Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories/Archive 12

Introduction
I am deleting the final introductory sentance "The scientific community does not support the controlled demolition hypothesis and U.S. officials, mainstream journalists, and researchers have concluded that only al-Qaeda was involved in the attacks." for two reasons. First, there is a documented controversy over how the buildings could have fell within the scientific community as noted further in the article. To say there is a consensus is clearly false.

Second, as with most conspiracy theories, the 9/11 theories disagree with the mainstream consensus. This is due to the very nature of conspiracy theories. They are all controversial. -Rich

Hoax

 * NO - please check into psychoanalyst - I suspect paranoid schizophrenia. Your kind always questions 'big events' e.g. the moon landing, holocaust, etc. It's all a fuckin' hoax. Please sign-in to this reality. -- John Lyon, NYC

Proposal for splitting
I propose that this article needs to be cut down in size; it is currently 120 kB in size. At least the following two sections could be put into subarticles:


 * 1) Controlled-Demolition Theory (without the random and IMO useless personal opinions section, it comes to 32kB in size, the normal maximum size for an article)
 * 2) WTC Building 7 (comes to 16kB in size and about 5 pages in length; long enough for a subarticle of its own)

==I already made a Controlled-Demolition Theory branch at Controlled-Demolition Theory (9/11 Conspiracy Theory), but was challenged and it currently is undergoing a VfD. I think it needs to stay, as it is large enough to be an article in its own right, and think a second page needs to come off. Can people please state whether they agree or disagree with me? Titanium Dragon 22:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the split is going to be upheld, and the CD article has the WTC 7 stuff. If it needs to be split, it should be split from there. I think the controlled demolition theory as it relates to 9/11 CTs should be one section (with WTC 1, 2, and 7), with a link oubto the CD article (or to two of them, if that happens, which I don't think should).--Thomas Basboll 15:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Most of the other subsections are small or too unrelated to put on their own page; the only one which is nearly as large as those two is the Israel/Jewish related subset of conspiracy theories, which clock in at 12 kB. Titanium Dragon 22:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * For the same reasons as before, I oppose splitting. There is still a near-total absense of reliable secondary sources for this material. The way to shorten the page is to remove the parts that are uncited to good sources, and to remove the current synthesis of opinion. Tom Harrison Talk 14:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that splitting will meet you well better than half way on the CT article and you criticisms will then simply apply to the Demolition article, where they will be as strong as ever. The splitting is a (perhaps temporary) stage on the way towards a better 9/11 CT article - the need for which seems to be increasing every day.--Thomas Basboll 14:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Tom, the article about CD would not be the article about "how did it happen" but "what common people (and some researchers) say about it" on the Internet. This could change your view on sources. As Thomas said, the criticism would apply in strong manner then. I see it a bit like internet phenomenon. --SalvNaut 14:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I oppose the split as well. The problem with this article is its length, which stems not from a plethora of material, but from its "connect-the-dots" synthesis, which is prohibited under Wikipedia rules.  Rather than split, we should be winnowing this one down to a short summary of WHAT the theories are, not WHY a particular theory is true or not true.  Morton devonshire 00:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see it that way. I agree with Thomas that splitting it is the way forward. It is too long at present. --Guinnog 01:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Tom and Morton, I don't think you are likely to win consensus about simply deleting material. What I don't understand, therefore, is why you don't see the splitting as a step in the right direction. It will allow us to produce a much better 9/11 CT article, while beginning a no worse Controlled Demolition demolition article. I also think the separate CD article will allow us to think more clearly about how to present that information, and what information to present.--Thomas Basboll 06:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * We tolerate this one as a crap repository, a place to blow off steam on Wikipedia, as it were. It's so nutty and unsupported with reliable sources that any casual reader would know not to rely upon it, so nobody makes a big effort to try to get it to conform to WP:RS and WP:OR.  We don't need two crap repositories.  Morton devonshire 18:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * At the risk of dignifying that remark, let me simply say that splitting is a first way of making an article on what turns out to be a serious cultural phenomeon conform to WP standards.--Thomas Basboll 19:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You like to strenghten your confidence by giving speeches like that, don't you Morton? There's nothing to tolerate - your job here is to observe reality in the most objective way you can and report it giving sources. The reality is that CD theories exist and many smart people (of course not as smart as you) give them a close look. --SalvNaut 19:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Both of you miss my point. I understand and appreciate the cultural phenomenen, and think it ought to be described by referencing secondary sources that describe it, but this article doesn't describe the cultural phenom.  Instead, it tries to make the case that these theories are true -- that's what violates the rules against original research.  Connecting the dots violates Wikipedia rules.  Morton devonshire 20:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * If that was your point, then you I think even you missed it. Everyone agrees the article needs to be improved. The split is a good way towards that goal. That's what we're discussing. Your remark suggested that the choice was between one crap article or two. Most of us are striving for two (or more) good articles.--Thomas Basboll 20:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Given the quality of the current article, I would have to agree with the sentiment you expressed (i.e. a choice between one and two crap articles). But it need not be that way.  There are plenty of mainstream newspaper and mainstream magazine aticles out there describing the theories -- just cite to those and summarize the descriptions contained in those sources.  That's all we're asking for.  Morton devonshire 00:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think we have to consider not just what we hope for, but what will likely happen. POV forks are everywhere, and hard to delete once created. Encyclopedic articles on fringe theories are rare and barely stable. I think the one you propose, in spite of good intentions and hard work, will develop as another pov fork, because there is so little scholarly work on the subject. Tom Harrison Talk 20:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I guess I do hope you're wrong. One thing we seem to agree on, though, is that the situation in re scholarly work is improving.--Thomas Basboll 20:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * There is much more scholary work on CD than on Black Helicopters (conspiracy). NIST FAQ should be incorporated into CD theory. Jones's theory should be well presented, there is a discussion between Greening and Ross(contra vs pro CD)... Do we really have to wait a couple years until someone writes a book "Controlled demolition controversy - science and cultural phenomenon"? A split is a good way to arrange both criticism and pro-voices over CD. --SalvNaut 21:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * We don't have to wait at all, there are plenty of mainstream newspaper and mainstream magazine aticles out there describing the theories -- just cite to those and summarize the descriptions contained in those sources. That's all we're asking for.  Morton devonshire 00:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I cannot support the creation of an article composed of original research that doesn't neet our standards for sourcing. The page will develop as yet another pov fork alternately promoting and debunking the conspiracy theory, with lots of external links to the websites of its purveyors. The way forward is not to move nonsense from one place to another, but to delete it. Tom Harrison Talk 12:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I support Tom Harrison. --Sloane 13:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I support Tom Harrison. --Cberlet 13:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't, I completely do not follow your reasoning. Do you really have to have a pov to see that the Internet is full of controlled demolition theory followers and that they have quite a lot of common arguments? I did a couple of Google searches for you:
 * "controlled demolition" wtc -- about 526,000 hits
 * "controlled demolition" wtc Jones -- about 138,000
 * "controlled demolition" wtc Hoffman -- about 26,700
 * "controlled demolition" wtc wtc7 -- about 158,000
 * "controlled demolition" wtc "free fall" --about 52,200
 * "controlled demolition" wtc thermite -- about 46,400
 * "controlled demolition" wtc "pull it" -- about 37,100
 * "controlled demolition" wtc "molten metal" -- about 23,600
 * "controlled demolition" wtc pulverized -- about 19,400
 * "controlled demolition" wtc squibs -- about 18,100
 * "controlled demolition" wtc symmetric -- about 14,200
 * "controlled demolition" wtc "eyewitness accounts" explosions -- about 13,800
 * "controlled demolition" wtc ejected girders -- about 1,770
 * "controlled demolition" wtc "demolition waves" -- about 1,590
 * "controlled demolition" wtc "steel temperatures" -- about 1,500
 * This case is discussed and deserves it's own page (much more than Pokemon species) --SalvNaut 13:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The controlled demolition hypothesis as it appear in WP is not OR. The article is not report of a wikipedians own findings. Most of the info in the CD section/article, including the connections that can be made between them, can be found in two or three widely read sources: The New Pearl Harbor is one, Jones' paper is another. These two texts, in turn, have now been widely reported on in the mainstream press. Some of that information, in turn, can be confirmed in official reports and mainstream engineering accounts. There is a great basis for a good article here. Like I say, why oppose splitting with an alternative (deleting) that will not win consensus?--Thomas Basboll 14:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It is original research by synthesis. There are very few good secondary sources on 9/11 conspiracy theories, though more may be appearing in the academic literature. We (though my own contribution is small) read the news, surfed the web, and more-or-less decided among ourselves that there are things called 9/11 conspiracy theories; we decided what those theories are, which are most prominent, and what were their essential features. There are a few reliable sources, but only for half of what's on the page. It could be worse; it used to be only a tenth of what was on the page, but people have worked hard to improve it. As real social scientists and researchers write about the topic, and as we summarize their work, the page will continue improve. Tom Harrison Talk 14:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * And, as it turns out, you (I arrived very late) were largely right that there were such things.--Thomas Basboll 16:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I understand your concern about secondary sources, thank you for the explanation. Still, it is no doubt that CD theory is being reported in the news. Google News Archives search for "controlled demolition" wtc returns 170 hits since 2001. Google News returns 54 hits as of now. There are 5 books on amazon.com when searched for same phrase. There was a documentary on a dutch television about CD . Lately, there was a tv debate between Loose Change creators and Popular Mechanics, and they discussed wtc7 demolition. There is Jones's research and a book by Griffin that contained Jones's paper. There is a movie and a book by Jim Hoffman.
 * I understand that books that discuss those other books are needed, right? Well - there is "Debunking 9/11 Myths" book in which they "debunk" CD, too. (there also are those infamous PM and SA debunking articles, and many debunking sites).


 * Questions: Is it that every info in the Wikipedia has to be sourced by a secondary source? The fact of existance of CD theories is reported in secondary sources, those theories are discussed on the net - no doubt about it. It still does not authorize us to report in the article what _exactly_ are those theories about??
 * Because if it did, then the size of the article would speak for itself. --SalvNaut 16:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * We can use primary sources (like Griffin's book), but we should not rely only (or I would say largely) on primary sources. There are some secondary sources, and more are appearing. I do not think there are enough to justify two articles on 9/11 conspiracy theories. New World Order (conspiracy) theories are well established, and have a substantial literature. Our coverage is not as organized as it could be, but there are maybe four pages about those, depending on what you count. New World Order c.t. is very modular, tying in with almost anything. 9/11 c.t. may turn out to be another component of NWO theories, like Black Helicopters (conspiracy). Many of the same people are invloved in both. It looks to me like we have enough information for one good article, but not for two. In all this, I leave out the pov forks, which are a different issue. Tom Harrison Talk 17:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think this quantitative argument is way off the mark. There are lots of articles (way more than two) on 9/11 CTs if you count articles on the individuals and groups now involved, the various borderline cases (like Paul Thompson and Press for Truth), and the issues that are not specific only to CTs. We need do need one article on the overlaps between these articles that constitute proper "conspiracy theories" in the popular sense. But for the side issues and details (like controlled demolition) there can't really be a limit. There is a separate article on Oops!... I Did It Again (song) for Pete's sake! And another one for the album. How many articles does Britney deserve? There's an article on Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction. Come on! Does counting articles really make any sense?--Thomas Basboll 19:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand dangers that we face when reporting mainly from primary sources - the article may be biased because of the lack of views from "other side". In this case I don't think there is such danger - there are many debunking voices, sites, articles that allow us to balance the article. You can almost see a battle on the Internet over CTs. Thanks for examples, but... Maybe I'm wrong, but I see a big difference between New World Order c.t. and CD - it's mainly the scale. We are observing something of enormous scale as for a conspiracy theory - it even reached academic environment! And you still would like to keep it on one page (even when NWO has it's offsprings). This page seems to be bursting at the seams and from my pov cutting a lot from it would be like a censorship. --SalvNaut 19:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't really see how this page contains original research as defined by Wikipedia; the people propagating these theories are not, hopefully, doing original research then adding it here. Indeed, these articles are actually quite extensively referenced, and in the controlled demolition section, at least, it is quite clear at all times that these are claims made by conspiracy theorists, which conspiracy theorists have made them, ect. Because they are a large social phenomenon and books and documentaries have been made regarding this by many of these sources (such as Jones), I think its legitimate to have them in articles as long as they are sourced properly and as long as they are presented as opinions, which is readily verifiable and is allowed under WP: RS - we have reliable sources which state they have claimed this, as they themselves have sites supporting these claims. As we are not presenting these as facts but as theories presented by conspiracy theorists, I think a lot of the criticism is actually directed at the theories rather than the actual content. In essence, I think people are missing the forest for the trees; it still is a wikipedia article about it, and though people may disagree with their claims, they don't disagree that people claim these things. As long as it remains clear what is fact, what is theory, and who says what, I think it is quite legitimate. There's no other way of reporting on conspiracy theories, after all, and 9/11 conspiracy theories are probably the best developed and supported (and tested) of any conspiracy theories ever. Titanium Dragon 23:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Under WP:OR, Wikipedia forbids "Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position". See   Morton devonshire 00:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This is not a synthesis of published material serving to advance a position; this is describing a position people are advancing. There is a fundamental difference between the two. This entire article is about conspiracy theories, why people believe in these conspiracy theories, and criticims of the aforementioned conspiracy theories. This is not an article proposing the official story of 9/11 is incorrect; this is an article about the theory that the official theory is incorrect, who is advancing it, why, and what criticisms there are of it. If this was not allowed, then we couldn't have an article on the official 9/11 report! Titanium Dragon 02:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Nonsense. This is a bizarre understanding of what a serious encyclopedia aspires to be.--Cberlet 03:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Bizare how?--Thomas Basboll 07:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the point of contention needs to be not "synthesis" but "serving to advance a position". This article, as it stands, only occasionally lapses into argumentative arrangements of material. (Let's talk about them one at time in stead of making these sweeping statements about an article everyone agrees needs work.) For the most part it uses facts in the same way its sources does, connecting them (via those sources) to conspiriatorial conclusions. For anyone who becomes interested in the theories it describes after reading, say, Time Magazine or the Washington Post, or watching CNN's or BBC's recent coverage, it offers a place to start to make sense of the them and make up one's mind. It could be much, much better, and we're working on that. Separating out the synthesis (not serving to advance...) of the WTC material is a good start. The next step, to my mind, is to distinguish allegations made by only one or two sources from allegations made by more or less all of them.--Thomas Basboll 07:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Operation Northwood?
Why is Operation Northwood a link on this page? Seriously, Northwood has nothing to do with 9/11, hell I've seen all three versions of Loose Change and Jones still has not made the link.

If its to remain here, it needs a reason to be here. Like a citation of "A similar conspiracy plan to the proposed 9/11 conspiracy theories" right next to it.
 * I removed it.--Sloane 13:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Operation Northwoods, Operation Ajax, Operation Gladio, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, and Cubana Flight 455 are all extremely important as to whether or not America has carried out false flag terrorism in the past. Which would show that it is not only possible for the American government to have carried out 9/11, but that it has carried out similar events in the past multiple times. Also showing that there is much credence to the arguement that western governments maybe behind most terrorist attacks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.250.113.190 (talk • contribs).

A lot of people say the American government would not kill 3,000 of their own people. The Northwoods documents prove thats exactly the sort of thing the people who run America would do, if they saw strategic long term advantage in it. It evidences the warped, power crazed, mentality of America's ruling elite. Timharwoodx 22:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If it proves anything, it proves just the opposite, as Northwoods was rejected by the Kennedy Administration.--Sloane 04:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That doesn't prove the opposite. The choices of a few is not indicative of the choices of the whole.  While some in the administration opposed it, it was Kennedy himself who rejected the proposal.  Likewise, just because one administration opposed the idea, doesn't mean every single administration would/will/does.  To say that is akin to belief that your own opinion expresses the views of the world. -Emhilradim 05:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Individuals Questioning the Collapse
This section seems totally extraneous to me; this is just people's opinions on it, and it seems unimportant. This is about the conspiracy theories, not about what people say about them, and it seems like the article would be stronger without them. Titanium Dragon 22:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone confirm this addition?

 * However, Bush never claimed to have seen the first plane hit "live". Most point to the fact that the first plane hit the first tower at about 8:46 a.m., and President Bush entered the classroom at Booker elementary at about 9:03 a.m., when the first plane crash at the WTC would have been being covered, giving Bush plenty of time to have seen reruns of the first plane crash as it was repeatedly replayed on the news.

This is, to my knowledge, totally false. Beyond being a terrible addition without sourcing, if I recall correctly the news agencies did not have footage of the first plane crashing into the WTC until after the second plane crashed into the WTC. If no one can source this within 24 hours I'm junking it, it looks like someone just added something to defend Bush. Titanium Dragon 08:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree. The "would have been covered" looks like someone thinking out loud without knowing the facts (about when the Naudet footage was first shown).--Thomas Basboll 08:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I doubt there's a source for that. The only official response is the one cited in the article saying it was a 'mistaken recollection.'


 * Of course, anyone who's heard Bush speak knows its just his 'folksiness'. 'Saw' in folksy-president-speak is the same as 'learned' or 'was told'.  I guess most conspiracy theorists are not from the South.  Unfortunately, the White House didn't respond, "Oh, thats just the stupid way Bush speaks."--Dcooper 14:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

RE:Film - I am surprised at the lack of films of 911. I would have thought that cameramen of all varieties would have captured every angle of the event. I keep seeing the same film over and over, but darn few new or different ones - curious that every New Yorker with a camera - or at least a few of them - didn't take a shot.
 * There was a TV program broadcast on one of the other anniversaries I think it was called “7 days in September” that had many amateur videos shot from every conceivable location in downtown Manhattan. Googling “9/11 home or amateur videos or searching Youtube will get you some results 69.114.117.103 07:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)

Suggestion to delete all but a summary of WTC after split article passes VfD
I'm optimistic about the split off WTC article. If we get to keep it, we should cut the corresponding material out of this article and improve the relevant summaries. This would constitute a compromise with those who want to delete all the "junk science" from the CT article. They can then be presented as "issues" within the CT community in the WTC article.--Thomas Basboll 08:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep as is
Whilst I can see why the viewpoints may be seen as contentious, this article needs to be retained in order to present both sides of what is a complex story Ianguy 02:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * A complex story can be very well presented in a couple of articles - it's more readable, the reader doesn't have to read everything if he doesn't want to, he is presented with overwievs of components... "divide and conquer" - it's better this way, imho. --SalvNaut 14:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Link

 * Post 9/11 Conspiracism

On the quality of sources for this article
Tom Harrison has repeatedly suggested that this article, and especially the WTC section, is based on poor or missing sources. This may be true, I haven't checked them all. But surely we can agree that there is by now a solid set of sources to confirm the existence of the widespread belief that 9/11 was carried out by shadowy persons working inside the U.S. government and that the World Trade Center was brought down by controlled demolition. Many of these sources also allow us to go into considerable detail about these beliefs. We can, of course, not confirm their truth; but we can easily document their existence. I've opened this thread to discuss this issue and hopefully get Tom to make his critique of the sourcing of this article explicit. If there are problems with the sources, I'm confident that in 90% of the cases they can be fixed by appeal to any of three or four books, a couple of websites, a few papers, and the growing mainstream media coverage.--Thomas Basboll 14:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

POV about 400 jews
The section tries to prove that all this theory was made up by hezboallah and this link [| TRying to prove that...] cleary states contrdict the npov by clearly writing at top of it to Stop the defamation of the Jewish people.It also tries to use wikipedia as a media outlet for Israeli pov.Pl check into it.Yousaf465
 * Well then who created the rumour according to you?--Sloane 17:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

GTFO ZOG AGENT Therman^^HAND 00:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

demolition
"While the demolitions of WTC 1 and 2 were by no means ordinary demolitions."

