Wikipedia. If the linked sources (which are dead, by the way) make this "conclusion" themselves, it should still be reworded to make clear this is what the survey SUGGESTS, not SHOWS.

Deleting the line if the dead links are not replaced is also a perfectly valid option.

The phrase "involved in right wing politics" in the first paragraph of "Adherents" section also smells a bit fishy. It is reasonable to assume this Facebook-mined data on politics comes wholly from the "Political" field of each profile. Choosing "conservative" over "liberal" does not make one "involved in right wing politics" anymore than a "Support Our Troops" decoration makes one "involved in the military". Without an accessible reference for this poll, it's hard to say exactly how I would change the wording. Just putting it out there for anyone with more knowledge of the subject.

Thanks for reading, hope I've helped you help the article. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Lead Violates Wikipedia LEAD standards

"On the morning of Tuesday September 11, 2001, terrorists from al-Qaeda hijacked four passenger jets, intentionally crashing two into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York City causing both towers to collapse. The hijackers crashed another into the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia. The fourth jet crashed into a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania." This is not a NPOV and has nothing to do with The 9/11 truth movement. It is biased to include an opinion in the lead which the movement clearly does not agree with. It gives the reader the impression that this is a FACT and they are clearly arguing against blatent facts. The lead of an article must deal with the subject which is TRUTH MOVEMENT, WP:LEAD. This information is redundant and a simple link would have done.or even at hatnote to the official 9/11 article.

"The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects." The most important aspect is therefore about the Truth Movement not about one version of what happened. esp one which is blatenly in dispute by the Truth Movement. See WP:BEGINNING--41.177.4.179 (talk) 20:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The lead is not incorrect as it explains that Truthers deny what happened. That's perfectly acceptable for a lede. Further, what happened IS a fact and the Truthers are clearly arguing against 'blatent facts'. If anything the lede is too forgiving since it doesn't specifically note that Truthers are wrong and have been considered wrong by anyone with a brain, but that's a matter to be settled on a different day. Toa Nidhiki05 21:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Toa Nidhiki05 wrote: "The lead is not incorrect as it explains that Truthers deny what happened."

Incorrect. "Truthers" do not deny what happened; they are calling for investigation to resolve inadequately investigated issues and inconsistencies.

"Further, what happened IS a fact"

It is incorrect to characterize the official story as "fact". It is only a "fact" if you are a person of faith who trusts what they have been told by a government under very dubious circumstances. It is perfectly legitimate for a concerned citizen to expect full investigation, answers, and accountability for inadequately resolved issues associated with a crime. Wikipedia should take a conservative (skeptical) view of "facts" and not elevate government and media propaganda to "fact": it should be presented as just one viewpoint (perhaps dominant) among multiple points of view.

"If anything the lede is too forgiving since it doesn't specifically note that Truthers are wrong and have been considered wrong by anyone with a brain"

This is purely insulting, and doesn't belong in an encyclopedic discussion. The IP editor is basically correct in all of the assertions which he/she made. Wildbear (talk) 03:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

By definition Truthers don't believe the facts because they want it investigated - you don't just re-investigate something that is true, no?

According to reliable sources and common sense, it is fact. That fancy rhetoric you use is really veiled garbage promoting a conspirist viewpoint - the dominant viewpoint from scholars, engineers, media, and the public is the truth, which is that there was no conspiracy. We don't give equal weight to creationists, flat-earth theorists, Holocaust deniers, Moon landing conspirists or Jesus myth proponents, and we don't for Truthers either.

Finally, I hold no respect for Truthers and will make that pretty clear - I'm not going to be politically correct on such an issue. My words are harsh but true and the IP is wrong - dead wrong, in fact, as are you. The lede doesn't note that academia and the media give no credence to these fringe and lunatic viewpoints and that is a shortcoming for this article. Toa Nidhiki05 04:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I just noticed that lead only mentions the twin towers collapse. We should probably add the fact WTC7 was destroyed by fire as a result of the attacks. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 06:25, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Toa Nidhiki05 wrote:

"According to reliable sources and common sense, it is fact."

Incorrect. The bulk of the unresolved and conflicting issues come from the "reliable sources" themselves, and references are abundantly available. Wikipedia has carefully stripped away most of the conflicts and issues to create an illusion that all is factual and resolved, when this is not the case at all.

I think Toa is injecting too much faith, passion, misrepresentations, and insults into this discussion to allow it to yield any useful conclusions about the article. Perhaps that's the strategy and intention — make a big enough stink and you get your way. This kind of behavior is not a sound basis for building consensus and a reliable body of knowledge. Firm and balanced moderation from a third party is needed here. Wildbear (talk) 06:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The real world (aka reliable sources) recognize(s) that the "unresolved and conflicting issues" do not actually exist. Wikipedia reflects that fact. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, let's see what the "reliable sources" have had to say over the past year or so.

