Talk:9-11 domestic conspiracy theory

I don't exactly agree that the article should be wiped just because the user was banned. It seemed like a decently-written article. -- &#12516;&#12462;

It definitely had some NPOV problems, but I think the bulk is salvageable. Hephaestos

The reasoning is as follows: if we allow banned users to contribute from anonymous IPs, then "banning" a user is meaningless.

This user was banned for good and sufficient reasons, after lengthy discussions on the mailing list, and following numerous attempts to negotiate with them. If they want to play here, let them ask to be un-banned on the mailing list.

To continue to astroturf their articles into the Wikipedia via a range of dynamically allocated anonymous IPs is an underhand way of flouting a ban that they are well aware of.

If you want to fill in the content, please re-write it in your own words, thus cutting off their source of narcissistic supply. The Anome


 * That does make sense. -- &#12516;&#12462;


 * Right, I agree completely. I'll work on it tomorrow if nobody beats me to it; right now I'm going to catch some shuteye.  :) Hephaestos

---

Just a pet peeve. Can someone please identify which political circles the term is in use? One annoyance is when an article refers to certain people or certain groups without clearly stating who they are?

Pretty much anyone who thinks Bush is trying to take over the world. If you want a specific term, try liberal fringe radical pink commie anarchist arab-loving whackos who read indy news and the like. Susan Mason


 * Advocates of this theory often argue that, on the day of the terrorst attacks, Israeli workers were warned not to go to work at the World Trade Center and that key government officials were warned not to fly on aircraft heading through New York and Washington airspace.

Are these "stay home" and "no fly" advisories generally accepted as indeed having been given? By not explicitly denying this, the article seems to imply that they are. One could argue that


 * These views are regarded by most people as having no basis in fact

is such an explicit denial. However, it is unclear what, exactly, "most people" doubt. Is it the reality of these particular advisories, or rather that of the "Bush Knew" position overall?

--Ryguasu 20:23 Mar 6, 2003 (UTC)

The problem is, when u talk to the government it won't comment upon anything. On the other hand, I keep hearing this stuff and I don't know whether it's totally unfounded or not. In short, this is a conspiracy theory. Susan Mason

So is there any reason to believe (or not to believe) that 1) someone generally trusted by "most people" has used a public forum (e.g a press conference) to ask the government, "So, is that stuff about the Israeli WTC workers and the Washington/New York no-fly advisory true?", and that 2) the government has actually failed to respond to these particular questions? Is part of your reason for using the label "conspiracy theory" that evidence for these particular claims does not seem to be forthcoming? If so, I think this logic should be make explicit in the article. --Ryguasu 00:15 Mar 7, 2003 (UTC)


 * If evidence was forthcoming this would be more than a conspiracy theory. I don't know if that logic needs to be made explicit, I am of the opinion that such logic is defined within the conspiracy theory article, something along the lines of how conpsiracy theories generally don't have any evidence because "they" have enough power to hide the evidence.


 * I see no reason to believe that the government has discussed this issue, it tends to not discuss things. In fact, I would say there is definite reason to believe 2 because it would appear to be an official policy to never discuss any allegation of government wrongdoing.


 * Susan Mason


 * I agree that, if I accept the article's claim that this is a conspiracy theory at face value, I get an implicit answer to my question. However, I think the article should provide at least some reason to believe that these ideas actually are a conspiracy theory. (If no reasons for using the term "conspiracy theory" in this particular instance can be given, then applying the label comes to seem like a strange sort of meta-conspiracy.) Making the above logic explicit seems to be a step in this direction. --Ryguasu 00:44 Mar 7, 2003 (UTC)

I guess Im not sure what you are getting at. If we decide this isn't a conspiracy theory, then what is it? Susan Mason

I'm not taking a stance here on whether or not it's a conspiracy theory. What I am saying is that, if Wikipedia is going to state that it is a conspiracy theory, it really ought to justify its claim; calling something a "conspiracy theory" is a serious allegation, and it should not be made lightly, especially in an allegedly NPOV forum. (Actually, I'm not sure anything can be labeled a conspiracy theory in a truely NPOV forum, but that is not my specific objection here.) I think the claim that this is a conspiracy theory would be more serious and respectable if the logic about Israeli workers and no fly zones were laid out more explicitly. Do you have some objection to this? --Ryguasu 02:06 Mar 7, 2003 (UTC)