I really don't understand what that sentence is supposed to mean and how it is supported by the source. --Sloane 23:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Demolition experts generally agree that the collapse WTC 1 and 2 looked nothing like a controlled demolition they would carry out. Jowenko has been mentioned a few times and could perhaps also be used here. Blanchard (the cited source) explains that it's all about "where" they collapsed. His analysis is a useful piece of information. Penn & Teller's caustic infotainment is not useful. They found someone who makes a ridiculous claim (well beyond the range of his expertise) and shout, if I recall, "f--- you" at him, then they get him to dress up in a silly costume and drive a car (?).--Thomas Basboll 22:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, Walter is not a major proponent of the controlled demolition hypothesis. He's not a major thinker in the movement.--Thomas Basboll 22:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The sentence is completely contradicting itself. First it says it could not have been an ordinary "controlled demolition" and then it says it would have been like any (ordinary) controlled demolition. About Walters, didn't he appear on a news show as well? He seems to be one of the more prominent 9/11 deniers. I see no reason for excluding him from the article, a lot of deniers believe they stowed the WTC full of explosives, that should be reflected. --Sloane 23:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Opportunity of the term "Conspiracy theory"
Hi, I see this is a high-activity page... sorry if this has already been discussed some long time ago. I think the title of the page should rather be "9/11 alternative theories" or some other phrasing instead of "Conspiracy theory", because:
 * 1) 9/11 was, by all accounts, a conspiracy (and this is one of the few things really everybody in this page can agree about, I think). Any explanation/account of the events is, by necessity and no matter the POV, a "conspiracy theory".
 * 2) "Conspiracy theory" is a loaded word, and assumes a certain degree of paranoia/lack of reason on the side of its proponents. I think any eventual stupidity should come forward from the facts and opinions presented, not from the title.


 * Agreed, I've been trying to explain this to people for some time. Calling someone a "conspiracy theorist" is akin to calling them a "paranoid nutcase" --Carcinogen


 * NO - please check into psychoanalyst - I suspect paranoid schizophrenia. Your kind always questions 'big events' e.g. the moon landing, holocaust, etc. It's all a fuckin' hoax. Please sign-in to this reality. -- John Lyon, NYC


 * Hi there, just jumped in from 911 attacks talk page with this very same thought in mind. Yes indeed, the wording here (as there) is no good at all. We need far better formula to present facts which are very hard to dispute. Being heavily focused on that other talk I haven’t find time to look at these pages carefully, but after a quick look, I would say that most points could be articulated without such modesty. For example this heading: "Allegations of insider trading…" is very misleading. Trading did take place, options are still unclaimed; information is known but withheld from public and so on… These are not allegations; these are known, verifiable facts. Anyway, apologies if this is an old talk here… Fact is, I agree, word conspiracy should be avoided. -- Lovelight 00:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The argument against using the words "conspiracy theorist" generally apply in cases where the theorist is not proposing a conspiracy but rather criticizing an institution. A famous example is Noam Chomsky's "propaganda model" of the media which is sometimes denigrated as a "conspiracy theory". Here its defenders are right to object, as Chomsky does, that the label is really just intended to discourage institutional criticism. I.e., it misinterprets claims about banal social interests as claims about a sinister plot. (Tom Wolfe makes this "cabal theory" allegation against Chomsky.) But in the case of 9/11 conspiracy theories there is really nothing controversial about it. The theorists really are defending the proposition that there has been a conspiracy, and it is a very standard "shadow government" type proposition. Neither David Griffin nor Mike Ruppert object to the word "conspiracy". If anything, they take offense at the word "theory". Ruppert says he "don't deal in conspiracy theory. I deal in conspiracy fact." Webster Tarpley talks about the "neocon fascist madmen" who are pulling even Dick Cheney's stings. Finally, the phrase "9/11 conspiracy theories" is a stable reference in the mainstream media, it is the best way to bring this (hopefully soon to be more) fact-based article to the attention of potential readers.--Thomas Basboll 08:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * While "conspiracy theory" is reference to the mainstream media, I still think that it's a loaded word. I feel that something needs to be written, a disclaimer of sorts, in regards to this. (such as: "Meanwhile, proponents of the so-called 'conspiracy theories' insist that they're dealing with 'conspiracy fact' or 'a hypothesis inferred from scientific evidence'...")  Or something along those lines... Something to argue the 'loaded word' that immediately downplays scientific validity and sound investigation... Hard to word it right... --|Carcinogen


 * While I understand what you mean, aren't theoretical alternative explanations of a conspiracy literally "conspiracy theories"? Also a majority of people searching for this information will use the term "conspiracy theory". The problem is that normally conspiracy theories are ridiculous and obviously too far fetched to be true, but in the case of 9/11 there is actually some plausibility. Sahuagin 13:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It would seem this question can be resolved according to the principles of noteworthiness and NPOV. Specifically, I think most can agree: 1) the predominant use of the term "conspiracy theory" carries a disparaging connotation that tends to marginalize the proponents of a particular viewpoint (regardless of whether that viewpoint has plausibility); 2) alternate viewpoints on the facts and circimstances underlying 911 are sufficiently widespread to merit inclusion in wikipedia. If you can accept 1) and 2) above, it seems to follow that, since wikipedia promotes the principle of neutrality, it should present what is out there without attaching an insulting connotation to *any* viewpoint. Noteworthy proponents of each alternate viewpoint have enough of their own connotations to throw around, so just make sure the noteworhty ones are included, with citations, and do not let wikipedia become a partisan participant in this debate. drefty.mac 17:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Lead paragraph
I think that it is essential that there is an addition to the lead paragraph to indicate that the 'conspiracy theories' do not represent mainstream views to make this clear to the casual reader. I have added a sentence but am happy to consider a different wording providing it includes suitable caveats. TerriersFan 02:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * While I agree with the basic idea you want to put in there, the current wording contradicts the quote from Time magazine in the "origins and spread" section: "This is not a fringe phenomenon. It is a mainstream political reality." Perhaps we need to say that 9/11 CTs, while they currently enjoy widespread popularity, are not on the political agenda of either of the two major political parties in the US.--Thomas Basboll 09:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I have put your phrase in pending a better suggextion. TerriersFan 23:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * This phrase was not sourced, it was quite strong and opposed to what Times stated.(maybe not directly opposed but it left such an impression) And there is Robert_M._Bowman, he runs for Congress and he attended 9/11 Neo-con agenda where he said that he will "bring the 9/11 Truth into the Cogress". I don't find this sentence neccessary in the first paragraph - the one which is there now I like. Something like Thomas proposed would be better (as the impression left is different) --SalvNaut 00:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Took another look, this whole article need's heavy cleaning… please remove word speculation from the lead paragraph, it really doesn’t belong there, if you feel need for such ellipsis use it at the end of the article, in this form it's nothing but prejudice… I'll stay focused on improving that other article, and hopefully this one will become a place for truly outrages CT's, you know, like that one which speaks how Cheshire Cat did it… Anyway if you need to claim and state do so, there is no need to speculate -- Lovelight 02:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I have added a sourced sentence. It is essential IMHO for a balancing comment to be made for NPOV in this para, not at the end where some readers may never get! TerriersFan 02:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Since the sourced lead para statement has been removed from the lead para it no longer constitutes NPOV. TerriersFan 10:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I've removed "speculations" and replaced it with "suggestions". Given the elaborate range of circumstancial evidence, this hardly a speculative exercise, though it may be empirically flawed.--Thomas Basboll 07:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Splitting. What's the delay?
Anyone who takes an objective look at the article in its present form can see that the material on the WTC needs to be removed for the sake of length, surveyability and general tidyness. No consensus can be won for simply deleting it. So the split is the best way forward. Does anyone know what is going on? (I'll post this also on the VfD page).--Thomas Basboll 09:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Government promoted conspiracies
The article in its current form ignores the conspiracy theories that were promulgated by government officials in the aftermath of the attacks. They include the supposed credible threat made to Air Force One, the belief that the country of Iraq was responsible for the attacks, and the supposed meeting between the lead highjacker and an Iraqi intelligence agent. I would even say that these are the most famous conspiracy theories and probably the most widespread if recent polls are any indication.

These three cases clearly fit the definition of a conspiracy theory: "A conspiracy theory attempts to explain the ultimate cause of an event (usually a political, social, or historical event) as a secret, and often deceptive, plot by a covert alliance of powerful people or organizations rather than as an overt activity or as natural occurrence." yet, there is a reluctance to include them.


 * Please read the "origins and development" section, which touches on this point, and clarifies the scope of this article. To insist on the broad definition of conspiracy is a rhetorical move that is sometimes made in the discussions. It can perhaps be detailed in a separate section, but this article does not blur the distinction. The official theory is not a "conspiracy theory" in the conventional/popular sense. The decisive difference is the idea of a rogue network working within the official government agencies. (Note also that the official-sanctioned conspiracy is not really an alliance of "powerful" people.)--Thomas Basboll 12:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)



The origins and development section says the article is limited to only conspiracy theories that claim the attacks were due to "a larger network of powerful figures were involved with close ties to the United States government". This is an arbitrary choice that leaves out the most widely held theories. "Nearly seven in 10 Americans believe it is likely that ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, says a poll out almost two years after the terrorists' strike against this country." (source)

To insist on the broad definition of conspiracy is a rhetorical move that is sometimes made in the discussions.

This is not some "rhetorical move". The defnition I cited is directly from the conspiracy theories page linked to in the article itself. Isn't an article on 9/11 conspiracy theories obligated to include one that over 70% of Americans believed to be the case and that clearly meets the definition linked to? Isn't leaving this out a serious ommision?

The official theory [relating to Iraq] is not a "conspiracy theory" in the conventional/popular sense...(Note also that the official-sanctioned conspiracy is not really an alliance of "powerful" people.)

It is exactly a conspiracy theory in the popular/conventional sense. The only distinction is that senior individuals in the government are repeating it. Ironically this Iraq-theory was actually concocted by a 'a rogue network working within the official government agencies', the Offfice of Special Plans, and The Office of the Vice President. In other words, there was a conspiracy to generate and spread this particular conspiracy theory. I maintain that the origin of the theory is not relevant to whether or not it should be included.

The decisive difference is the idea of a rogue network working within the official government agencies.

Why does a 'Jews did 9/11' section qualify but a "Saddam did 9/11" section doesn't? In fact the section on Claims related to Jews and Israel doesn't include the idea of a "rogue network working within the official government agencies." and so doesnt't even meet your criterion. I also see nothing in this section about a "larger network of powerful figures were involved with close ties to the United States government" which is mentioned in the origins and development section. Both of these are important distinctions that you claim are criteria for inclusion which this section does not contain.


 * This last point is interesting. It makes it clear to me why I want to see that section about the Jews removed. I think the idea of an "inside job" (i.e., the idea that people working inside the US government were involved) is essential to the focus of this article. This is why the complicity of the Mossad and ISI would be interesting: it would tie into the CIA. The people who think Saddam was involved do not thereby imply that he was a "CIA asset". If the article on conspiracy theories gives you the impression that the belief in Saddam's involvement in 9/11 counts as one, then there may be something wrong with that article. This one is going in the right direction.--Thomas Basboll 20:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * (Note also that the article on conspiracy theories that you refer to characterized 9/11 conspiracy theories specifically as "usually relating the September 11, 2001 attacks to US government officials".)--Thomas Basboll 20:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the idea of an "inside job" (i.e., the idea that people working inside the US government were involved) is essential to the focus of this article.

OK then. That's your opinion. You haven't justified it. That is not a basis to sculpt the entire article to conform to your thesis that 9/11 conspiracies must be about an inside job. And there is no reason to remove the section Claims related to Jews and Israel. There is also no sound reason to exclude conspiracy theories originated by government officials.


 * I think that's a pretty standard approach. It's not just my opinion. I have tried to justify it by noting that the article you draw your definition of "conspiracy theory" from makes the same connection. There's got to be something about this article that distinguishes it from the main 9/11 article. I think the definition your a proposing would make the article to unfocused. It's the consequences of using it that I' concerned about.--Thomas Basboll 21:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Trying a proper split
Okay. I've now carried out a proper split. Naturally, if the original split VfD results in deletion then all this may have to be undone. However, for now I suggest doing all detailed work on the WTC (including building 7) in the new article Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center.--Thomas Basboll 12:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Almost great job. This is very annoying in Wikipedia - the article you've created has capital C in "Collapsed" in its title. Personally, I think wiki engine should not distinguish between caps and no-caps in titles. Caps in titles should be allowed to be changed - but this is a database-efficiency issue. I'm not sure what to do now...? Create another one with proper caps and redirect the other?
 * I'll do it. --SalvNaut 12:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. The links in the article could be changed to link to the proper-titled one.--SalvNaut 13:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've asked Seabhcan to delete the extra page before it causes too much confusion.--Thomas Basboll 13:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Intro
Thanks for all the new and good work on here. I think the intro is problematic in that it never openly refers to the actual pages which are directly connected to this page as far as content and relevance - the 9/11 researchers and 9/11 truth movement pages - while openly referring to 'conspiracy theories' and other reference pages. The 9/11 researchers and 9/11 truth movement pages are the 2 basic pages that should be openly linked in the intro paragraph to this page which details the WHAT that those pages are referring to. Currently they are linked stealthily under the same repeating phrase of 'conspiracy theory' - no one is going to check behind each 'ct' link to see if it's going to a different page, so that defeats the purpose of having them in there at all. Why do we need to disguise them? Are they getting too much traffic and need to be hidden? bov 15:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Can we split off the 4000 Jews legend
As the article stands, the story about 4000 Jews not showing up for work is not presented as an element in the conspiracy theories but as an urban legend associated with them. Unless someone can find a major proponent of that idea among conspiracy theorists, I think we should split it off, and mention it somewhere in passing (under other points of interest for example or perhaps, as now, with an explanation about the uneasy relationship between 9/11 CTs and anti-semitism). It would then become an article like The Submarine (shark).--Thomas Basboll 16:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Engineering consensus
I know its a touchy issue, but to say that Bazant and Verdure are just a couple of a guys with a compelling theory is misleading. The paper is not really about that. It was cited for their assessment of the consensus among engineers. Since that statement would not have passed peer review if there was notable dissent among engineers, we can assume it represents the consensus. I am willing to discuss it, of course.--Thomas Basboll 20:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * This is a "touchy issue" because you, Mr. Basboll, are stating that there is no evidence by credible sources to support the idea that demolitions had to be used. I have one source who is a respected member of the "structural engineering community" who disagrees emphatically with Bazant and Verdure from Northwestern University.  I invite you to check out this link: http://www.genadycherepanov.com/911.asp .  Therefore, there is not consensus and your article in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics is simply another point of view.  Also, if you can, look at the following peer-reviewed article: Cherepanov, G.P. (2006). September 11 and Fracture Mechanics.   International Journal of Fracture, Vol 132(2).  Just because you found one article in favor of natural complete collapse does not imply consensus .Demosfoni 21:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I've actually seen that Cherepanov article, and I find it very interesting. But please notice that he too sees his position h as a minority view. Note how his abstract begins: "The generally-accepted explanation of the collapse of the World Trade Center towers on September 11, 2001 is based on the speculative “theory” of progressive buckling of bearing columns at the speed..." It doesn't get any clearer. In order to get a paper past peer review in the engineering community you have to acknowledge the consensus. That does not mean you can't criticize it; it just means you have to show you know it's there.--Thomas Basboll 21:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * PS. From Cherepanov's introduction: "Meanwhile, the engineering community has, without any hesitation, recognized the “theory” as correct and comprehensive." Again, the dissenting view begins by identifying the consensus on the subject.--Thomas Basboll 21:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