MSNBC, 13-Mar-2012: "Classified documents contradict FBI on post-9/11 probe of Saudis, ex-senator says"

"Whether the 9/11 hijackers acted alone, or whether they had support within the U.S., remains an unanswered question -- one that began to be asked as soon as it became known that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi citizens"

Telegraph.co.uk, 18-Feb-2012: "London-based oil executive linked to 9/11 hijackers"

The first document, Graham says, is “not consistent with the public statements of the FBI that there was no connection between the 9/11 hijackers and the Saudis at the Sarasota home. Both documents indicate that the investigation was not the robust inquiry claimed by the FBI.”

ABC News, 15-Sep-2011: "Who Funded 9/11 Attacks? Insurers, 9/11 Families Still Want Answers"

"After the 10-year anniversary of Sept. 11 and six months after the death of al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, questions still remain regarding who funded the attacks that led to thousands of deaths and billions of dollars in damages."

Telegraph.co.uk, 20-Aug-2011: "9/11: al-Qaeda didn’t act alone"

"Two official inquiries have investigated the who, the how, and the why of 9/11. A decade on, however, many questions remain."

International Business Times, 2-May-2011: "Osama Bin Laden never charged for 911 - Inside Job likely"

"It is very well possible that completely different organizations than al-Qaeda were responsible for the planning and execution of 9/11, and that the latter was merely one of the involved parties."

North County Times (San Diego), 11-Sep-2011: "REGION: Questions remain on local 9/11 terror ties"

"The painful truth is that the worst terrorist attack on America soil will probably forever be a story with missing chapters. In San Diego, there remain many unanswered questions about the level of support the 9/11 hijackers received from local sources, including a number of mysterious Saudis, as well as many others who befriended the terrorists."

Salon, 3-May-2012: "Hiding 9/11′s last secrets"

"Few U.S. counterterrorism officials believe all of his often boastful confessions, and it is important for the public to hear what, exactly, evidence the government has with regard to what he did and didn’t do, and whom he might have been protecting."

Fox News, 8-Mar-2012: "Mueller grilled on FBI's release of al-Awlaki in 2002"

"Several congressional committees want the FBI director to explain why one of his agents ordered the release of Anwar al-Awlaki from federal custody on Oct. 10, 2002, when there was an outstanding warrant for the American Muslim cleric’s arrest."

Telegraph.co.uk, 01-Feb-2011: "WikiLeaks: FBI hunts the 9/11 gang that got away"

"Details of the unknown 9/11 alleged plotters has never previously been disclosed."

BBC News, 12 September 2011 (video, 3min35sec): "Former FBI agent says truth of 9/11 remains hidden"

"It is, he believes, part of a wider attempt to control the official account of 9/11"

Dallas Business Journal, 2-Sep-2011: "Dallas attorney offers 9/11 insight"

“Much of the 9/11 story has not been told to the public,” Badger told me.

So Arthur, is it that these media organizations are not part of the "real world", or is it that the unresolved issues which they are reporting do not actually exist? Are you contesting the reports from these sources? Wildbear (talk) 09:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Those links don't prove anything other than that some people support 9/11 conspiracy theories. They don't recognize any actual dissent in academia. Toa Nidhiki05 13:13, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

These articles were written from interviews and consultation with persons who have access to information which academics are less likely to have access to. The media sources cited are routinely given credence by Wikipedia because of the presumption that they engage in fact checking before publication. Despite this, it appears that you wish to selectively throw out any information the sources convey if it doesn't fit your preconceived narrative.

Responsible academics will not operate on the assumption that one narrative, written in haste and on a limited budget, is perfect, complete, and immutable for all time. 9/11 was a complex operation, and it is not unreasonable for people and organizations to be examining the possibility that there were more persons involved; persons as yet unidentified. These reports document instances where credible individuals and organizations are performing such examinations and investigations. As the people in these reports are building their studies on verifiable information, and not just dreaming up idle fantasies, I think it is incorrect and inappropriate to characterize them as "supporting 9/11 conspiracy theories." The whole point of an investigation is to get rid of theory, resolve unresolved questions, and find out what really happened and who was involved. Those who engage in hard, probing investigation are to be applauded; not denigrated. The media is at its best when engaging in investigative journalism; which it is at least touching upon in these articles. Wildbear (talk) 07:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Seeing how you're obviously biased in your disposition and are behaving quite rabidly toward others Toa Nidhiki, perhaps you shouldn't be involved in this page at all. This is a page pertaining to the 9/11 truth ideology itself. I'm not a truther by any means and I note that, but your clear going-ons about how the 9-11 Truth position is negatively equated to other unrelated topics, show a strong personal bias.

I took the time to view other wikipedia articles pertaining to common conspiracy theories. Other pages have no such lead sections. There is no reason this page should have such a format, either. It's of little use, it's argument provoking, and it leaves the opening introduction lacking a feeling of being succinct.