 * "Serious allegation"? Nonsense - this article came here from "Bush knew" - conspiracy theory is a highly validating term considering the low quality of the original. Sure you can add anything you want to the spere of this "theory" -knock yourself out - if its not encyclopedic, then "someone" will delete it. As far as other "conspiracy theories" well they are what they are, like it or not - they are in association with this kind of stuff - if their not fact (today) they are at best "theories".  --  &#35918&#30505

I really don't understand Ryguasu, this is a theory that there was a conspiracy. That makes it a conspiracy theory. Susan Mason

I, like Ryguasu, see that many of the things mentioned here aren't conspiracy theory, yet nobody objects to them being on this page rather than on the 9/11 main page (where they actually should be on). This way, you seem to be part of the conpirators, and have not genuinely researched the mentioned facts. I would like to stress you to check these sites: research centre 1 research centre 2 They are both pure factual, yet people often refer to them as 'conspiracy sites' which is totally false and insulting to those having worked on it, really. Julius 00:02, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

redirected - &#35918&#30505

Susan, are you an i@!*%! why are you re-redirecting redirects when someone else (me in this case) is working on them? Pay some attention, have some consideration, and keep a graceful tone, or Ill suggest you be removed (again).-- &#35918&#30505

Why don't you keep a @*(#&@ graceful tone yourself. Susan Mason

-- A textbook of propaganda techniques could be written simply summarizing the myriad of response to the simple claim that President Bush Knew about the September 11, 2001 attacks in advance. Between the propagation of simple urban legend and rumour material, misguided defenses of the Bush administration, outright ad hominem attacks on all sides, the historical validity of similar claims has not been examined. But attempts to examine those claims almost always encounter some censorship.

As a small example of the dynamics in play and techniques in use, consider the succession of Wikipedia articles on this subject, terminating (so far) in the "9/11 domestic conspiracy theory" article. A related case is the fate of the article Bush League (Wikipedia).

The fate of the article titled Bush Knew is however the subject of this case study. In order to avoid examining the actual evidence and thus becoming dragged into the truth or falsehood of the case, we shall focus only on the presentation, and not examine the actual 9/11 domestic conspiracy theory which is itself simply a subset of some larger question that we do not examine forensically at Disinfopedia, focusing instead simply on the truth and trust and propaganda that distorts and abuses both.

Quoting from the Wikipedia article as it stands on April 30, 2003, we understand in the very first sentence that the theory:


 * "...is advocated by certain political groups."

This is literally the first thing we learn about it, that it is somehow suspect or propaganda by dint of who advocates it. Then we "learn" more:


 * "Advocates of this theory often argue that, on the day of the terrorist attacks, Israeli workers were warned not to go to work at the World Trade Center and that key government officials were warned not to fly on aircraft heading through New York and Washington airspace."

These are claims well known to be false, but these are how the rest of the material is introduced. The "advocates" are clearly not credible.

Later on this quite short article concludes with:


 * "Like most conspiracy theories, this is generally regarded as being unsubstantiated.


 * "It does parallel the more widespread belief that the US government had advance knowledge of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor."

This last line was added recently, and the more credible factual material appears to have been also added recently. This includes material on Operation Northwoods and Delmart Vreeland, and various links to external sites. Whether or not these are credible or biased is not part of this case study.

There is no mention of the term Bush Knew in the article whatsoever, although a 'redirect' does get anyone using that well-known phrase to the correct article (try it yourself, just click on Bush Knew). But this was in fact the name of the original article, which has since been censored. Looking at the first instance of the redirect page it actually dates to 21:46 March 6, while the existing article dates to 21:48 UTC on March 6. But there is no earlier article visible. In fact it was deleted by a Wikipedia User known to be active against anti-Bush users and material.

It is visible in an older version of the Wikipedia tarball:

Bush Knew is an idiom referring to the theory that G. W. Bush knew in advance about the September 11 terrorist attacks on the United States. If true, this would make G. W. Bush liable to claims of being both a traitor and a terrorist. This parallels similar claims made for his father, George Bush Sr., according to the October Surprise theory.

Historically, claims that enemy attacks on English-speaking nations were known in advance by leaders are not uncommon. Franklin D. Roosevelt was accused by some historians and commentators of knowing about the December 7, 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor, and deliberately doing nothing about it other than ensuring that American aircraft carriers were not there, so as to create a public outrage and a cry for war with Germany as well as Japan. It is also a matter of well-verified historical fact that Winston Churchill knew about the raid on Coventry in 1940, and chose to do nothing about it in order not to reveal that Great Britain had broken the Enigma code.