69.153.204.44 08:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)== What Really Happened: Not reliable == What exactly about WRH is not reliable? Did you know that the WP:RS is just a guideline and not a hard and fast rule. If you can't be specific about what is unreliable about this site, I will have to put my information back in. Demosfoni 21:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It's up to you to show that your source is reliable, not up to everyone else to convince you that it is not. Tom Harrison Talk 22:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is up to the person who removes a contribution because they say that the source is "unreliable" to justify their reasoning why the source is unreliable. I could say that the Encyclopedia Brittanica is unreliable but we all know that that is untrue.  Do you have any facts to back up your claim that WRH is bogus, or is that just your opinion? --Demosfoni 22:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No, the burden is on the one who adds the material. See Verifiability. Tom Harrison Talk 23:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No, your link is not discussing the "reliability of a source" but instead "why a statement should be referenced in the first place". So, that means you should not remove a statement of fact simply because you don't think the source is reliable.  You need to prove the source is unreliable and then you can remove the statement.  This is basic logic.  Why don't you understand? --Demosfoni 23:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Because you are wrong. Tom Harrison Talk 23:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Can't argue with that "logic". --Demosfoni 00:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I think we need to figure out what we're trying to accomplish with that one or two paragraph section. Basically, we have to get the idea across that the collapses were initially quite a surprise, but that engineers have since found a way to explain it without demolition. The OBL reference is interesting here (I think even if it isn't authentic). CTers are not satisfied, and point to all the things that the consensus can't explain. (Cherepanov may be a good source for the list of unexplaineds, especially since he is NPOV vis-a-vis the demolition hypothesis: he's got his own "new principles" to promote, not a demolition theory.) Anyway, let's get the text over here, into the talk pages, and work it out.--Thomas Basboll 21:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no problem introducing more information that will show there is valid debate among experts in the engineering community. I myself have an engineering degree from a top-notch university and have taken courses in structural engineering and physics and know that "free fall" is the upper limit on the speed of collapse of a building.  I also know a little about friction and resistance -- you may have several thousand tons of material pushing down from above the crash site on the tower but you also several thousand tons of "undamaged" structural material pushing up from below the crash site.  It is common sense to assume that the building should not collapse at "free fall" speed.  Of course that is my own opinion but I have not found convincing evidence to prove otherwise.Demosfoni 22:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * WRH.com is NOT a reliable source. Blogs are never considered reliable. Unless you can find a credible source it should go. Also, i think it's inappropriate to add the discussion in the secton about WTC collapse. --Sloane 22:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * WRH may be a blog but is references other material and presents them in a convincing manner. Just because you say "It is NOT reliable" does not make it so.  Sloane, you need to give me one fact that is incorrect on that web site and I will agree with you.  But so far you haven't.
 * In fact, it was you (or someone else with your opinion) that referred to the Osama Bin Laden tape in the first place. Personally, I would not like to mention it in this section.  But someone put in the sentence: "Even Osama thought that the building wouldn't collapse completely".  I believe that we should either include the doubt as to the authenticity of this "video remark" or we remove it completely. --Demosfoni 22:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * WRH fails WP:RS criteria. Please review the policy.  It so fails RS that it's not even notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia.  Morton devonshire 22:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * So does Blogspot.com. I guess then we should not be references web sites at all on this web site.  --Demosfoni 22:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Though I don't have your expert credentials, Demosfoni, I share your intuitions about the collapses. They are also clearly what drive the CTers and we just need to present them as a minority position--or more strongly, an "outsider" position, i.e., a hypothesis that circulates only outside the engineering community. We want to avoid leaving the reader with the impression that this is a active dispute among engineers.--Thomas Basboll 22:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I really do not understand how you can say there is no dispute between engieers when the very same NIST that you rely on say very clearly on there own web site "This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation. NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements." http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm Although the statement says a controlled demolition event is not endorsed, it makes it hard to believe there was no debate between engineers. Especially when infact the same engineers that come up with NIST's five hypothesis admit that their hypothesis might by discredited.69.153.204.44 08:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Changed some things, think POV is very strongly pro-commission report
Just wanted to warned I changed somethings, added reference to PM guys having seen secret photos of plane goingo to Pentagon, which can't be shown to anyone else. Also added Mineta witnessing to Cheney giving no response to incoming "object" against Pentagon. Also changed the extremely POV captions of the pictures of the pentagon, one of them identified one white blur with the tip of the plane (?!), the other misidentified as representing the state of the pentagon after the hit, when it represented after the wall collapsed due to earlier hit.Please see changes, thanks. Forgive me for my horrible english.... <:-\ 85.138.225.87 22:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Controversial?
"Security camera image showing controversial white blur (far right) just before impact. Is this flight 77?" Do you have a reliable source that says it is controversial, or that says it is anything other than flight 77? Tom Harrison Talk 22:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Tom, it is the substance of the argument about that video on the conspiracy theory side. To present it as "obviously" a plane would be to not present the conspiracy theory. It would be like saying "here's a picture of debris and smoke being pushed out of the windows as is completely to be expected with the floors pancaking". The issue simply is how to interpret those blurs and puffs.--Thomas Basboll 22:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It's well accepted that the tape shows AA 77, so I personally do not believe it is a problem. Should multiple editors have a problem with it however, it could be edited to just state that it is just the security cam footage, with no extra explanation of the image.--Sloane 22:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I can't believe I have to explain this. This section of the article is about people who don't "accept that the tape shows AA 77". The caption draws attention to the point of contention. On your approach, it would be impossible to explain, say, what flat-eathers believe, because you would keep showing us a globe saying, "they believe this thing is flat".--Thomas Basboll 22:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You can certainly say that X says it was not a plane, or Y says it was a missile. Since no reliable sources say it was anything other than flight 77, neither can we. Tom Harrison Talk 23:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * At this point, the text of the section is underdeveloped on this issue. It should probably says something like, "For a long time CTers called for the release of videos that would clearly settle the issue of whether or not Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. A video was eventually released, showing part of an object approaching the Pentagon in one frame and an explosion in the next. Identifying the object as flight 77, the mainstream media declared the issue settled. Conspiracy theorists, however, maintain that the frame is not conclusive evidence for AA77. Indeed, even those who oppose the "no plane" theory agree that the object could be almost anything, and is consistent especially with a small plane or cruise missile." It's not perfect, but it lays out the core of the dispute. Now, showing the frame is of course perfectly in order if there is a text like that; but labelling the object at the far right "AA77" is obviously needlessly confusing.--Thomas Basboll 23:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Active Debate
There was a claim about active debate in the engineering community. I took issue with the unsourced claim and removed it. Debate in the engineering community occurs in peer reviewed professional engineering journals. There are no references at all to peer reviewed scientific or engineering journals let alone enough articles to qualify it as active. In reality, NIST report with hundreds of engineers has essentially ruled out anything but the official account and the active debate is what codes and standards to change, if any, to better allow for survivability (human and structural) in future attacks. The quote from the MIT prof sums up the scientific method being used by the "theorists."--Tbeatty 01:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * NIST has dropped all five conclusions. So to say that "hundred of engineers ruled out anything but the official acount" is not correct. In reality NIST is now looking in to a sixth hypothesis for building seven. NIST own web site states "This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation. NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements." It can be found on question 14 here; http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm  Also "there are no references at all to peer veiwed scientific or engineering journals." That is incorrect. Professor Steven E Jones of BYU has had his findings peer reviewed. Since his findings have been peer reviewed that should qualify as debate in the scientific community. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.250.113.190 (talk • contribs).

Please keep the lead simple
The recent editing conflict resulted in adding material the properly belongs elsewhere in the article. The interest in the demolition on the part CTers was already in there. The last sentence notes (uncontroversially) that engineers are not "on board" (to put it mildly) and that officials are sticking to their story. Maybe try thinking of improvements to lead in terms of changing individual words, not adding whole new claims. It's a nice tidy lead right now.--Thomas Basboll 02:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I couldn't help myself. I had to add something to the lead.  It's not very long though, just more accurate.  Precision is important too, right? --Demosfoni 03:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * A good rule of thumb (IMHO) is not to say something in the lead that you have to source or quote; that sort of thing should be kept in the main article.--Thomas Basboll 07:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Alternative theory to what
This article for all the changes still does not give a coherent explanation to the reader what the “official story” is. Somewhere in the lead should be something along these lines “In the immediate aftermath of the attacks The Bush administration explained that the attacks were carried out by members of Al Qaeda headed by Osama Bin Laden who hijacked four commercial airplanes by using box cutters. The organizations fundamentalist religious beliefs led them to hate Western values and culture. The administration had no advanced knowledge of the attacks. Flight 93 crashed in Pennsylvania after passengers hearing of the other attacks in cell phone conversations rebelled and brought the plane down becoming “the first solders in the War on Terror”. The towers were brought down (briefly explain NIST and pancake theory). Families of the victims not satisfied with this explanation demanded further investigation and after initial reluctance the administration agreed to further investigation. The bipartisan 9/11 commission was formed tasked with “not placing individual blame” but to explain what happened and making recommendations to prevent a recurrence of the attacks. In 2004 the commission released its report. It said that their were many prior warnings of varying detail the United States would be attacked by Al Qaeda. They were ignored due to lack of communication between various law enforcement personnel. The main reasons for this burocratic inertia and laws passed in the 1970’s designed to prevent abuses that resulted major scandals during that era. The report also faulted both the Clinton and Bush administrations with “failure of imagination”. The report found that although the passengers did revolt on Flight 93 the hijackers brought the plane down and that the hijackers used other weapons such as Mace besides box cutters to hijack the planes. The explanation laid out in the report have been accepted by most members of both major political parties, network, cable and print news media."

Also the basic explanation and motives section seem redundant. 69.114.117.103 05:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)


 * I don't agree with you about the redundancy; but I do like this section you are proposing. I'd say just do it. Put it in before "origins and reception"; call it "The official story". Maybe just at the sentence, "It is this 'official story' that conspiracy theorists find too implausible to believe."--Thomas Basboll 07:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't call it "the official story" because that seems to be a too narrow title. --Sloane 11:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Just put it in quotes. I.e, The "official story". We do need a section that specifies the content of this commonly used phrase by conspiracy theorists.--Thomas Basboll 12:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Less common theories
I'm going to rework the "less common theories" into a section that identifies the fringe variants of the 9/11 conspiracy theories, i.e., those that subscribe to deeply entrenched beliefs about Jews, Freemasons, or (as the recent addition notes) even reptiles. This section will proceed from Time Magazine's assessment that the movement is now so big as to be part of "mainstream political reality"; like other mainstream movements (neoconservatism and environmentalism, for example) it turns out to have the support of people with some very marginal views. I think this is also a way of dealing with the 4000 Jews story.--Thomas Basboll 12:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The idea that "The Jews were in on it" is one of the more common theories, possibly the most common world-wide. What basis do you have for determining which theories are more and which are less common? Tom Harrison Talk 13:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think the heading "less common" will probably no longer be accurate. I'm going to try to hit on something that separates the core from the periphery instead. I'd like to see the research that licenses the claim that "the Jews were in on it" (as opposed to "Israel was involved") is one of the more common theories, however. Keep in mind that we seem to be dealing with a set of ideas that are currently being entertained by something like 1/3 of all Americans. The spread of the CTs has been based in part on being able to separate core 9/11-specific issues (war games, intelligence issues, controlled demolition, 9/11 Commission cover-up) from background assumptions that normally divide members of the movement. 9/11 Truth seems to have brough together all kinds of people from the left and the right that otherwise cannot see eye to eye. As the section about the Jews shows, that claim has generated very little supporting evidence. The same goes for Icke's reptiles. He's "on board" on many issues, but it would be false to say that "the reptiles did" is among the 9/11 theories. It's simply the explanation that someone who already believes in the reptilian conspiracy would invoke. Again, looking for evidence of reptile involvement has not improved the case for a 9/11 conspiracy. By contrast, look at the facts that looking for evidence of war games and advance warning have brought to light.--Thomas Basboll 13:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Surely people realize that Larry Silverstein being a Jew is intrinsic to the conspiracist obsession with "Pull it." Remember, we are describing the conspiracy theories, not presenting the best case for them. Organizing them along lines of 'those we think plausible' and 'those we think embarrassingly stupid' is not something we get to do. Marginalizing those you think are the irrational kooks, and emphasizing the views of the theorists who might play well in Peoria, would frame the article in a way both slanted and inaccurate.


 * Of course we do not apply citation requirements to talk pages, but much of what you are saying points out the need to find reliable sources who say it. The modular nature of NWO conspiracy theory is documented (by Barkun, for example). That kind of work has not yet been done for 9/11cts. Do not underestimate the popularity of David Icke. Many of his readers take his work in a metaphorical sense, and he has been able to attract people from across the political and rational spectrum. Tom Harrison Talk 14:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Tom.--Sloane 15:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Tom, I'd like to see the numbers. I suspect 9/11 CTs are defying a number of statistics about conspiracy theories. For example, while all of Icke's followers are probably 9/11 CTists, what percentage of 9/11 CTists supports Icke's version. (I'd guess lower than 1%). I think you're wrong about the Silverstein issue, i.e, that his being a Jew is "instrinsic" to interest in his statements. Of course, anti-Semites will find that issue particularily compelling. But I'd say the there is not enough data on this. Basically, I think many more people accept 9/11 CTs than have any definitive opinion about Jews. At this point, no reliable sources make a big deal of the possible anti-semitism of the movement, or even its right-wing element. Perhaps this is because it represented in so many different ideological and religious environments. Anyway, this is definitely a point on which I agree with you about the need for some secondary sources.--Thomas Basboll 17:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Surely people realize that Larry Silverstein being a Jew is intrinsic to the conspiracist obsession with "Pull it."
 * I think the average 9/11 researcher would have no idea what you're talking about. I certainly don't, and no one I've ever heard of talking about "pull it" has ever referred to anything about Jews being related to that.  The phrase is from a documentary and people see it as related to "pulling" the building down.
 * I also know of no one in the 9/11 Truth Movement who supports Icke, and I know quite a few people. No 9/11 websites which are popular promote his lizard stuff with any seriousness.  If they did they'd be dropped from most people's links and their site would disappear from view over time. Locewtus 22:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

removed WTC7 and bush's "slip"
WTC 7 belongs in Controlled-Demolition Theory article (or section if it gets deleted) and Bush's alledged "slip of tongue" wasn't even about the 9/11 attacks.--Sloane 14:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Returning Building 7 statements back to main article
I am not comfortable with the Building 7 information being removed from the 9/11 conspiracy theory main page. The statements of Larry Silverstein and the spontaneous collapse of the building is one of the pillars of the argument that the destruction of the World Trade Center was accomplished by individuals from outside of the Al Qaeda hijackers. I can only assume that people that want to move this section into the "controlled demolition" sub-page are trying to hide this information. We could perhaps divide up the section between the "9/11 conspiracy" and "controlled demolition" sections but I feel quite strongly about giving the Collapse of Building 7 its own subsection on this page.

I mean we have left in a discussion about Jewish conspiracy?? But we have removed the owner of the WTC complex's own remarks about "pulling the building". This does not make sense. I believe it is a form of censure. --Demosfoni 14:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * One of the pillars? Boy, the denier movement is even more pathetic than I though. Just, wait until the afd is finished and then we can decide wether we put in the main article or in the fork. --Sloane 15:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I find your derogatory comments disconcerting. This make me believe that your interest in this page is merely to cause problems and not to offer insight. --Demosfoni 15:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I welcome any discussion about this, however if you are going to wholesale remove this section, you should put it back in the demolitions page so it doesn't get lost --Demosfoni 15:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It's still in the article I believe. --Sloane 15:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Where are the WTC 7 Arguments from the deleted section? These need to be added into the WTC 7 section on this page - a huge amount of data is missing as I suspected would happen from the deletion of the seperate controlled demolition section.

--Chrisp7 00:58, 26 September 2006 (GMT)


 * The controlled demolition section has not been deleted but moved: see Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center. We're cleaning that article up right now. Feel free to join in.--Thomas Basboll 00:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

This article is a mess
Whoever reorganized this article has sapped the essential points and left only the dross. I believe it would be better to include the main points of why people believe that 9/11 was cause by actors outside of Al Qaeda and to put more detailed discussion into the sub-pages. This is the current structure:
 * 1) Origins and reception
 * 2) Main approaches
 * 3) Basic argument
 * 4) Government foreknowledge
 * 5) Intelligence issues
 * 6) Possible early warning
 * 7) Allegations of insider trading by people with foreknowledge
 * 8)  World Trade Center
 * 9) Pentagon
 * 10) War games and training exercises
 * 11) The President's behavior
 * 12) Other points of interest
 * 13) Claims that some of the hijackers are still alive
 * 14) Motives
 * 15) Claims related to the Saudi royal family and other Saudi government officials
 * 16) Claims related to Jews and Israel
 * 4,000 Jewish employees did not attend work at the WTC on 9/11
 * 1) Sharon was warned by Shabak to stay away from New York
 * 2) Mossad connection to filming of 9/11 attacks with "puzzling behavior"
 * 3) Israel advance warning
 * 4) Less common theories
 * 5) Media reaction
 * 6) Criticism

I believe it can be reorganized into:
 * 1) Intro
 * 2) Origins and reception
 * 3) Main approaches
 * 4) Basic argument
 * 5) Reasons to doubt the Official story
 * 6) Evidence of Gov't foreknowledge
 * 7) Evidence of Controlled Demolition
 * 8) World Trade Center
 * 9) Buildings 1 and 2
 * 10) Analysis of Collapse
 * 11) Building 7
 * 12) Silverstein's Admission?
 * 13) Analysis of Collapse
 * 14) Pentagon
 * 15) Missing debris
 * 16) Destruction Inconsistent with 757
 * 17) Flight 93
 * 18) Witnesses of Jet in vicinity
 * 19) Missing last minutes of cockpit recorder
 * 20) Other Points of Interest
 * 21) War Games and Training
 * 22) The Presidents Reaction
 * 23) Claims Hijackers still alive
 * 24) Claims Related to Jews and Israel
 * 25) Motives
 * 26) Less Common Theories
 * 27) Criticisms of Alternate Theories
 * 1) Less Common Theories
 * 2) Criticisms of Alternate Theories

Straw Poll
I would like to take a poll of fellow editors. Who would like to make changes to the structure of this Wiki page so that has the format that I proposed (with minor modifications of course)? Please include your ~ signature under one of the following headings:
 * In favor of structural changes:
 * Demosfoni 16:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * After rereading your propsed changes and mine below I've noticed they're not at all so different. I don't like the section called "Reasons to doubt the Official story". I find introducing sections OK the way they are now. Anyway, I feel like to be honest I have to vote for yes as mine proposals are quite similiar --SalvNaut 21:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Not in favor of structural changes:
 * Not these changes exactly. More discussion is needed.--Thomas Basboll 17:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Nay--Sloane 18:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No, per Sloane below. Tom Harrison Talk 19:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per Tom and Sloane . --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 19:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Nay to structural changes per Sloane and Tom. This article is a bit of a mess in places and needs a good cleanup, but structural changes are not the answer. --Wildnox 20:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Different Proposal (please include comments):
 * Remove all original research, including that by synthesis. - All this stuff about 'these are peripheral elements, those are central elements', not backed up by anything but primary sources and Google search results; the persistent (though well-meant) efforts to marginalize the more embarrassing proponents; The similar efforts to expand and emphasize what seems to be working now; All this needs to go. Excuse me if I do not reply promptly to any responses. Tom Harrison Talk 19:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

SalvNaut 20:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC) : Instead of voting I propose less controversial reorganization. The one Demosfoni brought would need everything to be rewritten and I didn't like the section "Reasons to doubt the Official story" as it is POV and the whole article deals with those reasons somehow. Sections 4 - 8 would be in a chronological order, and TOC would look much better, imho. What do you think?
 * 1) Origins and reception
 * 2) Main approaches
 * 3) Basic argument
 * 4) Motives
 * 5) Government foreknowledge
 * 6) War games and training exercises
 * 7) Intelligence issues
 * 8) Possible early warning
 * 9) Allegations of insider trading by people with foreknowledge
 * 10) World Trade Center
 * 11) Pentagon
 * 12) Other points of interest (some of those could be incorporated into appropriate sections)
 * 13) Flight 93 (was it shot down? some CT like Hoffman bring this issue)
 * 14) Claims that some of the hijackers are still alive
 * 15) Claims related to the Saudi royal family and other Saudi government officials
 * 16) The President's behavior
 * 17) Less common theories
 * 18) Claims related to Jews and Israel (we don't need a special header for that, I haven't seen this issue on any other CT page but here)
 * 19) Israel advance warning
 * 20) Sharon was warned by Shabak to stay away from New York
 * 21) Mossad connection to filming of 9/11 attacks with "puzzling behavior"
 * 4,000 Jewish employees did not attend work at the WTC on 9/11
 * 1) Media reaction
 * 2) Criticism