I would propose this general position toward conspiracy theories would be fine other places, but not for this page and certainly not in the manner of going about it, particularly in the insults to other individuals. 75.246.129.227 (talk) 08:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I find it ironic that the person arguing an opinion is being silenced is now calling for an opinion, namely mine, to be silenced. Yes I have a bias - everyone does. It just so happens that my bias is supported by reliable sources and yours isn't. The topics - all conspiracies with absurd ideas held by a minority fringe - are all comparable and that is not disputable. Toa Nidhiki05 16:43, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE are the key policies for this. 9-11 Conspiracies are a fringe academic position, and we should represent that. Other conspiracy pages may not be good examples to use, since they may not be that well written. The lede is perfectly fine as it is. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 08:52, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Building 7

I wonder which of you hacks deleted references to Building 7? That is the strongest evidence in a mountain of evidence that the collapses were controlled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.162.4.7 (talk) 21:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Wonder no more, 'twas me! Of course as there is no evidence that the collapses were controlled, tis easy for me to admit my hackish deletions.—ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Lead Quality starts by wandering

per Wikipedia Lead, The primarily focus of a lead is to deal with the topic. the first line must therefore address the group. The link to 9/11 already explains the mainstream view. WP:LEAD if you are unclear about how to write a lead. The lead should normally contain no more than four paragraphs, be carefully sourced as appropriate, and be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view to invite a reading of the full article. Per WP:MOSINTRO the lead must deal with the focus, which is not 9/11 events but the 9/11 Truth movement. 9/11 is fully discussed on that page. Everyone knows that account. So Who is the 9/11 truth movement MUST start this topic.--Inayity (talk) 09:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I've boldly reverted back to old state. Nowhere in MOS#Lede does it say the subject must be directly mentioned in the first sentence. The opening sentence explains exactly what Truthers disagree with and serves as an effective segue into the main topic. Toa Nidhiki05 15:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

You have limited my concerns. : the lead is suppose to sum the most critical info, that being who the truth movement is. By introducing that story account you are repeating the content of another article which is already fully developed. It is redundant info, adding to this what you have put in the first few lines does not actually summarize their concerns. It is a POV version like stating "What really happened was this... . And they disagree with it" it creates a bias against their views. we can request for comments and use the talk page to resolve the issue. we dont need any segue-- this is not Lord of the Rings. Per lead concise. My version fully states they disagree with the official 9/11 accounts, no need to restate all those events. I have been looking at a few movements across wikipedia Disability rights movement,Tea Party movement, Anti-globalization movement, Civil rights movement and on that note, it would be strange to see "Race separation was a part of America and South Africa.....Civil rights movement disagree with this" --Inayity (talk) 21:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not the "official" account, it's what really happened: Al Qaeda destroyed tehe World Trade Center. We need to begin with what happened so the reader knows what it is the Truth Movement denies or questions. It misunderstands policy to claim the article about "9/11 Truth" mustn't say what happened on 9/11. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Tom I would like us to follow wikipedia rules and not our opinions. I am not interested in "official" or "conspiracy" I am concerned with NPOV and wiki quality. If it was so "true" then there would be no opinion polls. No movements deny Vietnam war took place. I have made my case above and cited many examples of the format for leads on wikipedia. Moreover NPOV means the reader is presented with a balance and they can agree or disagree with your "what really happened" --Inayity (talk) 22:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Dissent is not a sign of truthfulness. Toa Nidhiki05 22:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Opinion polls prove absolutely nothing except that many people are stupid enough to think their opinion has any bearing on reality. There are crazy people out there who deny accepted facts such as the world being round, but we do not give these WP:Fringe theories equal validity, and we do not hide facts. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I will ask that we limit the debate to the issue outlined. Please we can resolve this if we just focus on the issue of lead quality. I am neutral, I want to read NPOV and make up my mind. Pretty hard with a lead like that.It is already classified as a conspiracy that is not what I am disputing. --Inayity (talk) 22:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The article needs to mention what facts the 9-11 truth movement denies, and the lede is an appropriate place to do it. Rephrasing it along the lines of "The 9-11 Truth Movement denies the accepted history that..." should solve any issues of not starting right off discussing the article's subject. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok we are moving forward, why not just be concise and state they disagree with the official 9/11 mainstream accounts-- then the body can deal with the details.--Inayity (talk) 22:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

While I think Inayity is partially wrong, there is something to be said about skipping right to the point. If you read comparable articles on say Intelligent design or Holocaust denial, they don't begin by explaining how evolution works or how Hitler murdered 6 million Jews. They basically start off assuming the reader already knows this, and explains what the fringe theory is. So, what if the lead said something like, "9/11 Truth movement is a political movement which promotes 9/11 conspiracy theories."? And then it goes on to explain what sort of activities they engage in or whatever. That said, this article is so terrible and is beset by POV-pushers, I'm not sure it's really worth trying to fix. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I only object to the conspiracy theory bit in your example, "alternate" would be NPOV. because I honestly believe they are a higher level than the David Ike crew. It is not reptilian or Holocaust denying . I didnt get past the Lead, like i said I actually would like to come to Wiki and find the TRUTH. I cant get it from their website, I cant get it from their detractors. I want to trust Wiki NPOV policy to represent the topic-- Am i asking for too much?--Inayity (talk) 22:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I agree that the article could start by explaining "The 9/11 truth movement is a group that denies... (9/11)," but am against the wholesale removal of what happened on 9/11 or watering terrorist involvement down to be anything other than a fact. If you read Modern geocentrism, the third sentence is "This belief is directly opposed to the fact that the Sun is essentially the gravitational center of the solar system, and that the location of the Earth is not privileged (see Copernican principle)." There's also an entire section titled "the modern scientific point of view" explaining why geocentrism is wrong. There is basis for including an explanation of what the group denies.