It is also quite common for the citizens of a given country under an oppressive regime to deny that their leaders could have anything to do with an atrocity. For instance, in Nazi Germany, most Germans did not believe that the Holocaust against Jews, Gypsies and other groups was being carried out. In the former USSR, many people deny to this day that Stalin murdered over ten, perhaps as many as thirty, million people. There is a certain groupthink implied by nationalism and perhaps by fear of having to risk one's own life or freedom to confront a dictatorial leader.

By American standards, many consider G. W. Bush to be just such a leader, as his administration has passed several rather drastic changes into law, including creating the status of illegal combatant, proposing a U.S. invasion of Iraq, and defining a War on Terrorism that so far has included breaching a great many US civil liberty traditions. All this is not evidence of any treasonable or dictatorial intent, necessarily, but a great many people in the United States and worldwide think that it is.

Edward Gibbon, an early historian of the Roman Empire, pointed out that the Romans suffered a great deal psychologically under the Roman Emperors in part because the Romans had themselves originated most of the modern traditions of rule of law, and that Roman citizens continued to be educated in these traditions, even though they themselves no longer enjoyed a legalistic regime or civil rights. Some commentators, especially in China, have made the point that British and American traditions having originated modern human rights law, those nations are, in analogy to the Greek and Roman situation, most likely to fall prey to despots, as people have weaker political instincts.

Still, there is much to recommend that the suggestion that "Bush Knew" is simply another conspiracy theory. Other than Cynthia McKinney, the former Democratic Congresswoman from Georgia, few public figures have hinted that they agreed with the thesis or suspected personal involvement by figures in the Bush League. The Democratic Party distanced itself from the idea. The New York Post has explored the question but took no position on credibility.

There are several facts that remain troubling to supporters of G. W. Bush:
 * In the summer of 2001, there were rumors widely reported in the press that Al Qaeda members were learning how to pilot airplanes, and furthermore that they were uninterested in learning how to take off or land.  The fact that one or more hijackings was planned was obvious to every experienced player.
 * Also that summer, a plot to slam a small plane into a building in Milan, Italy was foiled. Another plot reputedly was to destroy the Eiffel Tower, and such an airplane collision was reported to have been a possible method.
 * The World Trade Center had been a target of a prior bombing attempt by Al Qaeda, and tenants of that building had expressed concern. Cantor Fitzgerald Securities, through its eSpeed subsidiary, sponsored a U.S. Naval War College research program into "NewRuleSets" whose logo featured the World Trade Center itself being riven by a lightning bolt from the sky.

Given these facts, the failure of the G. W. Bush administration to anticipate the attacks does seem like some kind of failure of intelligence in both senses. However, in Bush's defense, he is widely believed to be a moron by figures in the French government and Canadian government, and by experienced leaders such as Fidel Castro and Saddam Hussein. It is probably unwise to explain by conspiracy what can be equally well explained by simple stupidity.

See also: Dubya Dubya Three

Examining this original version, we note several important differences:


 * The new censored one is replacing credible with sensational claims
 * There is a raising standard of evidence applied to the theory - since it challenges authority presumably - Bush supporters are not challenged in the new version to answer to "complicity, complacency, conspiracy or incompetence" questions
 * A neutral statement regarding the opinions of other world leaders of long experience, of widely varying political beliefs, which defends Bush as "widely believed to be a moron" (damning not Bush but Republicans or America) has been removed
 * Mention of a Congresswoman's call for a inquiry has been removed completely
 * Mention of the New York Post headline which was in fact Bush Knew has been omitted
 * The evidence of credible warnings and prior knowledge within the military-industrial complex has been removed
 * The original put events more in an historical context
 * the censored one mentions only the less credible claim regarding Franklin Delano Roosevelt by way of excusing the current theory as a copycat
 * It mentioned Coventry where there is clear evidence that Churchill Knew
 * It mentioned the [USSR]]'s ability to control it's people's beliefs
 * It mentioned the widespread failure of Germans to believe the truth in the Second World War which is a credible parallel to modern Americans (many of whom believe that G. W. Bush like Hitler seized power with minority support and so might credibly also have 'burned the Reichstag' in this respect)
 * It mentioned Gibbon's view and the Roman Empire's loss of freedom to internal forces
 * Bush's family history is unexamined
 * G. H. W. Bush and the October Surprise are not mentioned

Taken as a whole, the original is more balanced, but also more damning. It would seem that the censor who deleted the original did not count on being noticed. A similar article on the Bush League documenting well-known links between various world military and oil figures was censored into the Bush family conspiracy theory. One is tempted to ask, if one accused Joseph Kennedy, John F. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy and Theodore Kennedy of collusion, would this be recast into a harmless "Kennedy family conspiracy theory"?