Debate
No, this article is already pushing the 9/11 deniers agenda. Your structure would be even more POV.--Sloane 16:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * What is "the deniers agenda"? Why are you even participating in this discussion?  Who are you?  Sloane, do you happen to know the title of this Wiki page?  It is called "9/11 Conspiracy Theories".  I think it only makes sense to organize the page around Conspiracy Theories .  Do you have a Non-Conspiracy Page you could work on and leave the rest of us alone?  --Demosfoni 16:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Please, read WP:NOT, "Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not: Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views." --Sloane 16:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with being on a Soapbox. This is a web page about conspiracies OUTSIDE of the NIST report.  Your argument is that we should not talk about things OUTSIDE of the NIST report.  Basically, you are saying that you don't like this Wiki page and you want it deleted. Again, why are you even participating in a discussion about the contents of this page when you don't even want it to exist? --Demosfoni 16:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Where did I call for the deletion of this article? --Sloane 16:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You mentioned AfD in one of your edits and you have removed most of the contributions of people who agree with the conspiracy theory. --146.115.123.152 17:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the afd of the Controlled-Demolition Theory (9/11 Conspiracy Theory) page.--Sloane 18:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Demosfoni that the article could stand some cleaning up. I think we should talk more about exactly how to do that, especially when the sections themselves are a bit more focused. The POV criticism was probably aimed specifically at "reason to doubt...", by which you no doubt mean "reasons CTists offer to doubt..." and which could just be called "Criticisms of the official story". I think your outline understates the value of the war games, however, and we should keep in mind that while controlled demolition is an exciting issue, with lots of details, it is really just a single claim in the larger CT. (Having written them,) I also think the need to preserve that "basic argumet", "origins and reception" and "main approaches" sections, which just jam-packed full of good information right now. So I'm curious about where you would put that stuff and/or why you think it's messy.--Thomas Basboll 16:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I just modified the structure to include your introductory sections under the main "Introduction" section. --146.115.123.152 17:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I think everyone can agree that the article is too long and many would agree that it is rambling in some places. This is not the place for an essay. The first three sections especially need trimming. --71.134.157.73 18:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Ouch. As I see it, the immediate rambling is elsewhere. Sections 8 - 14 all cover what has become peripheral elements of theory (some of which have almost no place in them today) and need to be merged into one or two sections on loose ends. Section 4 needs to be turned into a couple of prose paragraphs. After that, all of them could probably be trimmed down. I think we should add a section on major statements of the theory (Griffin, Tarpley, Ruppert, Ahmed come to mind, including influential films like Press for Truth and Loose Change. We might also want to mention some of the websites that were on this from the beginning: Rense, PlaguePuppy and Hoffman's 9-11 Research.) Again, I agree there are things that need to be done. But the section you identify there are sort of my favorites.--Thomas Basboll 18:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I more or less agree with Sloane, though I admit that I have a very solid opinion about the whole thing. We had a very popular CT about Yitzhak Rabin's murder in Israel which now almost everybody thinks is a total BS. As a physicist, I also think many "scientific" claims of the CT are very unscientific. Therefore when you say some aspects of the CT are "central" while other are "marginal", I admit I just can't tell the difference, they all look the same to me. Basically that's why I don't see why a reorganization is needed. Dan Gluck 19:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * (This remark also goes to Tom's comment up in the straw poll.) Having looked at the arguments for and against CTs for about a year now, I don't understand how anyone can claim that there is no core and periphery to distinguish between. Consider six claims: (1) 9/11 was a welcome opportunity to realize the policies of the Bush administration, (2) the military responded exceptionally poorly (but perhaps only ineptly), (3) the war games were an integral part of the attacks (not a coincidence), (4) the World Trade Center was demolished, (5) the pentagon was not hit by flight 77 but something else, (6) twelve foot shapeshifting lizards did it. (1) is asserted by people even outside CTs and by (I'll venture it) every CT. (2) is also on everyone's list of talking points. At (3) LIHOPpers make their exit, but all MIHOPpers are still on board. Ruppert and other "peak oilers", while granting it is possible, stop insisting at (4). (5) is dropped from the agenda even by people who suspect it is true. And, well, (6) is crazy. It is just not helpful to suggest that it is OR to distinguish between these claims, to give them different weights, and to allot different amounts of space to them. Even journalists have understood this by now.--Thomas Basboll 20:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * If you would wander some 9/11 CT pages(911 truth movement, 911 blogs etc..) you would notice that they bring "scientific" claims or motive/intelligence/response issues, and they don't bring "Claims related to Jews". Why this section is even here? Have you checked how is it sourced? "No Planes and No Gas Chambers" -- Holocaust deniers push hoaxes that sabotage 9/11 Truth Movement??? This section should be out of here. I agree that others sections are more or less the same weight and it's not up to us to weight them. That's why I proposed chronological order. --SalvNaut 20:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * My remark about "not weighting" applies to reorganizing the order as Demosfoni proposed. I must agree with Thomas that effort should be made to find out which in the first place should get here at all, and which are on the main agenda of CT-iers, which are side issues. This is exaclty the job of a wikipedia editor. --SalvNaut 20:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

>>"Therefore when you say some aspects of the CT are "central" while other are "marginal", I admit I just can't tell the difference, they all look the same to me."
 * If they all look the same to you, why bother with the page at all? Just go someplace else that actually does interest you.  There are a lot of other pages. bov 05:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Deleting sections on Saudis & Jews
I think Demosfino's point above is very correct. Removing all that material about the WTC looks odd, while leaving these two sections in. First, they are not part of conspiracy theories in the sense that this article deals with them. The Saudi connection, for example, is a suggestion that there's a link back to the "official terrorist". Michael Moore is not a 9/11 conspiracy theorist. The 4000 jews rumor is a rumor and has been put to rest. It has no currency, and none of the sources grant it any as far as I can tell. The section tells the story of a dead rumor. So I'm removing these. In their place, to give Tom a place to source his claims about the "intrinsically" anti-semitic aspects of 9/11 CTs, I will put a section about how 9/11 CT are sometimes accused of anti-semitic motives.--Thomas Basboll 20:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Michael Moore never espoused a specific conspiracy theory but by giving details of the Bush family and Bin Ladin family business ties and by discussing "The Flight of the Saudis" he was implying one 69.114.117.103 04:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)
 * Note the way Moore is mentioned in the President's behavior section. There is no doubt that Fahrenheit 9/11 helped to make "My Pet Goat" a familiar point of reference, which could then be construed in more sinister ways by CTists. I think the Fligt of the Saudis was just supposed to show that Bush was not going to embarrass his friends, and that his friends (the Bin Laden's) should/could have done more, as Bush's friends, to keep Osama in line. I don't think Moore meant the "My Pet Goat" incident as part of an implicit conspiracy theory anything like the one's we're describing here. And I think the same goes for the Saudis. But if we can find a conspiracy theory that latches on their "Flight" and explicates a theory, then Moore's claims would be an informative part of the article.--Thomas Basboll 07:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Also removed the stuff about Sharon and Mossad. None of this suggests a conspiracy (especially the last claim since they according to the story they tried to warn the US: that's not even LIHOP.) This is all mainstream incompetence theory. That somebody knew the attacks were coming is now much more broadly accepted than the CTs.--Thomas Basboll 21:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm going to remove the anti-semite section, as it consists of only one sentence. Maybe the sentence belongs in the criticism section instead? --Wildnox 21:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * This is ridiculous, you are removing parts of the article in an effort to make the 9/11 deniers look good. "Conspiracy theorists sometimes have to defend themselves against charges of anti-semitism." Don't make me laugh, it's not like those morons are a persecuted minority or something. If we're going to start removing everything that has been debunked, we might as well delete the article.--Sloane 21:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * First, this is not an article about 9/11 deniers. Second, the vast majority of the material was off topic and over-detailed even if that we the case. Third, find me a good primary source of a 9/11 CTist who has made overtly anti-semitic remarks (or has a history of such views), who has status among CTists that is even comparable to Steven Jones, Mike Ruppert, David Griffin, Alex Jones, ... etc. and a nice mainstream media source that has recently suggested this connection (or the Saudi connection) is a dinstinguishing feature. Then we'll have something to talk about. To put all these claims on the same level is to make them look bad. To remove this material is just good scholarship.--Thomas Basboll 21:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * What sources support your claim of "4,000 Jews..." story to be part of 9/11 conspiracy theories? Sources which were there were nothing more but confirmation of "Conspiracy theorists sometimes have to defend themselves against charges of anti-semitism.". It's not about "being debunked" but about being abandoned by CTist or even never having been pushed forward... Is it so hard to understand? This article is about conspiracy theories movement. And do you really have so inaccurate view of this matters? Maybe you should familiarize yourself more with this topic before contributing here? --SalvNaut 21:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * If the sections were about theories that actually existed and were involved with 9/11 conspiracy theories, they should be included regardless of whether or not the theories presented were debunked. Now if they were never related or purely invention unique to this article, they should remain removed. I am not fully familiar with the two sections in question, so I can't say for sure which of the aforementioned categories these would fit under. --Wildnox 21:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If you feel like it, you can add something about it under "Less common theories". It should be stated though, what the consensus is within CT community (and it seems that those theories were abandoned or disowned).--SalvNaut 22:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure I didn't cut anything that belongs here. But I may have missed something. Here's the archived version of the article.--Thomas Basboll 22:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest briefly mentioning the "4000 jews" claim and how it is a result of a misunderstanding. The claim is mentioned in all kinds of conspiracy sites, it would be informative to explain it's bunk. A sentence or two in "less common theories" perhaps: ''A rumor circulated that 4000 Jewish employees were absent from the WTC on 9/11. The rumor was likely a mistranslation of a newspaper story which stated 4000 Israelis were in New York on that day. The percentage of Jewish victims in the WTC attacks correlates with the percentage of Jewish residents in New York.'' Weregerbil 13:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The 4,000 Jews Rumor Mieciu K 11:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The hijackers
The next thing I want to do is trim the claims that the hijackers are still alive. This has also been largely debunked. The section basically walks us through the mistaken identities involved and leaves us no wiser than the CTists themselves. It could probably be done in a couple of sentences. But what could be added is the central idea that they were "patsies" (a central CT notion, familiar from JFK). Here the claims that Atta was not a devout Muslim and Hanjour was a terrible pilot might usefully be added. In short, a section about the range of CT views on the hijackers would be interesting.--Thomas Basboll 21:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Just because something has been debunked doesn't mean it shouldn't be mentioned in the article as it was a 9/11 conspiracy theory at one time. Remember we are here to present information about 9/11 conspiracy theories in general, both plausible and implausible. --Wildnox 21:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, of course it should be mentioned but in away that gives the reader the most accurate view on the matter, that is who claims what, what is the present consensus, knwoledge about it, and within space appropriate to the topic's notability. It seems to me that Thomas proposed exactly this. --SalvNaut 22:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Alright, I misread Thomas' comment. --Wildnox 22:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * In the collapse of the World Trade Center article we hit on a good way of separating the current "best" explanation (NIST's) from the various no longer relevant early speculations. Before that, the article had used what we ultimately incompatible explanations to account for the same event. All it took was a section on "Earlier attempts to explain the collapses." We could all agree on where the current, received view could be found, and we helped each other to understand the NIST report. The result is quite nice. Even conspiracy theorists probably find the article useful in understanding what the official explanation is. The same method might work here. (Though we lack the luxury of an "official" CT report.) The question with these claims is not so much whether they have been debunked, but whether they have been taken out of active service. (The article on Elizabethan literature does not cover everything that was written back then, only what still seems important.) My point here is that the "patsies" angle is much more important for the CTs than the outside possibility that they weren't even on the planes.--Thomas Basboll 22:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Official Account Section
Basically I think the revisions presented the material much ia a more readable manner. I did notice  the differences between the early official account and the 9/11 report findings were deemphasized. If I am not mistaken the theories that other items besides box cutters were used in the attacks and that Flight 93 was brought down by the hijackers reacting to the passenger revolt instead of  the passengers themselves were results of the 9/11 commission report. The article implies that early government theory was the same in that regard.

I am going to change “immediate aftermath” to the "years immediately following the attacks" because according to this article the NIST findings were presented three years after the attacks 69.114.117.103 15:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)

Pentagon
I'm adding a section for clarity on the Pentagon. There is a reason the Pentagon is hugely divisive and the current form says nothing about it.


 * The attack on the Pentagon has historically been the one of the most divisive areas of research amongst those challenging the official version of events. A likely cause is the scarcity of documentation of the attack event available to the public - for several years, the only evidence available consisted of long-distance photographs taken after the attack and obscured with fire foam and smoke, eyewitness testimony from individuals at the scene, and 5 video frames released by the Pentagon which do not clearly show the impact of the plane.  In 2006, 2 videos were released by the Pentagon and many other pieces of evidence, following the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui.  However, the videos do not show the impact of the plane, only the approach of the plane and the explosion cloud.  The Pentagon has yet to release over 70 videos from cameras in the area, still being held.  The ongoing vaccuum of evidence, over time, allowed individuals like Thierry Meyssan, in France, to claim that a commercial jet could not have been involved in the attack, and that the eyewitnesses at the scene were too confused or preoccupied to have seen the event clearly.  Later, other 9/11 researchers began looking more closely at the witness statements and the existing evidence, and began to speak out against the "no Boeing" theories at the Pentagon, describing these assertions as a distraction from the stronger issue of a military stand down, that the Pentagon should never have been hit at all.

Locewtus 19:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It does: "The Pentagon "no Boeing" theory constitutes a controversial issue, even among conspiracy theorists." --Sloane 00:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That doesn't explain anything about it, why it's controversial. It only says that it is.  I will continue to pursue my more complete account. Locewtus 00:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If you want to explain something, do not revert a whole section but add your explanation and provide it with reliable sources.--Sloane 01:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The very end of the "Pentagon" section uses to this conspiracy page as a reference:. On that conspiracy page the first eyewitness account refers to this Washington Post article. Somehow the conspiracy theorists have managed to pick random quotes that talk about explosions &mdash; while the Washington Post article has other eyewitnesses talking how they clearly saw a plane:
 * I was right underneath the plane. I heard a plane. I saw it.
 * Steve Patterson, who lives in Pentagon City, said it appeared to him that a commuter jet swooped over Arlington National Cemetery and headed for the Pentagon
 * Asework Hagos ... said he looked at it and saw American Airline insignia

Etc etc. And that's only the first article quoting eyewitnesses. In each case the author of the conspiracy page manages to ignore eyewitness accounts that say they saw a plane, they saw a commuter jet, they saw the American Airlines logos on the plane, they saw passengers through the windows of the plane. Since the conspiracy page appears to be purposefully, systematically, obviously dishonest I'll remove it as a reference. Weregerbil 10:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I'm reading the French page more. Did I overreact just above? The title of the page ("it was a plane bomb") and the boldings in the first couple dozen eyewitness reports suggested to me the author was trying to emphasize "bomb" and "explosion". But the page does mention people referring to the plane as a plane too. The page does emphasize "bomb" a lot but maybe it's not as hopelessly conspiracist as I thought? Weregerbil 10:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Engineering consensus (again)
I've noticed that the last couple of sentences of the lead are continuously in dispute, especially in regards to what to say about the "engineering community". Demosfoni and I discussed this above, and I thought the results were pretty clear. (I'm still waiting to hear his take.) I have been citing Bazant and Verdure's published view that the official (NIST) account is "generally accepted by the community of specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering (though not by a few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives)". This does two things. First, it establishes the engineering consensus (since it passed peer-review, I have been arguing, a claim about what is "generally accepted" can be taken as representing consensus); second, it acknowledges the dissent, identifies it as part of a conspiracy theory, and characterises it in controlled demolition terms (planted explosives). Demosfoni then countered by citing an engineer named Cherepanov (Cherepanov, G.P. (2006). September 11 and Fracture Mechanics.  International Journal of Fracture, Vol 132(2)  .) Cherepanov certainly disagrees with NIST, and Bazant has even dignified his ideas by responding to them at a conference. Demosfoni, however, misunderstands the issue as a matter of finding articles in favor of natural complete collapse and articles against. (I.e., he counts Bazant and Verdure as pro-NIST and Cherepanov as anti-NIST and concludes that there is no consensus.) To this my response was to quote from Cherepanov (the NIST-dissenter). His abstract begins: "The generally-accepted explanation of the collapse of the World Trade Center towers on September 11, 2001 is based on the speculative 'theory' of progressive buckling of bearing columns at the speed..." In his introduction he says that "the engineering community has, without any hesitation, recognized the [official] 'theory' as correct and comprehensive." That is, even the dissenting view begins by identifying the consensus on the subject. On this basis, I don't think there can be any doubt about what the received view is in the engineering community, nor what structural engineers in general think about collapses.--Thomas Basboll 23:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I removed the comment from the opening twice now, as it is not cited. There is not citation in the article that supports the claim. The closest it comes to a citation requires editors to make an opinion based on interpretation of the data from multiple citations to form a conclusion, which is a violation of WP:OR as it is an OR Synthesis. Unless somebody can come up with a source that definitely says whether the community supports, does not supports or partially supports the the theory, without requiring interpretation, the comment should be removed as it would be WP:OR and a most likely reflect the WP:POV of the users who added it. --Wildnox 23:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone name one structural engineering expert or one paper published in a reputable structural engineering journal that supports the controlled demolition hypothesis?--Sloane 00:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The burden on editors is not to disprove the statement in question( "Engineers in the structural engineering community say that it does not support the controlled demolition hypothesis" and the long list of variants both affirmative and negative), but rather to prove that the statement is true(per WP:V) while also being sure to avoid violating WP:OR and WP:NPOV--Wildnox 00:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter anymore, I sourced it.--Sloane 00:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem is, how does a particular source, invested in the debate, know what the whole community believes?  The sources cited are the original researchers proclaiming an understanding of the collapse events -- these are not disinterested parties.  Their reputation is involved.  Without polling data, no matter how well known they are or how many articles they've written,  they cannot know what engineers whom have read the reports - which are massive documents - think of them, or whether they are even aware of challenges to the official account.  Locewtus 01:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If we have reliable sources stating that isn't an issue among engineers and no one can come up with a single paper or expert that does, we can safely assume it's not an issue.--Sloane 01:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The sources look reliable to me. I think there might be an issue with this being an OR synthesis, but until I get a chance to read the sources fully I have no opposition.--Wildnox 01:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The reliability is fine, but this is a ysnthesis see:OR Synthesis. Neither source states that the communtiy disagress with the CD hypothesis, but rather presents the conclusions of a few engineers. You took the conclusions of the engineers mentioned in the two citations and used that to advance the position that the engineering community disagrees with the CD hypothesis. This may prove that the statement is true, but only through the use of OR synthesis, directly violating WP:OR in the process. --Wildnox 01:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This is all moot if I missed a point in the source that actually states that the engineering community as a group, and not just individuals, does not support the CD hypothesis. --Wildnox 01:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm referring to the following sentences: "As generally accepted by the community of specialists instructural mechanics and structural engineering (though not by a few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives),the failure scenario was as follows" (from the Bazant paper) and "most mainstream scientists, in fact, have not seen fit to engage them", "most engineers are pretty settled on what happened at the World Trade Center", "There's not really disagreement as to what happened for 99 percent of the details", "Hence, in the world of mainstream science, Mr. Jones's hypothesis is more or less dead on the vine." (from the chronicle article). --Sloane 03:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Seems alright to me then, unless somebody can bring up something else wrong with this, its fine with me. --Wildnox 03:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I've restated the engineering consensus (based on the discussion here) in the WTC section and moved the sources there to keep the lead tidy. Locewtus, I've never heard of anyone using polling data to determine what the scientific consensus is. In this case, two papers, which disagree about the NIST report's findings, and both of which mention (but do not support) the CD hypothesis, both note an overwhelming agreement among engineers about the collapses. (Cherepanov even complains that it has led to the rejection of his papers under peer-review.) With the exception of Cherepanov, there is only mild criticism about some of the report's details, none of which even entertains controlled demolition. It is completely safe to say that the engineering community rejects controlled demolition as an explanation for the collapse of the World Trade Center -- this is one of the things CTists compain about.--Thomas Basboll 08:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no engineering consensus. Moreover, there is no "engineering community".  The idea of one was invented by Mr. Bazante et al to pretend that there is no need for further discussion. Just because NIST hires 15 or so engineers to back up their story does not make the case closed. Many engineers have refrained from making any analysis of the destruction of the buildings because their is no evidence. It was carted away to be recycled before any analysis of the molten metal (burning at 1500 degrees F) could be analyzed. You should not put this statement in the introduction. It is disparaging to all CT'ers and it undermines intelligent discourse. Just because you have Bazant/Verdure/and some others from Northwestern University say "we believe demolitions were not used" does not make it so.  To put it in the intro is an insult and a disservice to this country. BTW, I have looked at Mr. B & V's calculations on the destructions of the buildings and they are wrong .--Demosfoni 14:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, those who continue to police and censure this article (Sloane, Tom Harrison, Weregerbil,etc.) are turning this particular Wikipedia article into a joke. Fortunately, there are 1000s of other web sites on the internet with the freedom to say what they want and to make intelligent points.  There are actually web sites today (Google it if you don't believe me) that are pointing out how Wikipedia is losing its own credibility because of the police action and censorship .  I have supplied numerous sources and references that the self described Wiki-police said were "unreliable", "not reputable", "please refer to WK:OS".  If you look at 99% of other Wiki pages you will see no such restrictions or censorships.  The end result is:  the authoritarian/ditto-heads win.  The "9/11 conspiracies" page becomes nothing but a whitewash.  It is not even a good reference for anyone seeking information.  Unless these ditto-heads are prevented from stifling discourse, this particular page is AfD.  --Demosfoni 14:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Blablablabla.--Sloane 14:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 1. There IS an engineering community, expressed in the many organisations and peer reviewed journals(none of which have supported the controlled demolition theory).
 * 2. There is no evidence that the NIST falisified their investigation.
 * 3. Nothing was "carted away", the people responsible for the investigation have testified that they had access to all the evidence they wanted.
 * 4. A disservice to this country? First, not everyone here is even American and second, wikipedia tries to uphold a global view, not further some kind of crazy nationalistic agenda.
 * 5. You can not name a single engineering expert or paper in a reputable journal that supports the controlled demolition theory.
 * 6. If you think there is something wrong with the NIST investigation or Bazant paper, you should write your own paper and try to have it published in a peer reviewed engineering journal. But wikipedia is no place for original research.
 * I agree largely concur with Demosfoni's sense that editing this article (and related articles) is much tougher, much more contentious, and much less civil than you find on other articles. I do think the article is getting better, though I have to admit that I am not always equally hopeful. There seems to be a desire out there to protect the reader from certain ideas (probably well-intentioned in the belief that these ideas are false), rather than ensuring the factual accuracy of particular sentences. I don't think that's especially useful, and I wouldn't blame anyone for long ago having given up learning anything about the WTC collapses or alternative 9/11 theories from Wikipedia. I'm hanging in for a while yet, though. But on the particular point about the engineering consensus: The mentioned engineers do not just say "we believe explosives were not used", they say "the consensus is that explosives were not used". You don't get to say that in a peer reviewed article if it ain't true. Bazant and Cherepanov refer to their community of peers and the consensus within it. And those who support the controlled demolition hypothesis do too. They claim NIST has done a poor job and that engineers are either following the party line or choosing silence for the sake of their professional reputations. All that is standard stuff in sciences and professions. It does not make the official story true. But it is still called "consensus".--Thomas Basboll 14:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