Inayity, the 9/11 Truth movement is focused on a conspiracy theory. Just because you agree with them doesn't change the fact that they're wacko nutjobs who don't seem to get that US foreign policy during the Cold War and with Israel incited a lot of people to hate the US, and that about a dozen of them hijacked planes and attacked the World Trade center, without any help from the US government. That is the truth. Your wholesale censorship of it, your referral to it as "the official account," and your defending those nutjobs makes it hard for me to assume that you're really concerned about neutrality, but legitimizing their views and giving them equal validity. Per WP:GEVAL and WP:FRINGE, that just won't happen. If you want the article to start with "The 9/11 Truth movement is a group that denies... (the facts about 9/11)," that's totally cool. If you want Wikipedia to pretend that they might be on to something, that's not gonna happen. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, this article isn't about the 9/11 terrorist attacks or 9/11 conspiracy theories. There are separate article for those. It's about a fringe political movement, the people and their activities. Now, keep in mind that that's assuming that this is a notable topic (and it's not clear to me that it is).

I recall once reading somewhere on Wikipedia - don't remember where - in regards to the evolution/creationism debate, that it's not necessary or helpful to re-argue the evolution/creationism debate on each and every article in that topic space. Personally, if it were up to me, I'd focus the article on the movement itself. If readers what to know what really happened, they can read our September 11 attacks article. If readers want to know about 9/11 conspiracy theories, they can go to that article. But again, I think that fixing this article is more trouble than it's worth. But if we were to try to fix it, we're better off trying to do it in user-space or in a sub-article of this one. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

If it were up to me I'd merge this article with the main CT article, but that isn't going to happen any time soon. Toa Nidhiki05 02:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm actually kinda failing to see how having this separate from the main article on the conspiracy theory is different from having separate articles for Birther and Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, Creationism and Creationists, or UFO abductee and Alien abduction. I see a few sources mentioning the 9/11 Truth movement by name, but if the only defining characteristic is that they subscribe to 9/11 conspiracy theories, it's just a synonym for 9/11 conspiracy theorists. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

This should be a section on the CT article at most, as they are essentially the same topic. Toa Nidhiki05

As Quest said this article is NOT about 9/11, it is NOT about conspiracy theories, it is NOT about your version of truth (sounds like a religion now). It is about an organization. That organization is defined by R.S sources. There is no escaping the facts the lead has to change. We have a primary source where they (an organization of professionals) define themselves. This lead is a gross violation of wiki lead standards, the more un involved people come here that is all they will see. It is not in keeping with other higher quality wiki articles and almost like a pet project.Cut to the chase. --Inayity (talk) 08:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

There are no 'versions' of truth - something is either true or it isn't. And 9/11 CTs are not true. Toa Nidhiki05 14:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Merging this to 9/11 conspiracy theories would eliminate some duplication and better present things in context. Tom Harrison ^Talk 10:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

100% Not. 9/11 Truth movement is an organization, it does not believe in Aliens, or Reptilians, There were organizations/groups who challenged the Warren commission --correct? Can you bury dissent by group labeling it "conspiracy"? The context argument is debunked, You got people in Kenya who know more about 9/11 than their own embassy bombing. --Inayity (talk) 12:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Alien-related 9/11 CTs are quite common, actually.. ABC and The Telegraph both found this notable enough to report as early as 2002. Toa Nidhiki05 14:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)First, Inayity, they are a collection of organizations, all of whom only exist to support conspiracy theories about 9/11. Second, conspiracy theories are just stories that there's some grand conspiracy causing problems for the common man. You are falling for the No true Scotsman fallacy by saying they are not conspiracy theorists because many do not believe in reptilians or aliens. September 11 conspiracy theories are given as an example of "event conspiracy theories," conspiracy theories that focus on one or a few events as major actions by the supposed conspiracy.

Inayity, it's pretty obvious you are a 9/11 conspiracy theorist, you can quit pretending you're in this over concerns about neutrality. This isn't about YOUR version of the truth, this is about the truth, and it is the truth that terrorists attacked the WTC, not the government. That the WTC was destroyed by terrorist is affirmed by the majority of mainstream scientists, government officials, historians, socio-political experts, architectural experts, demolitions experts, etc, etc, etc, as found in reliable sources (instead of fringe material that avoids peer review) which is why Wikipedia accepts what you keep calling "the official account." Ian.thomson (talk) 14:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Ian, I will request you focus on the subject of this thread. I - Inayity-- Is NOT the subject of this thread and not of any notablity to warrent such an extend discussion. Edit the page not the editor WP:TALK-- No I am not Scottish. Let us discuss the prolix lead.--Inayity (talk) 14:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Wow, did you seriously even read what I had to say? I said you fell for the No true Scotsman fallacy, I did not say you were Scottish. Also, "edit the page, not the editor" on WP:TALK says I should not edit your comments, it does not say that I should not point out potential neutrality issues with an editor trying to accuse the article of being non-neutral. If you're not a 9/11 conspiracy theorist, I'd like to see you admit that terrorists destroyed the World Trade Center. If you're not a conspiracy theorist, it should not be a problem. If this truly is about the lede, why have you not said anything about the suggestion that it be rewritten to say "The 9/11 Truth movement rejects the fact that... (terrorists destroyed the WTC on Sep. 11)"...? If this is about neutrality, how come you have not conceded that the guidelines and policies require that we do not give equal validity to non-mainstream views, and we treat fringe views as such...? How come you completely censored the facts in the introduction, then ran to the dispute resolution noticeboard saying that noone engaged you when two editors were already discussing the issue? I'm supposed to assume good faith and assume you want to help the site, but I don't have to assume that your views are anywhere near neutral, or that your behavior is anywhere near fair. Since there's plenty of evidence that you are not neutral and not behaving fairly, it's totally reasonable to call into question why you are involved in this. Solutions to any actual issues have been brought up. "Solutions" to present conspiracy theories with equal validity to known facts will not be found here. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

At some stage let us get back to the lead debate in a WP:CIVIL way--Inayity (talk) 15:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The issue of the lede has been addressed, it just has not been addressed in a way that gives conspiracy theories equal weight and does not hide the fact that they're fringe and non-mainstream conspiracy theories. Can you provide any guideline-based, source-based, or policy-based reason why rewriting the lede to say "The 9/11 Truth movement rejects the fact that... (terrorists destroyed the WTC on Sep. 11)" will not work? It changes the structure to start off by discussing what the article subject is about. And again, WP:GEVAL and WP:FRINGE do dictate that we do not present their views as anything other than conspiracy theories. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Inayity, WP:CIVIL (or other policy/guideline, for that matter) isn't a super karate death punch. The POV questions here are pretty simple, and it is not incivil to call into question whether you are editing with an agenda to push a POV when your editing pattern and chain or argument fit the profile of the average Truther. Stop trying to avoid the point and the fact that all your arguments have been refuted. Toa Nidhiki05 15:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Re edits by 65.94.133.250

Per WP:GEVAL, we give the mainstream account the most acceptance, and per WP:FRINGE we treat unconfirmed alternatives (especially ones based on denial of accepted evidence) as questionable if not false. There are plenty of other reasons why Wikipedia cannot claim that the Al-Qaeda was not behind 9/11 usign only hijacked planes. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:44, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

united states involvement edit

i edited the introduction because it conveniently leaves out united states government involvement which is pivotal to the 9/11 truth movement. regardless of other theorists on the fringe of the movement, blaming zionism or the new world order, what is inherent in all is state sponsored terrorism or false flag terrorism and the awareness of each throughout history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.119.13 (talk) 17:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Your edit failed to take into account that the truther movement goes against the mainstream account, not simply the government's account which has a reciprocal, not unilaterally generative, relationship with the mainstream understanding. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:49, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

the mainstream understanding of the events of 9/11 are directly inherent and depending on US accounts/9/11 commission, the relationship with the mainstream understanding is not independent of the US governments accounts. they go hand in hand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.119.13 (talk) 21:02, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Fine, let me put it this way: the US gov't's version of things has been peer-reviewed by mainstream academia and found to be in line with physical evidence, which is the criteria for reliable sources. The conspiracy theorists either avoid letting their fantasies be compared to evidence, and when they do, they offer fantastic excuses as to why there's some physical evidence missing (going against Occam's razor) and are dismissed by mainstream academia for not being supported by physical evidence. Academically, they're no different than the are no different than the anti-science nuts trying to mess up both the Book of Genesis and science by trying to push Intelligent Design in public schools. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

"To serve Satan" motive in lede

I am quite astonished that I even have to explain the problem with this addition to the lede, but it appears a couple of editors are insistent on having this material there. We have exactly one source, a Salon article, that associates this claim with the 9/11 Truth movement. In the actual source it mentions exactly one person who believes Satanists were behind 9/11. The article notes two other people who seemingly do not completely reject the claim, though one is noted as not supporting such a claim, with one more person outright dismissing it. No indication that anyone but the one guy actually thinks "serving Satan" was a motive for the alleged conspirators. One editor has added two more sources, but one only says:

“

At a certain point, conspiracists realize that it would have been beyond the scope of the Bush administration to pull off the 9/11 conspiracy on its own. When they reach that point, they either leave the movement or find some more demonic, all-powerful group to pin the blame on.