>>"Nothing was "carted away", the people responsible for the investigation have testified that they had access to all the evidence they wanted."
 * see -


 * "An inquiry into exactly what caused the twin towers to collapse after they were hit by hijacked jetliners may have been undermined by the hasty recycling of steel wreckage that could hold vital clues, experts told Congress yesterday."
 * "... "The lack of significant amounts of steel for examination will make it difficult, if not impossible, to make a definitive statement as to the specific cause and chronology of the collapse," said Glenn Corbett, a fire science expert from John Jay College of Criminal Justice in Manhattan who testified before a House Science Committee inquiry into the collapse and the ensuing investigation."
 * "The lack of clear authority has had unfortunate consequences, the House members said. The Giuliani administration started to send World Trade Center steel off to recycling yards before investigators could examine it to determine whether it might hold crucial clues as to why the buildings fell. The full investigative team set up by FEMA was not allowed to enter ground zero to collect other potentially critical evidence in the weeks after the attack, and it did not get a copy of the World Trade Center blueprints until early January, a delay House members found infuriating."
 * $elling Out the Investigation - By Bill Manning
 * "Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the Happyland Social Club Fire? Did they cast aside the pressure-regulating valves at the Meridian Plaza Fire? Of course not. But essentially, that's what they're doing at the World Trade Center. For more than three months, structural steel from the World Trade Center has been and continues to be cut up and sold for scrap. Crucial evidence that could answer many questions about high-rise building design practices and performance under fire conditions is on the slow boat to China, perhaps never to be seen again in America until you buy your next car."
 * etc.
 * >>"Bazant and Cherepanov refer to their community of peers and the consensus within it."
 * Then why is it so impossible to just say that - "Bazant and Cherepanov, authors of xx, state that the engineering community says . . . "
 * bov 05:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Because it understates the consensus. Please read the preceding sentence. It makes it clear what I meant. Namely: Bazant and Cherepanov refer to their community of peers and the consensus within it in peer -reviewed journals. Peer review does not guarantee the truth of every claim in an article, but it does ensure that claims about what is "generally accepted" among the relevant peers (i.e., in the community) are accurate. Nobody (I hope) thinks that such consensus means that NIST is necessarily right. Putting it the way you suggest would be a bit like saying, "Galileo's hypothesis (that the earth moves) was rejected by Cosimo Boscaglia and Tommasa Caccini." In fact, it was in opposition to the heliocentric consensus at the time, it [was] "generally rejected", if you will. That's why I don't understand opposition to stating the engineering consensus as a consensus: controlled demolition is not just an alternative theory; if it is true it would have revolutionary consequences and, to a great extent, undermine the authority of the engineering profession much in the way accepting geocentrism in astronomy was a blow against the authority of the church.--Thomas Basboll 08:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * [The Case Against Peer-Review] --71.232.14.77 00:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * This is seriously getting extremely tiring. Basboll said "controlled demolition is not just an alternative theory; if it is true it would have revolutionary consequences and, to a great extent, undermine the authority of the engineering profession" Even if you refuse to read NIST's own website it clearly states; "This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation. NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements." http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm So please stop lying about what impact the controlled demolition theory would make on the engineering community beyond reinforcing the fact that building don't fall at free fall speed, and in on their own footprint because of a unfed fire. Also if you think that a controlled demoltion thoery is not being green lighted because of how it would impact the engineering community, maybe you should consider the impact on the government and our lives. Then I would like you to consider all the engineers coming forward, and the possiblity of power of authority coming down on them. Which includes companies not recieving federal grants, arrest, loss of your job, and obviously you are hypotheticaly open to murder from some blind nationalists or government agent. Also I'm sure you would understand the social impact of our society never being able to trust our government again. So maybe the engineers who are not outspoken on the truth have many things to fear. There is no consensus on the collapse of WTC 1, WTC 2, or WTC 7 buildings. I have only seen one engineer who actually agrees with the pancake theory. I'm sure there are many more, but that rediculous explaination has been proven wrong again, and again. I have read of dozens that agree with explosives being planted in the buildings. Which has never ever been disproven successfully. There is no consensus on WTC 1 and WTC 2. Also you bring up Galileo, like, that has some relavence to this arguement. Explaining building failure is not the same as trying to understand the movement of the earth. I guess you don't understand how discovering a genius idea about earth's rotation is something about a million times different than trying to explain building failure for 5 years. Which has many extremely important questions still unanswered. NIST obviously has no consensus on WTC 7, and if you don't believe me please read the statement from NIST's own website. Also probably not worth mentioning, but even Bush can be clearly quoted for saying "operatives planted bombs in the top part of the buildings, so victims couldn't escape." So I guess that was just a big slip up.69.153.204.44 08:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * If you're talking about the same "slip" that I've looked at, context does not suggest he was talking about the WTC but about a plot that was thwarted. That said, I grant that the Galileo analogy is a bit of a stretch, but I stand by the idea that if the CD hypothesis turns out to be true, and is recognized as such, this will be, to say the least, an embarrassment for engineers, the engineering community, and NIST, who were unable to understand the significance of facts that were staring them in the face. I largely agree with you about the politics of scientific consensus. However engineers may be being coerced or convinced not to question the official story in scientific journals, the fact remains that the CD is not on the table. It's a non-starter. I would love to see it on the table (Bazant and Zhou, and the NIST FAQ, come as close as we've ever been; but only while emphasizing that they are not considering it as a possible explanation of the actual collapses. Even on WTC 7, NIST and engineers have agreed not to consider the CD hypothesis--we can of course discuss this interpretation of the FAQ.) If CD turns out to be true, the fact that it was obviously not seriously considered for five years will/should embarrass engineers. Just as it should and did embarrass the church that it was so slow in taking up the idea of heliocentrism. I think you've largely misunderstood what I'm trying to say, by the way. (I don't understand the charge that I'm lying, for example.) But some of these issues are worth discussing. Your turn.--Thomas Basboll 13:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually you just lied for the first time, but first I was going to remove the part about Galileo, and that part about you lying. I misread what you wrote. When I was editing there was an error. Ok though back to the story you said NIST is not cosidering CD theory. Well why does there web site say they are? You say "they are not considering it as a possible explanation of the actual collapses", they say their own hypothesis might be dropped, or corrected and that "NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements." Now you can say all day that doesn't prove anything, but "determine the magnitude" basically means research. Also no thats not the same slip, the slip I'm speaking of was right after 9-11-2006, in a speech where he says Al-Zarkawi's (however you spell that) operatives planted bombs in top of the building so victims couldn't escape. I saw it on TV, and on the internet and he was speaking about 9/11 when that nervious statement came out. I believe he is covering for what he knows the people are going to find out about 9/11. Trying to blame the explosives in the buildings on Al-CIAda. I mean Al-Qeada.69.153.204.44 14:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm open to the possibility that I'm misinterpreting the NIST FAQ, but I will not continue this discussion if the issue is whether or not I am willfully misrepresenting (i.e., lying about) what it says in black in white. I take it we both have the page in front of us, so my attempts to mislead you would be pointless. To leave out the words "the NIST FAQ, come[s] as close as we've ever been; but only while emphasizing that..." when attributing a reading of the NIST FAQ to me is to pick an argument that there is no need for us to have. The question we might sensibly discuss is how close NIST comes to considering the CD hypothesis as a collapse mechanism for building 7. Until they look into the possibility that the "hypothetical blasts" were caused by "intentionally planted explosives", they are not seriously considering controlled demolition.--Thomas Basboll 15:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

WTC section: too much NIST, available elsewhere
The WTC section needs to sketch the hypothesis that the WTC was brought down by controlled demolition. It needs to link primarily to the separate article on that hypothesis, and secondarily to the article on the collapses themselves. It should not provide any detail in re NIST's collapse mechanism, but needs to efficiently note that it, and the engineering community, acknowledges that CD hypothesis exists and rejects it. The reader of this section is not trying to understand how to the WTC collapsed but how conspiracy theorists think collapsed. IMHO, we are wasting the readers' time in an attempt to protect them from thinking that the buildings may have been demolished.--Thomas Basboll 15:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it's fine. --Sloane 15:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think its ridiculous that the official version areas have to repeat on here. I support Tom's position. bov 05:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I second Tom's opinion. We should give NIST its own sub-heading for the sake of organization and consistency. --Demosfoni 04:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * "It should not provide any detail in re NIST's collapse mechanism, but needs to efficiently note that it, and the engineering community, acknowledges that CD hypothesis exists and rejects it." That is completely wrong. NIST is actually looking in to the CD hypothesis for WTC building seven. Here is the quote from the NIST's web site; "This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation. NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements." It can be found here at the end of question 14; http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm  They obviously do not reject the CD hypothesis.70.250.113.190 01:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Allegations of cover-up
I have restored the section with a prefatory sentence that puts these stories into what I belive are a relevant context. If you believe that the section is mis-titled, it would be more appropriate to re-title it than to delete it wholesale. Ribonucleic 20:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Those articles about the WTC investigation are completely dated, so I removed those. Further I think it's just a bad section.--Sloane 20:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Evidently. :-) However, if there was a conspiracy, it stands to reason that it continued through the investigation period - just as a JFK conspiracy would, of necessity, need to have extended through the Warren Commission. So the existence of a section relating to theories about the manifestations of the conspiracy post-9/11 seem to me not just useful but essential to a full treatment of the subject. And the sources I provided are all mainstream media, or reprintings of same. If you think there are better ones available, I encourage you to add them. But again, wholesale deletion does not seem appropriate. Ribonucleic 20:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not comfortable with the changes you've made to this section. Starting with the title, I don't believe that conspiracy theorists are of the mind that this was a "bad investigation" in the implied sense of mere incompetence. [Not that the administration has shown any lack of that.] I believe they think it was an active attempt at cover-up. You may disagree with them - but this article is about their opinions, not yours. Similarly, the substitution of article titles for the admittedly more provocative statements made in those articles - in addition to being something I've never seen in the body of any other Wikipedia article - blunts the meaning in what seems to me a totally unproductive way. Rather than reverting on an empty stomach, I'll go to lunch now and look for your reply when I get back. :-) Ribonucleic 21:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but we must adhere to WP:OR. NONE of the articles talk about a cover-up. That's your conclusion.--Sloane 21:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That it was a cover-up is the conclusion of the conspiracy theorists who are the subject of this article. I have added links in support of this. Ribonucleic 21:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well then I'm removing the articles, as none of them say anything about a cover-up. Please read WP:OR, you might think they support the theory but that's original research.--Sloane 22:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:OR states "articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published arguments, concepts, data, ideas, or statements that serves to advance a position". I don't believe I have done anything of the kind. I have said that the conspiracy theorists who are the subject of this article have interpreted certain media reports [the ones I originally posted, at least] as indicating a cover-up - not that those media reports allege a cover-up exists. And I know for a fact that the conspiracy theorists interpret those media reports that way because I found those reports on the web sites maintained by those conspiracy theorists. So I am restoring the articles and respectfully asking you to use this space to inquire about my reasoning rather than stating your assumptions about it. Ribonucleic 23:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Ribonucleic, I really think that Sloane's purpose here is to disrupt and degrade the quality of this article. He accuses anyone who doubts the official report as a "9/11 denier".  I've looked into this and I think if we can get enough of us to agree, we might be able to get Sloanebanned from this article. --Demosfoni 04:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Caption of security camera still
The article specifically questions whether the Pentagon was hit by an airplane. [And FWIW, I can't make out a jet in that picture.] So I think the caption must be changed to reflect NPOV. Ribonucleic 22:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

comment: of course you cannot make out wether there is an airplane based on this footage, these frames and other footage of the attacks are deliberately hold back for public inquiry, so that the media and public discussion will foces on these - all in all, giving the whole body of facts, showing and proving complicity of the US government - unimportant details. Wether the object that hit the pentagon was an airplane or missile or anything else, is of no importance for the established facts of complicity of the US govt. -- see my remarks below in PROPOSAL... That discussion (about wether/not a plane or something else hit the Pentagon) is going astray and thus will prevent the media and public to become aware of more important details and very well established facts which proof complicity of the US govt. -- the footage of other security cams and other cams which have filmed the plane or missile hitting the Pentagon, can be brought out to the public at any moment, when necessary to "proof" that the US govt. was not involved in these attacks... Since - to my opinion and knowledge of factual evidence concerning the Pentagon attack - there is little evidence for the "no-plane hit the Pentagon" theory, and substantial and well-estblished evidence (eye-witness reports, lightpoles being torn out the ground, matching the wingspan of a Boeing 757, parts of the Boeing 757 found inside/outside the impact zone, etc) that a Boeing 757/Boeing 757 sized airplane hit the Pentagon. 82.93.140.232 03:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record: I take no position on what damaged the Pentagon. But this photograph does not clearly show an airplane - let alone a specific flight. In the context of this article, to say otherwise is grossly POV. Ribonucleic 05:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. (Have argued this before.)--Thomas Basboll 11:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

PROPOSAL for covering this subject in general
According to my research and investigations, the subject of "9/11 conspiracy"-theories, should be covering all factual conspiracy theories, including the "official" theory, and they can be generally be divided into THREE categories, as outlined below.

The official story, which claims:

 * 1) A complot of (muslim fundamentalist) fighters prepared and carried out these evil attacks
 * 2) For the sole reason of that they hate "freedom" and our "democracy"
 * 3) With in principal nothing more as a couple of (more or less) trained figthers who were trained to fly commercial airplanes
 * 4) And with only box-cutters and alike to control the passenger airplanes.
 * 5) Which were carried out AND prepared without any help of inside military/intelligence agency.
 * 6) Came as a total surprise without any knowledge prior to 9/11.
 * 7) Were prepared by a very well organized and sophisticated organization, al-Qeada.
 * 8) Which had military sized bunkers in the Tora Bora mountains with military equipment and communication facilities.
 * 9) With links to the regime of Iraq, that was a military threat to the "free world" because of the established fact that Iraq produced and was able to produce weapons of mass destruction (conventional, biological, chemical and nuclear).