”

There is no mention made of Satanists or anything comparable in that source. The second new source mentions an unnamed Kashmiri paper that reportedly included an article accusing the Illuminati of using the attacks as a pretext to destroy Islam, with some allegation made that the number 11 has something to do with Satan. We are only left to speculate as to whether that article actually claims the attacks were done "to serve Satan" or whether the article/paper represents any opinion worthy of consideration. No connection with the 9/11 Truth movement is mentioned in the article. This is not an article about 9/11 conspiracy theorists, but a specific movement associated with such theorists so its inclusion borders on OR.

Before an editor decided to add this material to the lede, we only mentioned the claims about the attacks being engineered to justify war or the curtailing of civil liberties. Those are indeed the two most commonly-noted claims in reliable sources and would be reasonable to mention in the lede. This stuff about Satan isn't mentioned anywhere in the article body and aside from the Salon article, I have found no reliable sources or even major conspiracist sources that seriously mention this as a major truther claim at all. Giving it equal validity with the well-documented truther claims is plainly inappropriate. We could possibly mention the Satanist claim in the article body, but with only one decent source mentioning exactly one truther who actually believes such a thing, I honestly don't see why it should be included at all.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The sources do confirm serving Satan or a demonic force as being commonly used, particularly in Muslim countries. So I would suggest changing to 'serving Satan or demonic forces'. Toa Nidhiki05 20:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted. This is/should be a no-brainer. It's not mentioned in article so per WP:LEAD there's no place for it in lead. Per Devil's Advocate the sources barely support any mention even in the article. Assuming it could go in the article (doubtful based on sources) would still beWP:UNDUE to put it in the lead. Those the want it in havn't even got to first base in getting into article, let alone lead. DeCausa (talk) 20:55, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I concur with DeCausa's statement above. The disregard for the principles of the article structure also strongly suggests that these edits are motivated by a particular POV. Cs32en Talk to me 22:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Request insertion of information or section citing District Court's ruling on Qui Tam Cases

The article mentions the Request For Corrections (RFC) in the NIST Report reaction but fails to mention the equally significant Qui Tam Cases brought by Dr. Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds claiming fraud on the part of source companies used by NIST to validate its conclusions on behalf of the 9/11 Commission. The District Court's Memorandum by Judge George B. Daniels dismissing The Qui Tam cases can be found at the following link:

http://drjudywood.com/pdf/080626_Wood_07CV3314GBD.pdf

To summarize, a Qui Tam Case (according to Wikipedia) under U.S. law, is "whistleblowing" charging false claims. In this case, fraud is alleged on the part of defendants who are third parties of the government. The provision of the False Claims Act "allows a private person, known as a "relator," to bring a lawsuit on behalf of the United States, where the private detective or other person has information that the named defendant has knowingly submitted or caused the submission of false or fraudulent claims to the United States." While Wood and Reynolds are not formally private detectives, they qualify by their action as an "other person" of similar notability found in other Wikipedia articles, e.g. Jim Garrison, Mark Lane, Fletcher Prouty, et al.

The judge's ruling, however, states that the Qui Tam cases (Wood and Reynolds) lack direct and independent knowledge “if a third party is ‘the source of the core information’ upon which the ... complaint is based.” Furthermore, "Their personal hypothesis about what should be concluded from publicly disclosed information does not qualify either of them as an original source of information in order to sustain an individual FCA claim on behalf of the Government". Pvsalsedo (talk) 01:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Oppose: Dr. Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds have long been putting out "theories" about 9/11 which are immediately known by the 9/11 Truth movement (and others) to be false and usually absurdly fanciful. They have no connection to the 9/11 Truth movement except as irritants which the movement wishes would go away. If they are mentioned at all, the 9/11 conspiracy theories article would be more appropriate; but even that would be granting these two more notability than they deserve. Wildbear (talk) 04:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Lead is too narrow

The lead states "Adherents of the 9/11 Truth Movement deny that al-Qaeda terrorists hijacked four airliners and intentionally crashed two into the World Trade Center buildings". I think this is too specific, as not all proponents argue this. Some (engineers particularly) only claim that the towers were brought down with the help of explosives without any assumptions as to who was involved. The use of explosives doesn't preclude Al-Qaeda (or anyone else) from hijacking (or otherwise) airliners (or aircraft of similar description) from intentionally crashing into the WTC. It seems fairly obvious that aircraft flew into the buildings, but that also doesn't preclude the use of explosives. I'm not a die hard truther, but I don't believe the mainstream media or the US government either. As a structural engineer there does seem to be some quirks in the hypothesis put forward by NIST, and the apparent hasty destruction of material evidence from the disaster does seem very questionable. Calling for further investigation doesn't seem unreasonable regardless of what actually happened. There seems to be a lot of people who get offended even by the mere suggestion of further investigation (which may in fact help to clear the government of any involvement). I guess these people (who seem to get all their 'facts' from Fox and CNN) explain why the US government is able to get away with gradual erosion of liberties (PATRIOT, NDAA, TSA, etc). Ignorance must surely be bliss for these morons. Goodbye ye olde 'land of the free and the home of the brave'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.23.146 (talk) 05:44, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I started to write that I agree with your point about the lead (before you went off on the irrelevant soapbox), but I'm not so sure. When we speak of "Truthers" or the Truth movement, we don't mean the "let-it-happen-on-purpose" conspiracy theorists, but those who believe that the events of 9/11 were not done by al Qaeda at all. Someone else (usually, the US government) is actually to blame for 9/11, even if planes were really hijacked and crashed into buildings. So, I think that the lead is correct: the Truth movement denies that al Qaeda terrorists hijacked and crashed four airliners.

And, if you happent to be agnostic on this point, I don't think you're representative of the movement. Surely, the movement isn't unanimous on who's to blame, but their consensus is that al Qaeda didn't do it. Phiwum (talk) 12:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Have a look at one of prominent "consipracy" groups, the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. The first paragraph of the Wikipedia article is basically what I said in my previous post. There are no doubt some people involved with AE911Truth that think the government or somebody else was responsible, but the general thrust of the organisation is restricted to the use of demolitions in the collapse and the need for further independent investigation. My "soapbox" stance has nothing to do with baseless accusations or wild theories, but merely that resistance to due process is irrational and dangerous (in any context). If someone opposes further independent investigation into 9/11, it makes me wonder what their real motive is because it would seem to be inconsistent with the pursuit of knowledge and truth. If the original conclusions of NIST are the truth, why not confirm it some more? Allow independent organisations (from overseas even) to look at the disaster with fresh eyes. Even those who believe the mainstream story would surely argue that when they are proven right again that it would be great to have even more ammo to fire at these hairbrained truthers? Even if the story doesn't change, there would no doubt be more knowledge gained by looking at evidence more closely again, so that building designs can be improved etc. The cost of further investigation would surely not be an issue. For comparison, look at how much effort and expense the NTSB invests in the pursuit of not only the cause of aviation and other transportation disasters, but also lessons to help prevent them in future. In any case, I think AE911Truth is representative of the "9/11 Truth movement" (the title of the article) because it is in their name, and the current lead doesn't read as neutral, making it look like anyone who doesn't agree with any/all of the government story necessarily believes that al-Qaeda terrorists weren't responsible, and I don't think that is representative of the movement. Given that AE911Truth apparently has over 1700 architects and engineers on their petition implies that there is at least some professional consensus that further investigation may be warranted. I would have signed but I'm reluctant due to fear of NDAA implications and professional risk, and I'm sure many other engineers might otherwise sign too. Such is the disturbing trend in US government policy that even freedom of speech seems to be gradually being eroded by stealth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.23.146 (talk) 13:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Please confine your discussion to article improvement, rather than discussing your opinions about the government and your notions of persecution. Acroterion (talk) 13:39, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Your comment above contributed absolutely nothing to the process of article improvement, so please "confine your discussion to article improvement", rather than imposing your personal judgement of the validity of discussion by others. Talk pages for controversial topics are full of opinion. Talk pages are for discussion of articles in the effort to improve them, and opinion is part of that. You won't find many Wikipedia talk pages without opinions. Articles are about facts, talk pages are about opinions relating to the facts. 203.129.23.146 (talk) 20:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

And for the record, 1,700 architects and engineers is not statistically significant. As of 2006 there are at least 1.5 million engineers and at least 225,295 architects, which means only 0.000985% of engineers and architects have signed it. This number further drops when you discover that most of the engineers are electrical engineers, not architectural engineers. I imagine these numbers are similar to the number of Scientologist engineers or the number of communist engineers - that is, it is a very tiny minority. Toa Nidhiki05 13:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

It's kinda funny that if you actually follow the link to architectural engineering, electrical engineers are included in that field. There are also many structural engineers. Truthers in general are a minority. The article is about a minority. AE911Truth may be a minority of all architects and engineers, but they aren't a minority of truthers. The architects and engineers represented by AE911Truth being a minority of all architects and engineers is irrelevent in the context of this article. 203.129.23.146 (talk) 20:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

More to the point, as far as I can tell, the supposition that WTC 1 and 2 were wired for demolition seems utterly inconsistent with the involvement of al Qaeda -- at least, surely no one thinks that al Qaeda wired the buildings, right? So, at the very least, the hijackings would be irrelevant to the destruction of the buildings. Nonetheless, I suppose you may have a point. AE911, for instance, does not explicitly say anything about the hijackings (as far as I saw), and so perhaps the lead should not place emphasis on the dispute about the hijackings. (To my mind, this is a fairly trivial point, however. The main point is that the hijackings are fundamentally inconsequential according to Truther theories.) Phiwum (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

You're right that the demolition of WTC with explosives needn't have anything to do with al Qaeda, but it could. Without investigation, neither you nor I can really know for sure. We can have our opinions, and you're welcome to your opinion that al Qaeda couldn't have wired the buildings, but that is your opinion only. I don't have an opinion on who was involved or responsible, and I don't really care either way. All I'm trying to say here is that the lead of the article isn't neutral (in its wording, and also because all of its sources appear to be mainstream western media). To many the whole topic and article is trivial, but that is also irrelevent.