The "let it happen on purpose" theory, which claims:

 * 1) The Bush government had received significant, sufficient and detailed warnings about the attack from outside intelligence sources of eleven different nations and also from inside intelligence sources, which contained details about: who the alleged hijackers were (at least a number of them), what means they would use to attack the USA (hijacked airplanes) and what targets they would hit (important symbols of the USA, like the WTC - the symbol of capitalism - and the Pentagon - the symbol of the military force of the USA).
 * 2) These warnings were neglected and even ongoing investigation was deliberately stopped, and research findings were destroyed in the process, and no actions were performed based on this intelligence (which posed a significant threat) to stop these ongoing attacks.
 * 3) On top of that, the military agencies, and especialy the air defence system was deliberately put into a position in which it would have been unable to stop the attacks, once they were reported, due to a series of wargaming excercises, amongst which Vigilian Guard, a wargame simulation which used the scenario of hijacked airplanes used as missiles to hit civilian and military targets, precisely coinciding with the attacks going on that day!
 * 4) Additionally, the "standard procedures" for air defense, which guarantee that any airplane behaving suspiciously (going wildly off-course, not responding to radio communication, no transponder signal, and/or known to be hijacked or a known to be hostile) is going to be intercepted by military fighters of which sufficient numbers are constantly standby and on alert for immediate action (2 planes per military airbase are on alert, w.i. planes which are fueled and equipped with ammunition), which is: they can by up in the air in a couple of minutes.
 * 5) The established fact is that in the periode prior to 9/11 such interceptions were made in 67 individual cases, with a sucess ration of 100% and an average time between report of an airplane behaving suspiciously and succesfull interception of 20 minutes.
 * 6) The "standard procedure" has mandated air defense command to not only intercept but also shoot-down an airplane, in cases necessary in specific circumstances and determined on detailed procedures, but these "shoot-down" orders were deliberately withdrawn from the air-defense command, and were placed under the direct command of vice-president Dick Cheney, some weeks or months prior to 9/11.
 * 7) A documented fact (film of a witness-report during the 9/11 commision investigation) is that the airplane (flight 77) heading to the Pentagon was not intercepted, based on specific orders. A filmed eye-witness report shows how a military officer warned D. Cheney in the White house about the airplane approaching Washington. "50 miles out.... 30 miles out .... 10 miles out. Sir, do the orders still stand?" which was responded to by D. Cheney with: "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?".
 * 8) Other established facts about the behaviour of air-defense on that 11 september day, showing very weird and strange behaviour of air defense command and the fighter jets, which seems to indicate they did not even try to intercept the planes in time. At the minimum, the plane heading to Washington, which was "lost" on FAA radar screens (but not on military radar screens) for more then 30 minutes, could have been intercepted in time, since at that time it was already widely known the US was under attack, the second plane had already hit the WTC south tower. The south tower was hit at 9.03 am, the Pentagon was hit at 9.37 am.

The "make it happen on purpose" theory, which claims:

 * 1) That the US govt. and/or US govt. institutions not only KNEW about the ongoing attacks and deliberately let them happen, but also was involved in managing, guiding, ordering and/or financing of the attacks.
 * 2) Most important part of the evidence for this theory is the established fact of the money-transfer of 100.000 dollar made to Mohammed Atta, which was authorized by general Mahmoud Ahmad of the Pakistan ISI (intelligence service). General Mahmoud Ahmad was visiting the US and was meeting top officials of the Bush administration in the period during the attacks (from 4 tot 13 september 2001) and had talks/meetings with: Colin Powel, CIA-boss George Tenet and other top officials.
 * 3) Another establised fact is that the CIA has made in prior years (from the end of the 70-ies) huge donations to the Pakistan ISI, to sponsor, train and arm the Mujahedien fighters (they were called "freedom fighters" during the Reagan area) in their attempt to overthrow the progressive government in Afghanistan and provoke a Soviet invasion of Afghanistan as part of the Reagan-doctrine (overthrowing the Soviet union as world power by destablizing the Soviet union by military and economical force, which as we know succeeded). The al-Qeada movement/organisation is part of this, and was also a CIA sponsored organisation.
 * 4) The rational of this is not to claim that al-Qeada is directly connected to the US govt. and/or to claim that al-Qeada is "pro-american", but the claim is merely that al-Qeada performs certain intelligence functions to the US. This is to say: there is no need to assume direct orders from the Bush government for this theory to be factual, it is just assumed that somewhere down the line of the intelligence apparatus, these attacks were plannen, prepared and conducted, with full knowledge of that by these intelligence services.

Both for the "let it happen on purpose" AND the "make it happen on purpose" theory, it is also woth mentioning the following claims:
 * 1) The neo-conservative "think-tank" Project for a New American Century, has already in 2000 reported that it strived for a sufficient larger defense budget in order to be able to control the Middle east and Central asia (the exact region which was already described by former foreign minister under the Reagan administration Brzezinsky in his book "The grand chessboard") with military force.
 * 2) Which report stated that such a large scale operation and increase of defense budget would be a long process, absent some catalizing event in the form of a new Pearl Harbour. Which is to say, at a minimum it is clear that for this process to occur, the attacks were a "gift from heaven".

CONCLUSION:

As a concludion, my proposal is to mention all theories, which are part of these 3 categories of "complot" theories, and treat them on the same level. The current treatment is that of "official story" <-> "complot theory", which is a prejudiced treatment. ANY theory that explain how and why 11 sept. attacks were carried out - wether or not they follow the official story - is a complot theory. A better treatment is to treat the distinction between theories as "non complicity" <-> "complicity" theories, which is far less biased and prejudiced. "complicity" theories can be further categorized in orders of complicty, as proposed here and supported by many.

Noteworthy also is that any of the more outrageous and speculative theories - WHICH OCCUR IN ALL 3 COMPLOT THEORIES! - such as the "Tora Bora military bunkers", the "Iraqi weapons of mass destruction", and also the "WTC brought down with explosives" and "No plane/boeing 757 hit the Pentagon" theories, can then be treated at the same level. Some people believe these outrageous stories (like many govt. have been tricked into believing the "Iraqi WMD" fairy tales!!) - which some call plain lies! - while others base their opinion on established evidence and proof.

Important to state is that even when we cut down the theories by sorting out all the speculative parts of the theories, we still keep the original three complot theories, although it is almost clear and certain, that the base for the official complot theory is so thin, that it is almost completely gone and evaporated into thin air, as most of the accompaning "evidences" have been proven wrong.

For the other complot theories, even when there are many speculative theories surrounding them (either deliberate disinformation to dismantle the theory and make it possible to ridicule them) it is noteworthy that the crucial claims are still standing when eliminating ALL speculations or non-proven claims (even the "controlled demolition" of WTC 7 is part of that, no matter how suspicious this event is, and how poor the official explenation, there is no real and/or direct evidence - f.i. demolition experts who claim after seeing WTC 7 collapse that is IS a controlled demoltion, is not direct PROOF of controlled demolition - beyond reasonable doubt that WTC 7 was brought down with explosives... Which doesn't say that it could be that it was the case, but that such is unproven, and probably unprovable given the fact that the remains of WTC 7 were never researched for finding out why it felt down in such a remarkable fashion - although it of course SHOULD have been researched for finding out how it collapsed, not just for structural engineering knowledge and make buildings safer, but because BY LAW it should have been researched as it was part of a crime scene).

META THEORY ABOUT 9/11 SPECULATIONS ('conspiracy theories'):

Please also note that for the occurence of all these speculative theories, on the side of either complot theory 2 and 3 ("let it/make it happen on purpose"), is that these extensive rumours were merely signs of very broad discomfort and signs of distrust amongst the public audience, which emerged significant time AFTER 9/11, and occured after: a. The US govt. - which initially claimed they would do an extensive and full research on 9/11 - did not keep these promises, but contrarily acted in a way to frustrate a full investigation b. The acts of the US govt. after and on the basis of these attacks, the "proof of guilt" of al-Qeada / O. Bin Laden and of the "WMD of Iraq" were based on such thin intelligence reports, that most people treat them as government lies, since in reality there were no Tora Bora military bases and no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. And even the proof of guilt for al-Qeada and Osama Bin Laden is good as absent. The only "proof" are some video and audio tapes. c. The government laws such as Patriot act 1 & 2 and Homeland security, which pose a danger to freedom and leads the US state into a form of police state, if not right out a fascists/corporate state, and this line of stateform is seen in other western countries too.

All these events and the proofs that were later established that the people and world opinion had been lied to, have raised serious doubts about ALL the claims origanally made by the US govt. as how, why and who performed these attacks and has to be accounted responsible for these attacks.

Since all these statements made around 9/11 events, are part of war-propaganda (for the sole reason that the US govt. treated the 9/11 attacks of acts of warfare, and not just a criminal - large scale - terrorist attack), it is not surprising that both groups use lies. The speculative and unproven theories, such as "WTC brought down with controlled demolition" and "No plane/Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon" merely reflect to and counter the lies, prior to them, about "Tora Bora military bunkers/facilities" and "Iraqi weapons of mass-destruction". That also means: it is particulary non-sensical to treat those speculative theories in an isolated manner, without mentioning the framework and context in which they occur and for what reason they occur and reflect to, that these speculations just and simply directly oppose the speculations (lies) that the US. govt. brought forward as part of warfare propaganda.

Media and governments which debate about these issues, which treat those speculative claims apart from that context, and forget that they refer to and counter the lies of the other side, the US govt., are in this respect suspicious, as for most part, they try to dismantle the theories or at least try to ridicule the well-established facts and well-proven facts that indicate / proof government complicity. That is: in so far these media and governments do no also - in a balanced way - have discovered and exposed the US. govt. lies.

FINAL REMARK

In so far I have to comment on that - my personal opinion and in sofar I know all the facts about how and why 9/11 attacks occured - I have reason to assume that at least complot theory 1 (the official story) is not to be trusted and is based on very thin (only audio/video tapes, which are highly disputed and distrusted and claimed to be non-authentic by many researchers and scientists) "evidence", and the huge mountain of evidence leading to other conclusions, are far more likely, and which concludes that at least complot theory (let-it-happen-on-purpose) must be assumed, if not more. Good evidence and indications direct to complot theory 3 (make it happen on purpose), but parts of the evidence is missing there, for the sole reason that the evidence that leads in that direction (the money-transfer made by general Mahmoud Ahmad to Mohammed Atta / the visit of Mahmoud Ahmad with govt. officials) is not further explored (on purpose), and by now, it can be assumed, such evidence has already been destroyed. We can assume however on many factual evidence, that US govt. is in fact more directly involved (based also on patterns of behaviour in many other cases), but that that truth is deliberately withdrawn from public inquiry. The suspicious behaviour of the US. govt shows indirect proof of such high complicity and high treason against the american people and other nations/people.

82.93.140.232 03:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * And you gave us this giant ball of uncited original research why, exactly? I'm inclined to say we should delete this comment and section all together, as it appears to violate Wikipedia is not a soapbox, but I'll leave that up for others to decide.--Wildnox 03:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Wait... I see, this is just a giant proposal that looks like soapboxing. --Wildnox 03:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

82.93.140.232 raises several important questions which relate to the purpose of the article and how it should be organized which need to be addressed.

1. What is this article about?
 * Is it about all the many explanations of the events of 9/11? Is it about the conspiracy theorists? Is it about their motivations? An article about 9/11 conspiracy theories assumes that there is some dominant viewpoint (”official theory”) and a set of dissenting theories.

2. How do you decide what is a conspiracy theory and what isn't?
 * It is difficult to know what to include and exclude when there are no set criteria for determining whether or not a given claim constitutes a conspiracy theory. Does the source of the theory matter? Does public opinion matter?

3. Which theories should be included and excluded?
 * Is there such a thing as an “official theory”or is that term ambiguous? Since 9/11, the Bush administration has made a series of claims (repeated above) which have evolved over time. The 9/11 Commision investigated the events and their causes but is that somehow more “official”? Can you have two contradictory “official theories”? But calling everything a conspiracy theory renders the term useless. Making evaluations about what is and isn’t a conspiracy theory is difficult without a set of standards.

4. Can a conspiracy theory be true?
 * What happens when an “official theory” is shown to be demonstrably false? What happens when a conspiracy theory is confirmed by facts or believed by an overwhelming majority? Can an “official theory” be a conspiracy theory?

I would suggest that the article cannot be an exhaustive summary of the entire set of views and all of the evidence related to the 9/11 attacks. It just isn’t feasible. It’s better to link to separate explanatory articles and leave this one as a broad outline rather than overload this page. This also solves the problem of how much supporting and contradictory evidence to include.

Hyperlinks are your friend. The longer and more complex an individual article is, the more difficult it is to achieve consensus. KISS. --71.129.41.101 10:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Presentation of Operation Northwoods
If you want to mention that it was proposed during the Kennedy administration by way of adding Cold War context, I have no objection. But to say "However" crosses the line into POV, in my opinion. And your statement that "the plan was rejected" does not even say by whom, let alone provide a source. I respectfully ask that you not add it back without addressing both those concerns. Ribonucleic 03:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC) Sloane, in the spirit of compromise, I am willing to agree to even an undocumented report that Kennedy rejected Northwoods - provided that you are able to furnish a source. [As you may already know, the Wikidpedia article on Northwoods can not be used as a source for another Wikipedia article.] For example: "In Arthur Schlesinger Jr's account of the Kennedy administration A Thousand Days, the author claims that Kennedy rejected the Northwoods plan." - followed by the proper bibliographic citation of the Schelsinger book, of course. If you are unable to provide such a source, your "was rejected" claim would be the OR that you were concerned about earlier. Ribonucleic 15:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Who cares WHO rejected it? It WAS rejected.--Sloane 03:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I respectfully invite you to back up this claim with a source, rather than your Caps Lock key. Ribonucleic 03:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the fact that it was rejected only at the "highest level", i.e., accepted at all lower levels, is interesting. Anyone who finds Northwoods interesting would care.--Thomas Basboll 07:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

AfD on split decided
The AfD on the split has been completed and has been upheld.


 * "The result was delete Controlled-Demolition Theory (9/11 Conspiracy Theory), which is what is up for deletion. Keep (or at least no consensus, which is effectively the same thing) Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center." (Read more here ).

That is, the article that was originally split has been deleted, but the second attempt at the split has been upheld. This means that we can move more of the details of the CD hypothesis over in the CD article if we want.--Thomas Basboll 11:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Jimmy Walter's expertise
I'm removing the Jimmy Walters hypothesis again. He is quoted for saying that explosives were planted "on every floor". Walters, however, is not a notable theorist in the CT community but a (quite notable) supporter of the movement. His opinion here is both ill informed and reported by a plainly hostile source (who calls Walters ideas "bullshit" and belives that "f-- you" when yelled very loudly - as a voice over it would appear - constitutes critique). It can certainly not be used to represent the controlled demolition hypothesis. If you want it in, Sloane, you are going to have to find some sources, either among CTers or in objective reporting, that situate Walter as an opinion leader on the WTC demolition in the 9/11 community.--Thomas Basboll 19:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Our Noble "Engineering Community"
Hey. Did anyone ever bother to consider that when one says the "engineering community" one is referring to a group of engineers. You could say "a pod of engineers", "a gaggle of engineers", etc. This community however does not have bylaws. They do not live in one geographical location. They do not all know eachother. They do not have time to read each other's technical publications. The idea of an "engineering community" agreeing about anything is ridiculous. All we have is peer-review which as I showed above is not perfect and can let erroneous charlatans proposing things like "cold fusion", "prayer aiding medical recovery", etc. Anyway, I have found ONE ENGINEER who disagrees with the engineering community. Now, if you are all reasonable people (one can assume anything). This should be reason enough to remove the outlandish claim that "the engineering community does not support demolition" of the buildings. Here is the evidence: [Charles Pegelow]. So since there is not unanimous agreement among the engineers, to be technically accurate you need to change "the structural engineering community" to "most of the structural engineering community". I assume that we are all reasonable people and this correction will not meet with unreasonable resistance by a certain few. --71.232.14.77 01:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was me. I have also added Larry Silverstein's admission to PBS that he agreed to have the building "pulled".  Of course there is some doubt as to what he meant but I think that if you are going to say "all engineers agree" then it is only fair to balance that statement with Mr. Silverstein's innocuous statement about "pulling the building". --Demosfoni 01:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but Silverstein specifically said "they made that decision". They, the fire department made the decision to pull the firefighters out and end operations. This quote is explained in detail on the CD page, and is not needed in the intro here. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 01:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe that both sides of the story need to be told. His explanation of what "pulls" means is doubtful at best. --Demosfoni 01:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Both sides are told on the Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center page, which is a subpage of this article. Now, I would be fine with merging that article back into here, and deleting the subarticle. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 01:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Good Idea! Oops!  It was deleted by __________ (fill in the blank: Sloane, Tom Harrison, Weregerbil) --Demosfoni 04:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yea I like the idea of rewording the statement. I find it hard to believe that not a single engineer in the engineering community would support the statement. It's current form seems poor and slightly biased to me. --Wildnox 02:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Have you ever heard of Hillary Clinton's statement of a "vast right-wing conspiracy"? Well I think we are viewing a bush-league version of that right here at the 9/11 conspiracy front. --Demosfoni 04:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Manual firefighting stopped fairly early in the day
I've removed a non-sequitur note quoting FEMA report, which noted that "...the development of the fires was not significantly impeded by the firefighters because manual firefighting efforts were stopped fairly early in the day." This has no relation to the rest of the section, except as an insinuation that there must not have been any firefighters in or near the building at all if they didn't fight the fires. The reasoning seems to go:
 * If they weren't fighting the fires later in the day, there must never have been any firefighters there at all. Thus, nobody to "pull."  Silverstein's statement that "they decided to pull it" must refer to the firefighters deciding to do a controlled demolition on the building, rather than the firefighters deciding to pull the team of firefighters from the building!  Silverstein's in on the 9/11 conspiracy, and he foolishly admitted it on national television!

But when did Silverstein suggest that they "pull it"? I haven't seen anything indicating just when it was, but I'd bet it was around the time that "the firefighters made the decision fairly early on not to fight the fires". They observed early on that the fires were practically insurmountable, so they decided, like Silverstein said, that it wasn't worth losing more lives trying to stop an unstoppable fire in a 40-story building. Especially when there's more important things for the firefighters to do, like rescuing people trapped in the rubble from the two tallest buildings in the world.

In addition, the FEMA report cannot be used to imply that there were never any firefighters inside WTC 7, as it notes that there were. (Page 20: "According to the account of a firefighter who walked the 9th floor...") It appears that they went inside the building, assessed the damage, realized that they wouldn't be able to stop the fires, and decided to pull out. Later that day they watched it collapse. --Mr. Billion 07:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Please note that I've reduced this section, not to end discussion but to move it over the controlled demolition main article. Not trying to step on anyone toes, just cleaning up a little.--Thomas Basboll 20:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That's fine. --Mr. Billion 21:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

CT sources
Everyone's been doing such a good job of verifying the facts, that the theories are sometimes not represented. I think we need to cite sources that emphasize the facts in this article to the end substantiating a conspiracy theory. (I am talking about the source's aims not this article's, of course.) On my reading of the field, the strongest accounts are Griffin, Tarpley, Ruppert and Ahmed. While Thompson is a great source for facts (actually: he's so good at sourcing we don't even need to quote him) he doesn't really offer a conspiracy theory (some might argue he offers a conspiracy allusion or something on that order.) An example of a source I think works really well in the article right now is Ruppert's critical assessment of the WTC demolition hypothesis. It really gives us a sense of the importance of this element but also the problems with it. But I'm going to add Tarpley as well because he calls Building Seven the "reductio ad absurdum" of the whole operation, which is what many CTists believe as far as I tell.--Thomas Basboll 20:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Able Danger
A Pentagon report released Friday said the able danger unit had no actionable intelligence related to 9/11 or knowledge of Atta. I put the story and reactions by Weldon and Kean below the original Able Danger entry 69.114.117.103 07:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)

Ben Chertoff and Michael Chertoff
I shudder to even try and edit this page for I am sure there is fierce loyalty on both sides. But I read it today, and noticed it said that Ben Chertoff and Michael Chertoff are related. I read recently that Ben Chertoff denies the relationship. I edited the entry to say the relationship is alleged, and included Ben Chertoff's denials. I cited the U.S. News World Report article for the denial. I left intact the footnote alleging the connection, which goes to a 'Conspiracy Theorist' webpage, which I personally find dubious, but I suspended judgement and included it for the sake of neutrality, and to verify that there are people out there that allege the connection. 25 SEP 2006, mitchsensei (whoops forgot to sign the first time I edited)

Motives Expansion
It might be necessary to include the deducted motives for people creating the conspiracies in the first place. The first thing a lot of people who disagree with the conspiracies think is "why on earth would they think this?", and often endeavour to look deeper than the proposed motives for a 9/11 government conspiracy and at the psychology of conspiracy theorists themselves, before they consider evidence for and against it.
 * If you have proper citing it would definetly belong in the criticism section 69.114.117.103 07:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)

Other Points of Interest Should be Split
The section should be split into two. The first under "Other Points of interest" should have the Carlyle meeting on 9/11.Marvin Bush as CEO of company that ran security. The second section should be "Public Officials suggesting conspiracy theories" and that would list remarks by the Iranian and Venezuelan presidents,Jesse Ventura,Cynthia McKinney 69.114.117.103 06:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)
 * I did split it and I put the public officials section in between media and criticism 69.114.117.103 17:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)

Outlandish misrepresentation of underlying sources
I have made several correction due to, frankly, fraudulent misrepresentations of underlying sources.--Cberlet 01:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Did building 7 (officially) collapse from fire?
As I understand it, the CT argument assumes that Building 7 "collpsed as a result of fire" and is the only building (of its kind) in history to do so. Mongo recently deleted this idea. There are two issues to deal with in this regard. The first is factual: the claim that the structure, however damaged it may have been from the collapses of the two towers, did eventually itself collapse "from fire". Since the damaged structure stood for about seven hours, its sudden collapse must have been initiated by something happening inside the building, like fires weakening the steel. Importantly, this seems to be the official opinion as well. Gene Corley of the ASCE said to the House Science Committe (in May, 2002) that, "Building 7, which was across the street from the main towers, also collapsed and provided us with the first example that we recognized of a building collapsing as a result of fire." But the second issue is is that the article isn't about the facts but about specific claims and theories. CTs certainly claim that Building 7, because it was not hit by an airplane, and did not collapse along with the two towers, provides a clear case of a building collapsing from fire (unlike anything seen in history). I got the Corley quote from Chapter 6 of Tarpley's book. And NIST's preliminary results don't suggest that the official story is changing here. We are dealing with a damaged but stable structure that suddenly collapses "from fire".--Thomas Basboll 20:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Opinions on the matter generally seem to indicate that it did collapse from fire, but images I have seen indicated that the building suffered severe structural damage on the south side of the building. In this situation, fire was a partial reason for the collapse, but my guess is it may not have or possibly wouldn't have collapsed just due to fire had it not sustained damage. Of course, this is just my opinion and is less reliable than that of a trained structural engineer. I would suggest we wait until NIST releases their full report on the building and then base our writings on that.--MONGO 19:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Conspiracy theorists are not as a patient as you and I. We have to find a way to present their claim that if building 7 collapsed without the assistance of demolition devices of some kind then it is the only skyskraper in history (excepting WTC 1 and 2) to have been brought down by fire.--Thomas Basboll 20:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Um....it is not clear that this is the only steel framed building brought down by fire. I don't see any reason to document something based on opinions, neither mine, nor others.--MONGO 20:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Bazant and Verdure say that "No skyscraper has ever before collapsed due to fire. The fact that the WTC towers did, beckons deep examination."(PDF ) The distinction between steel-framed buildings and skyscrapers may be relevant elsewhere, but the basic idea the CTists are pushing here is pretty clear.--Thomas Basboll 20:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's the thing...taking comments and observations and using them to "build" a storyline where there isn't any.--MONGO 06:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * , --MONGO 06:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The links you provide here are to what seems to be an anonymous, self-published debunking site. On the points we are discussing here, it offers opinions that (as I understand it) contradict the official story. I think it is clear that this building was brought down by fire and that they [all] came down at free fall speed. These are things that the official reports, and mainstream engineering, try to explain. They also note that the collapses were surprising, precisely because no other buildings like them had collapsed. The "other firsts" (emphasized by the debunking site, but not by offialdom) don't invalidate the first first.--Thomas Basboll 12:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think if you look at the images provided in those websites, that it is reasonable to assume that with all the damage that is clear in surrounding buildings, that 7WTC also sustained damage...but that is a reasonable conjecture. I am sure the term "surprising" has been taken out of context by the CT crowd. The links I provided are self-published...as is every single CT website out there that covers these events...but, interestingly, the links I provided also are supported by the mainstream viewpoint and evidence from NIST regarding the overall event...the CT websites are not.--MONGO 09:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

You and the debunking site may be convinced that, given the exceptional nature of the "overall event" of 9/11, the collapse of the buildings was unsuprising. Bazant and Verdure, who are recognized authorities on the matter, disagree with you. They say 'The destruction of the World Trade Center (WTC) on 9/11/01 was not only the biggest mass murder in the U.S. history but also a big surprise for the structural engineering profession, perhaps the biggest since the collapse of Tacoma Bridge in 1940. No experienced structural engineer watching the attack expected the WTC towers to collapse. No skyscraper has ever before collapsed due to firre. The fact that the WTC towers did, beckons deep examination.' CTs are not just published on websites--they are described in books published by a variety of independent publishing houses. In this case the better sources say that the buildings collapsed due to fire and that this was not to be expected from an engineering point of view. It is reasonable to assume that what they mean is that, since airplanes and debris were not enough, the remaining structures were doing just fine--no intervening earthquakes or hurricanes to speak of--until the enormous heat of the fires undermined them. That fire was able initiate collapse in a structure that had successfully redistributed the loads after local structural damage, was a surprise to engineers. Today they understand it much better.--Thomas Basboll 11:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Um...NIST has stated that a combination of events led to the destruction..."NIST concluded the towers collapsed because the impact of the plane crashes severed and damaged support columns and dislodged fireproofing insulation from the steel floor trusses and support columns, which allowed the fires to weaken them to the point where they bowed, buckled, and failed.". The CT websites are indeed published in books...all to make a buck...what I offer is FREE! Think about that...how often can you get the facts without the expense than anything other than your time to read it?--MONGO 12:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, one important step in passing from the initial surprise to the final explanation was the dislodging of the fire-proofing. No other building in history had had so much fireproofing dislodged and NIST actually says that if it had not been dislodged the buildings probably would not have collapsed. So again we have a building collapsing "from fire", only we now have a better understanding of how that happened. That explanation won't help us in the case of building 7, of course, which had much less damage, probably no or little dislodged fire-proofing, and much smaller fires. It also hasn't yet been explained.--Thomas Basboll 12:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's because it had a huge gash in the south side? Maybe it's because there were fires on multiple floors? Maybe it's because no one was trying to extinguish the flames for 7 hours? What other alternatives really "make sense"? I wonder how much fire did aside from weaking the remianing supports to cause the building to fall...remember, it was a core structure just like the WTC towers, and much like the several other supertall buildings built in the same period in Chicago. Maybe this is clear indication that this type of construction is shoddy if you are building in an area prone to terrorists attacks via wide body jet or damaging debris from adjacent building demolished by wide body jet impacts.--MONGO 12:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You and I are obviously not going to decide this question. I'm proposing to interpret NIST's conclusions on the basis of Bazant and Verdure, and the remarks FEMA's Gene Corley just before the NIST investigation got underway. You are proposing to make sense of this with the assistance of an anonymous debunking site, handing out its wisdom for free. I am not denying that there was a gash. Your second appeal to "wide body jets" is an obvious red herring since any collapse of the WTC will do. Many buildings as close or closer to the WTC were exposed to damage similar to building 7 and did not collapse. Even the site you are using shows us this very clearly. All in all, conspiracy theorists are not alone in suggesting that the official account claims that the buildings collapsed from fire. They are alone in not accepting that as an explanation.--Thomas Basboll 12:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, other buildings did collapse...see portions of the other WTC structures, the Marriott Hotel, other buildings that were later taken down, including one they are still dismantling...was every building adjacent to the WTC supposed to collapse? Maybe the fires in those buildings weren't as bad, maybe they didn't have as much structural damage...maybe they were built differently? My last link wasn't from a debunking website...it was from the U.S. State Department...are they less reliable than NIST overall...since they cite NIST? No one that can be depended on has rendered an official perspectus on what caused 7WTC to collapse, so until there is a reliable witness, we have nothing we can say on the matter...my "debunking sites" are just as unusable as the CT websites and all those books printed to make a buck. That is my point.--MONGO 13:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's get back on topic. The core of the disagreement is whether CTers are right to point out that the WTC collapses are unique events in engineering history. That is, whether they are surprising. The question is whether it was a surprise attack merely -- we did not expect the buildings to collapse but only because we did not expect them to be attacked with airplanes -- or whether, even given the attacks, the collapses were in need of explanation. CTers and NIST and mainstream engineering agree that an explanation was needed -- that is, they did not say, "Oh, obviously, planes and fires!". They said, "Planes and fires were able to do THAT?" And, seeing the damage to the south side of 7WTC they did not say, "Oh yeah, it's a gonner." Corley said it was peculiar because it constituted a case of building being brought down by fire. Engineers have now come to understand what originally surprised them. CTers and NIST do not agree about the explanation that has been given.--Thomas Basboll 14:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Mongo's skepticism has me finding sources to back my claims. That's a good thing. Here's one: "Many of the buildings suffered severe fire damage but remained standing. However, two steel-framed structures experienced fire-induced collapse. WTC 7 collapsed completely after burning unchecked for approximately 7 hours, and a partial collapse occured in an interior section of WTC 5." This happens to be from the executive summary of FEMA's report (PDF here). But those sentences could have taken out of a CT book. That's my point; the collapse of WTC 7 "from fire" is not controversial. It is accepted by CTists and NISTers alike.--Thomas Basboll 15:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * One more official source. Here's something called a "Historical Survey of Building Collapses Due to Fire" (PDF here), which is a study that was done for NIST. The four WTC buildings (that is, including the towers) are listed here. Also, only two other steel-framed cases were noted. Both involved very partial collapses. This tells us two things. The CTists are right that WTC 7 collapsed due to fire. They are also right that this is unique event. The other two cases, after all, were far from total collapses.--Thomas Basboll 15:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The CTists are "right"...right about what Thomas? They generally believe that bombs helped bring down WTC7...not sure what you're getting at, aside from refusing to mention that the was obvious structural damage to the building as well. You want to take part of the information but not all of it. Since there is no definitive report on the main collapse of WTC7, then the only thing that can go in this is article is CTists cruft and misrepresentations of wording by "official" websites to use only portions of comments that support an a priori premise...if we get into that, we might as well also use this website:...it's just as silly.--MONGO 22:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I seem to left out the key notion. I meant that CTists are right to interpret the official account as saying that fire brought down WTC 7 (i.e., that it is officially a fire-induced collapse). They are also right that, if that account is true, then the collapse of WTC 7 is a unique event in engineering history. I have acknowledged the damage you say I refuse to mention above. But FEMA must also have been aware of it when they characterized the collapses as "fire-induced"--a characterization which is also applied by engineers like Bazant and Verdure, and the authors of the historical survey commissioned by NIST that I cited above. (I'll continue this in response to Sloane, below.)--Thomas Basboll 06:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Can we now include the words "Building 7 collapsed due to fire" in this article?--Thomas Basboll 15:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This is the current hypothesis:
 * An initial local failure occurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris-induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large-span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet;
 * Vertical progression of the initial local failure occurred up to the east penthouse, and as the large floor bays became unable to redistribute the loads, it brought down the interior structure below the east penthouse; and
 * Triggered by damage due to the vertical failure, horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of floors 5 and 7 that were much thicker and more heavily reinforced than the rest of the floors) resulted in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure.
 * So, it's fire and/or damage by the debris.--Sloane 20:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Whose hypothesis are you refering to? FEMA?(who state that their proposed scenario has low probability of occurence)? Can you give sources for what  you posted above? You haven't adressed the fact that there is an agreement among engineers that it were fires that ultimately caused the collapse (that is WTC7 wouldn't collapse if there were no fires - Thomas's provided strong arguments and citations to that, I think). SalvNaut 22:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Until NIST released their working hypothesis, which is to say, during the time when most of the CTs were being developed, "fire-induced collapse" was the official line. NIST seems to be rethinking this, but if that's the case then it actually confirms what CTists have been saying since the FEMA report (which also says it), namely, that fire (the only official hypothesis) "has a low probability of occurence". NIST has now released this new hypothesis, emphasising that it is far from the last word, and using the odd formula "fire and/or debris". Not only can this be read as "debris alone may have done it" (which can't be what they mean), it suggests that the collapses were "initiated" by something that happened 7 hours earlier. I have no idea what they want to say by that. Obviously, the really interesting new angle being pursued by NIST is the investigation of "hypothetical blast events". At least in an article about conspiracy theories suggesting demolition.--Thomas Basboll 06:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it collapsed from gravity. NIST simply hasn't put any resources in this sideshow and that doesn't suggest anything except that they haven't put any resources into it. As I understand it, they are doing so now but, as NIST says, there is simply no evidence that it collapsed from anything other than as a result of terrorists flying airplanes into buildings. --Tbeatty 06:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

And to get to the surprise of structural engineers, the surprise was the amount of damage caused by the planes. The presence of fireproofing materials on the main structural elemtent says that fire was a concern for steel structures. Skyscrapers were obviously not designed to withstand both the structural damage and the post-crash fire. The debate in the engineering community is whether there needs to be changes to code to withstand this kind of damage and fire and whether more robust fire suppression methods need to be employed. But the "surprise" that the building collapsed is over the amount of damage, not the collapse itself. Protecting structural elements with fire retardent materials is testimony to the danger of collapse from fire. --Tbeatty 07:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That's not how I read, "No experienced structural engineer watching the attack expected the WTC towers to collapse" (Bazant and Verdure). I'll grant that it is possible, but the consensus (also evident in the collapse of the World Trade Center article) is that the fires were much worse than expected. That's Leslie Robertson's view, for example: "the fires raging in the inner reaches of the buildings undermined their strength." The fact that fireproofing was knocked off was also important. But I thought everyone was pretty much in agreement that the buildings survived the impacts (for which they were designed). There is also the Arup position (Barbara Lane), which is a credible minority view, that the fires alone could have done it. I'm just not sure you're right about this, Tbeatty. The main surprise, as Bazant and Verdure put it, was that "no skyscraper has ever before collapsed due to fire" (see extended quotation above). To say that "gravity" did it is a bit like Dave Letterman's joke: "Guns don't kill people; bullets kill people." What is at issue is the "initiating event". Terrorists flying airplanes into the buildings (as every engineer who was "watching the attack" knew) was not a sufficient cause of the collapses. The (unexpectedly) enormous fires turned out to be that cause.--Thomas Basboll 07:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear: I don't think this is about advancing either position. It is about informing the reader about what the substance of the disagreement is. On my view, CTists don't believe that the fires could have done what the official and/or mainstream investigators say they did, namely, "induce" the collapse. I.e., bring the buildings from their impact/debris weakened states to the point of collapse and onward to total progressive collapse. I am not denying that the buildings were damaged by the airplane impacts and debris. I am saying (and suggesting that officialdom is on my side) that they survived being damaged in this way and were then, as the only three buildings in history to experience it, were finished off by fire.--Thomas Basboll 07:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The gravity comment was meant to be funny. But there is something that can't be ignored.  There was fireproofing material on the steel support structures. Why?  Because it is known that fire will weaken steel to the point that the building's integrity will be compromised.  Every structural engineer knows this.  Steel buildings collapse due to fire is not a surprising event.  That's why fireproofing the steel is such a primary feature.  When asbestos was proved to be carcinogenic, they removed the asbestos and replaced it with other fireproofing (that isn't as effective).  But if steel buildings weren't susceptible to collapsing due to fire, why would they put it in, and why would they replace it?  Structural engineers are not surprised that the building collapsed but they are surprised that measures they took to ensure that it wouldn't collapse in a fire were compromised to the extent they were by the collision and the subsequent failure of fire suppression.  It is simply incorrect to characterize or imply that structural engineers were surprised that a steel building would collapse from fire.   That is not the same as saying that CTists don't believe that fire could bring it down.  --Tbeatty 00:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Amen.--MONGO 00:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm      Now, do you understand Basboll and Salvnaut? --Sloane 04:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sloane, please restrain yourself from giving me links I've seen months ago and asking if I understand. I agree with Thomas. You can easily check on Google Scholar that most engineering papers about WTC concern fires. Many engineers were bending their minds to find good explanations how fires exactly caused the disaster. Here are my sources (some among many from GS) What are your sources? SalvNaut 00:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I do understand why you would say that the fire-proofing suggests that engineers were worried about the effects of fires on buildings. But (given the history of fire-induced collapse) they were apparently worried about much less "comprehensive" examples. Tbeatty says: "It is simply incorrect to characterize or imply that structural engineers were surprised that a steel building would collapse from fire." On Sept 13, 2001, the New Civil Engineer said it had been "unthinkable" that they would collapse, even given the airplane impacts. In June of 2005, they explained the idea as follows: "It is obvious to state that the impact and result of deliberately crashing a fully fuelled airliner into each tower was off the scale of the predictable. But there can have been few structural engineers who were not a little surprised to see two of the world's tallest buildings reduced to rubble less than an hour later.//This is not how structures are supposed to react." Before we take this further, can we agree that the New Civil Engineer and Tbeatty can't both be right?--Thomas Basboll 07:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The article illustrates exactly my point. It IS surprising to see buildings collapse.  Building are not supposed to collapse. That's why they are buildings.  But the surprise is the failure of all the safety and structural methods and systems used to keep them standing.  The building was designed to have some of it's structural elements damaged and still be able to stand.  It was designed with fire suppression systems to keep fire away from structural elements.  The addition of fire retarent material to steel is designed to buy them time before the buildings collapse to put out the fire.  But to imply that structural engineers are surprised that fire can bring down a building is absolutely incorrect.  They KNOW fire can bring down a building.  It is the largest threat to steel buildings.  From the article "Progressive collapse was by no means a new concept in 2001."  --Tbeatty 17:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * "...yet on that bright autumn morning in Manhattan the world witnessed two of the most comprehensive examples of the phenomenon ever seen." Fire had never before brought down any steel building. The article makes clear that the suprise was that the first building came down less than hour after it was hit. Total progressive collapse of steel-framed buildings wasn't supposed to happen. Wooden buildings are expected to collapse under fire. But steel-framed buildings are designed for "burnout"; they are "fire-resistive". Here's a definition: "FIRE RESISTIVE. Refers to properties of materials or designs to resist the effects of any fire to which the material or structure may be expected to be subjected. A building constructed of fire resistive materials can withstand a burnout of its contents without subsequent structural collapse. Fire resistive implies a higher degree of a fire resistance than noncombustible." I am certain the WTC were designed to be fire-resistive in this sense. Engineers were surprised by the enormity of the fires (to which the structures were not expected to be subjected, it seems.)--Thomas Basboll 20:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * so say this didn't happen? generaly when you are figureing out how to make your buillding fairly fire resitant you work on the assumption that the structure will not just have been hit by a rather large force.Geni 01:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This school's collapse doesn't seem relevant. The definition of "fire-resistive" that I quoted clearly states that it "implies a higher degree of a fire resistance than noncombustible "; the executive summary of the report you link to says "the school was a one story, noncombustible steel frame building". I'm learning a lot more about steel-framed buildings than I thought I would have to in order to edit a Wikipedia article. It's generally fun. Deciding the relevance of this report for understanding the WTC collapses is out of my depth, however. I hope nothing depends on it. I think we're now venturing too far into what must be considered OR by synthesis to advance the position that engineers were not really surprised, and/or the collapses were not really fire-induced.--Thomas Basboll 11:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * the colapses were due to a mixture of being hit by a rather large plane and fires. Isolateing either of the two factors is silly.Geni 12:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * In my research for this article I have come across many statements to the effect that fire was the "primary cause" of the collapses, "brought the buildings down", etc. Also, there are many descriptions of the collapses as "fire-induced". The standard line seems to be that the buildings "remained stable" after the impacts and the collapses were then "initiated" by the fires. Barbara Lane even has argued that fires of that magnitude would have brought the buildings down even if there had been no structural damage. FEMA says the buildings "experienced fire-induced collapse". Even on the NIST report's "combination of factors" line, the decisive damage was the removal of fire-proofing, which went to explaining how fires could have initiated the collapse. Isolating one factor may be silly, but focusing on one is less so. In the case of building 7, as the CTists point out, it is still less silly to suggest that the only "natural" explanation would be fire.--Thomas Basboll 13:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * focusing on one factor to the exculsion of others is isolateing.Geni 13:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Not identifying a primary cause is unhelpful. Most of the studies on this suggest the need to change building designs to improve fire-resistance, not to avoid aircraft impact. But perhaps you know of some reports on the collapses that discourage identifying fire as the primary cause?--Thomas Basboll 14:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It is a bit hard to design a building to avoid aricraft impact since buildings tend not to move around much.Geni 15:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your time.--Thomas Basboll 16:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Geni: Would you be suprised if you known that buildings move, rock a couple of meters during a hurricane (people sufferd sea-sickness during those in WTC)? Would you be suprised if you known how much buildings move, slide, rock during earthquakes in Japan and still stand? - that's how they are designed, some are standing on springs. Building (especially steel one) is not at all static structure.
 * My observed fact is that if you look into engineers' papers, you'll find that most pressure is put onto the role of fires in WTC failure, and this fact concernes engineers now mostly - that steel buildings have collapsed due to fire (even thought they've received damage from airplanes). If the fires were not the main factor, then there wouldn't have been so many papers concerned about fire resistance of steel structures. Do you have sources that show otherwise? - that structural damage was the main or equally important factor? SalvNaut 16:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I know about the senarios you talk about however in those cases the loads are either spread out or appear in places where they can be predicted. That is rather hard to do with a plane impact. There is a difference between designing a building that will withstand a fire and designing a building that can withstand a fire after a plane has hit it.Geni 19:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, structural damage has been quite precisely defined in NIST report. They identified which core and perimeter columns were destroyed with high probability. The load was redistributed as you say. Then, WTC was designed to withstand a hit from an aircraft. Engineers say it was not designed to withstand subsequent fires. SalvNaut 19:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