No opinions are necessary. None of the available sources on the topic support any sort of "controlled demolition". That's why they are called conspiracy theories (i.e., they have no basis in fact). — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

That's a fine opinion, but nothing more. Once upon a time it was a well known 'fact' that the world was flat, until someone came along and proved that 'fact' to be wrong. Leave the article if you wish. I'm not going to bother getting into an edit war. I've probably contributed all I wanted to. Have a nice day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.23.146 (talk) 07:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Capitalization

Why is it "9/11 Truth movement" in article & not "9/11 truth movement"? Why is truth capitalized? I'm not suggesting a change to the article title because of WP:TITLECHANGES; however usage in the body of the article could be changed.

Philosophies, theories, movements, doctrines, and systems of thought do not begin with a capital letter, unless the name derives from a proper noun: lowercase republican refers to a system of political thought; uppercase Republican refers to a specific Republican Party (each party name being a proper noun).
— WP:DOCTCAPS

truth not treated as a proper noun in Truth

elevating truth in this context to a proper noun tends to add emphasis, which (in my opinion) might not be WP:NPOV. If it is a name derived from reliable sources then wouldn't it be 9/11 Truth Movement & not 9/11 Truth movement? David Woodward ☮ ♡♢☞☽ 09:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

In the sources, "9/11 Truth movement" seems to be most common. I'd go with that. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

China

The clause " even though half the oil produced by Iraq goes to China and not the US" is accurate and sourced, but attaching to the previous sentence is a clear example of syntehsis. We would need a single source which supports both the claim that truthers believe that the purpose of the 9/11 fake was to protect Iraqi oil, and that it didn't come to the US. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed; it's blatant synthesis. Revision undone. Wildbear (talk) 00:52, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, as well. Iselilja (talk) 19:19, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

It was extremely misleading as well. There is no indication of how much oil went to China before and at the time of the invasion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:57, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Lead wording revisited

The previous, Talk:9/11 Truth movement/Archive4#Lead Quality starts by wandering agreed version of the lead:

... dispute the accepted explanation ...

is being changed by an IP-hopping (no pejorative intended) anon to

... dispute the results of the official investigations ...

claiming the original is POV, while I consider the new version POV, as there are non-official investigations that produce the same result. I proposed a compromise,

,,, accepted results of official investigations ...

but I really think the original "accepted" is more NPOV. Perhaps "accepted" should be changed to "mainstream", but any reference to "official" investigations in the lead is both inaccurate (presuming the Iranian government had its own "official" investigation) and biased. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:46, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

"Accepted" makes it sound as if its really not true. It gives the lead a foul odor of disgust by instilling in a reader doubt right from the get go. I think its too leading and seems to be only there to taint the readers opinion.--JOJ ^Hutton 23:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

You have to remember Wikipedia considers (because it's true) that the official story is what happened, so the article has to go under the assumption the official story is what happened, so wording that makes it sound like POV in favor of the official story may be hard to get around because like I said, Wiki goes under the assumption the official story is true. All other articles related to 9/11 goes under that assumption as well. This is my best shot:

"Proponents of the 9/11 Truth movement argue that there are significant inconsistencies with the official story of the September 11th attacks of 2001 when terrorists associated with al-Qaeda hijacked four commercial airliners and intentionally crashed them into the World Trade Center towers in New York City, the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia, and into a field in rural Shanksville, Pennsylvania. Advocates of the movement theorize at minimum a governmental cover-up, and at most full complicity by the United States government."Zdawg1029 (talk) 15:17, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Million Muslim March

This damp squib apparently had Truther participation. Dougweller (talk) 14:05, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The "Official conspiracty theory" redirect page

I just posted the following to Talk for the Official conspiracy theory redirect page (with text somewhat edited here to fit the context of the present talk page):

The Official conspiracy theory (link shown in red here, access it through a search) redirect page does not go to the most appropriate article. It goes to the present article (9/11 Truth movement), which does not discuss the "official conspiracy theory" in a substantive way. The article 9/11 conspiracy theories takes on the topic more explicitly. Instead of being a redirect, the Official conspiracy theory page should be a disamiguation that provides a link to both articles.

Moveover, "official conspriacy theory" is a term that seemingly is not unique to the 9/11 events, and should be available for providing access to articles on other events too, as may be appropriate. Making it a disambiguation page would facilitate that. Coastwise (talk) 03:37, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

There is no "official conspiracy theory", as there are numerous different versions, and little to no consensus between the factions. TySoltaur (talk) 17:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Bias?

Currently this article reads as though the 9/11 truth movement were a mainstream and widely-accepted set of cohesive views. Nothing in the lede or the majority of the document suggests that 9/11 denialism is controversial or that the most commonly stated evidences are outright rejected by the vast majority of scientists from those fields (e.g. materials science engineering). Consequently, the article currently looks like a gloss piece. Are there any experts on the topic here who are not themselves 9/11 truthers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TricksterWolf (talk • contribs) 23:26, 3 February 2014 (UTC)