baloney and structural engineers
I dispute the truth of the lead sentence "No structural engineers have come forward to support the controlled demolition hypothesis". The Organisation "Scholoar For Truth 911" has four members who are structural engineers: Joseph M. Phelps, Doyle Winterton, Michael Lovingier, Ted Muga. Phelps is a Chartered member of the "Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers" and "Structural Dynamicist Charter". Even that paragon of bias "Screw Loose Change" accepts this, although they oddly try to use his age and experience to discredit him. Mongo disagrees, declaring it to be 'baloney'. I've been around Wikipedia long enough to understand that Mongo's word is law, so I won't argue further. However, I do humbly lodge my powerless misgivings here. Self-Described Seabhcán 13:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Here's a fifth structural (baloney) engineer, Charles N. Pegelow. Self-Described Seabhcán 13:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I like the previous version, where it just said "majority" the use of the word "No" is ridiculous unless it can be proven that "No" engineers support the theory. --Wildnox 15:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * On second thought, see WP:RS as you have not supplied a reliable source. --Wildnox 16:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Are any of those engineers experts in their field? Have they written a published/peer reviewed paper that contests the collapse? Do they hold any academic position?--Sloane 16:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I would be happy with a sentence saying "No structural engineers who are experts in building collapse have published reviewed papers that contest the NIST collapse theory". That would be true. The current version is not true and is unsourced. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 18:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

A closer look at the names mentioned: --Sloane 17:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Joseph M. Phelps - 82 year old man, runs a nine hole gold course in Florida!
 * Doyle Winterton - "a man in his 70s who worked as a civil engineer but has no advanced degrees and never held an academic appointment", the Utah Department of Licensing tells us that Doyle W. Winterton was an engineer in training whose license expired in 1999
 * Charles N. Pegelow - holds nothing more than a bachelor degree, worked mostly on oil rigs.
 * Michael Lovingier - according to Scholars for 9/11 Truth he's an Information technology manager, Structural/Environmental Engineering, Scholars for 9/11 Truth refuses to release any further information on actual engineering education/experience/academic position
 * Ted Muga - according to Scholars for 9/11 Truth he's a Naval aviator; Commercial pilot; Structural engineering, Scholars for 9/11 Truth refuses to release any further information on actual engineering education/experience/academic position


 * Phelps is retired - do you loose your right to an opinion when you retire? He, and the others, are structural engineers. Charles N. Pegelow is a working structural engineer with 30 years experience. He is not a member of ST911 but is on the record questioning the NIST version of collapse and supporting the CD theory. Do you have any source for the statement "No structural engineers..."? No. The sentence is unsourced POV and should be cut. There is nothing wrong with the pervious version "Most structural engineers don't support CD" and this version should be returned. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 18:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I've put in what I hope becomes the standard "structural engineers generally reject" formula.--Thomas Basboll 18:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Its an improvement, but it really should either include the word 'most' or explain which structural engineers reject it. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 18:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * "Generally" would be considered a weasel word. No need for it.  Also, in most states it is illegal to represent yourself to the public as an engineer unless you are licensed by the state.  This is especially true of engineers that design buildings and structures occupied the public.  Structural and Civil engineers are almost always licensed.  Regarldess of their other credentials, they cannot represent themselves as "structural engineers" without the license.  The closest I have seen is the EIT person who didn't apparently didn't complete the licensing requirements or he would be a Professional Engineer instead of an Engineer-in-Training.   --Tbeatty 18:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I always bring this up because I think it's the most reliable source. Bazant and Verdure say that NIST's explanation is "generally accepted by structural engineering and structural mechanics experts" and explicitly contrast this general acceptance with controlled demolition. I don't think we're weaseling here. I think we are stating the consensus as such.--Thomas Basboll 19:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * "generally" in that case isn't juxtaposed against CD and isn't appropriate here.--Tbeatty 19:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It sure is juxtaposed against CD: "As generally accepted by the community of specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering (though not by a few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives), the failure scenario was..." NIST's explanation. Or do you read that differently?--Thomas Basboll 20:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I would be completely happy if we use the Bazant and Verdure wording and reference the statement to them. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 20:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

A big stretch...to say that a handful of "engineers" (none of which have published a paper in a scientific journal regarding CD of the WTC)....are "experts" on the matter based on their opinions is a big stretch. Yes, for all purposes, no engineers support the CD version of events...becuase not one treatise has been published by a relaibale third party. It's that simple.--MONGO 21:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I would be happy with a sentence saying "No structural engineers who are experts in building collapse have published reviewed papers that contest the NIST collapse theory". That would be true. The current version is not true and is unsourced. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 21:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It used to say "The structural engineering community rejects the controlled ..." I think that's the best way of putting it.--Sloane 23:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I like "No structural engineers who are experts in building collapse have published reviewed papers that contest the NIST collapse theory", whichLord Seabhcán of Baloney. It seems like it is right on the money, in my opinion. --Wildnox 23:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I like this one, too - it seems very reasonable, NPOV.SalvNaut 17:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we are back again to the discussion whether Jones paper has been peer reviewed or not (it has been for sure, some question the quality of peer review, saying no engineer has reviewed but it is a physical paper). I don't want to discuss it now, but Tbeatty, what exactly you don't like so much in ""No structural engineers who are experts in building collapse have published reviewed papers that contest the NIST collapse theory" ? It describes precisely a situation, wile putting "No one has..." is just not true...SalvNaut 19:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

New York Times/CBS Poll Advanced Knowledge
A just released poll has these results "Do you think that George W. Bush personally knew before September 11th 2001 about intellegence reports that warned of possible terrorist attacks against the United States using airplanes, or not?" Personally knew 57% Did not know 33% DK/NA 11% this compares to a May 2002 CBS poll which showed  knew 41% Did not know 43$ DK/NA 16%  The question is on page 30 of the linked PDF 69.114.117.103 08:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)  (Ed Kollin)

South Park
Just did an episode on 9/11 conspiracy theories. This is very relevant. How do we work it in?--Tbeatty 05:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The government is behing the 9/11 Conspiracy Websites so that it looks like they are all powerful.

Mystery of the Urinal Deuce
Later, in Chicago, the boys find another group, who, with the Hardly boys, reveal that all the conspiracy websites are fake, and run by the government---and then Bush comes, and it becomes evident that the government wasn't behind 9/11---they actually run the websites, so that the 1/4 of the country who are dumb enough to believe conspiracies will believe the government is all-powerful---which the government wants them to believe---while the smart ones know the truth, which is that "a bunch of pissed off Muslims" actually did do it. And an even bigger secret then comes out---Stan was the one who pooped in the urinal ("the stalls were all full and I didn't want to be late for recess! I didn't think it'd turn into such a big deal!") Thus at the end, the terrorists were behind 9/11, though the government wanted some people to believe otherwise for their own power; and Stan had to clean the urinal he pooped in.

--Tbeatty 05:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The Presidents Behavior
This article is not a graduate course in logic. The fact that half of the space in that section is taken up trying to explain affirming the consequent means that it really does not belong there. Just say this is how the president and secret service acted. Cite people who claim that this shows foreknowledge leave in the cites for the rebuttals (he was trying to prevent panic) and leave it at that.

The section mentions how Farenheit 9/11 made the reading “My Pet Goat” that seem famous. While true enough in the film a British General is quoted as saying that he has seen that look many times meaning Moore was explaining the behavior as shell shock or combat stress not foreknowledge. 69.114.117.103 17:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)

Bin Ladin /Bush family relationship - Flight of the Saudis
These topics were mainly mentioned in the 2001-2004 period. To my dismay dispite the fact that these topics cause me more sleepless nights then any other topics mentioned in the article these topics are rarely mentioned in websites and discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories these days. We have to decide if theories that are not mentioned much currently belong in the article. If we decide that LIHOP in general really does not belong. If we do decide that this is article worthy then this should have a section of it’s own. 69.114.117.103 17:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)

Rep. Curt Weldon faces Investigation by the FBI
Rep Welden as most of you know has accused the agency of having a secret unit Able-Danger that named Mohammed Atta and three other hijackers a year before the attacks a charge that was recently denied in a Pentagon Inspector Generals report is facing an investigation by the agency into charges that he used his influence to secure lobbying and consulting contracts for his daughter. 69.114.117.103 10:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)

Mainstream Account
Who added the mainstream account to this article? If there is an issue about the length of this, why is MORE mainstream description added when there is a huge article devoted to this already as the September 11, 2001 attacks? I think it should be removed and replaced by a link. bov 19:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The mainstream account section was added to give the reader a summary of what theories are being challenged or disputed without having to click a hyperlink to the lengthy main 9/11 article. I proposed it (See "Alternative to What" above)and wrote the original section Others have modified it since 69.114.117.103 07:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)

United Airlines Flight 93
I have restored the United Airlines Flight 93 section at 9/11 conspiracy theories. It was deleted when this page was supposedly being split into subpages. I have given it a bit of a clean up, but many of the references need names and it needs the general scrutiny the rest of this article has gotten. — Reinyday, 19:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

israel conspiracy
as israel conspiracy has become very popular, why don't we create a new main page related to it (rather than a page section)? Nielswik(talk) 23:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think there's nearly enough information to make a useful Israeli conspiracy theory page about this, though maybe there is and maybe it could be expanded. I know a lot of people in the Middle East promote this due to their anti-semitism, but I'm not really sure whether it'd belong in its own article or should be mentioned here and perhaps in articles about anti-semitism. Titanium Dragon 05:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

-

Someone should add, under the Israel section, a section about the Mossad agents who were caught filming the towers before the planes hit, and celebrating when the planes hit and the towers collapsed. http://ww1.sundayherald.com/37707

I know, I know. I should do it myself. Maybe I will.

CelestialDog 06:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Do we really need to mention the GNAA?--Sloane 19:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes. Anomo 23:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

shermer repeat
in the criticism section, the comments of michael shermer are repeated, as i dont have too much experience with the history of the article, i just figured i would mention it and someone can take a closer look at it KarlJohannes 14:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for spotting that. I removed the second reference. Tom Harrison Talk 14:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Intro paragraphs
It seems bizarre to have to read the text of September 11, 2001 attacks all over again laboriously at the start of this page, even though the whole point of this article is supposedly to refute many of the claims in those paragraphs. For example in the second paragraph it says, "they piloted these planes themselves," but many 9/11 researchers believe that the planes may have operated on autopilot or some other means. Why repeat the entire official version at the start of this article? For example, the article Holocaust denial does not need to restate the whole holocaust in parapgraph 2 of that article -- it's common knowledge, the same as what happened on 9/11, so why the overbearing repeat of the official version here, yet barely 2 sentences of the questioning of the official version on the September 11, 2001 attacks page? bov 05:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree.--Thomas Basboll 08:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree. -- While most people remember "Bin Ladin did it" I would bet it is not common knowledge what the official scientific explanation for the collapse of towers 1, 2 and 7 are. If the controlled demolition theory is the most popular conspiracy theory these days it is important not to make the reader click on to another link to find out this scientific explanation. Remember it has been over 5 years since the event and while the “official explanation” is obvious to those who edit a 9/11 conspiracy article many people have forgotten even important details so a brief summary of the official theory is needed. That being said I do not know why these couple of paragraphs was changed from a separate section to the main overview. 69.114.117.103 09:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)


 * I think we actually agree about this. I've moved the two paragraphs out of the lead, For the reasons Ed suggests.--Thomas Basboll 19:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Something Creepy Readers of this Article May want to See
When I first saw this video clip on YouTube, it just creeped me out. Watch the last 30 sec, you'll see what I mean. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1V7yqCbfxEg  aido2002 09:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * What is a bit weird is that Letterman sounds like a member of the Project for the New American Century "To me it's an act of war" while Bush is advocating a Clintonian surgical strike . Also as good as the You Tube revolution has been you can not "fast forward" to the end as you can with some streaming video's 69.114.117.103 07:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)

Length issues
If the article is correctly comprehensive without degenerating into too much fluff, then don't worry about reducing the length to arbitrary limits. Byzantine Empire is 120 kb and a recent Indian FA was passed at 100 kb despite several standing objections to its length. Let the topic define the length. I'm not endorsing winding passages, but I've seen too many forced reductions and splits going on. --Zeality 17:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Rumsfeld shootdown commentary about flight 93
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0v0_HDwg84&mode=related&search

this may or may not deserve a mention in the article. He's probably just going crazy :P 216.52.163.1 19:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)LUID
 * This has been floating around for years. I would not have a problem if you put it in the "Other points of interest" section. But before that I would research the date it was said and find out if it was a one time statement (I believe it was but not 100% sure). Going a little bit off topic the links here should be more youtubish to keep up with what everybody else doing on the net these days. 69.114.117.103 09:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)

Mossad Vandalism?
This claim has small tidbits of fact but is essentially false. <-- Is this vandalism? It looks like the next sentence is in reference to the one that this interrupts. A number of conspiracy claims in this article are shown by evidence in the article to lack validity. However, this particular sub-section introduces little countering evidence, other than the suggestion that, if we take the accused at their word, the group of men were not celebrating as the WTC burned. Instead, this "misreporting" was exaggerated due to personal differences with a certain eyewitness. "This claim has small tidbits of fact but is essentially false" sounds like a comment, possibly in response to reading the section. Is this vandalism? --Sin cloro 23:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Scientific community quote
There is a number of scholars and professors who question 9/11. For this article to put out that the scientific community in a whole agrees is wrong, please revise that. --63.224.245.74 03:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

YouTube links
This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed, feel free to ask me on my talk page and I'll review it personally. Thanks. ---J.S (t|c) 07:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The Election effect on matters discussed in Article
On Topic: First off Rep. Curt Weldon was defeated so does his claim about able danger carry less import? If the able danger section is kept should his defeat be mentioned in the article? And after Jan 20th the article has to be changed to former Rep Curt Weldon.

Indirectly on topic: Now I am going to break Wikipedia protocol and briefly discuss the elections effect on the “9/11 truth investigation”. As of late on the morning the day after the election this was not being discussed in the mainstream media or 911truth.org or prisonplanet. The short answer is there will be no reopening of the 9/11 investigation. The Democrats won on Iraq not 9/11 conspiracy so any investigations should they occur will be Iraq related. The 9/11 commission is held in high esteem. There will be a move to pass their recommendations. In most of the post election interviews with Democrats about Iraq the Hamilton/Baker commission was mentioned. I do not have to tell you Lee Hamilton was the cochairmen of the 9/11 commission and Jim Baker’s prominent role in the Carlyle group. The core democratic base is not 9/11 conspiracy friendly. To oversimplify their views Bush is a moron who can not get anything straight therefore could not pull off a 9/11 conspiracy. It should be noted that many of the independent libertarian types who were part of the democratic coalition are 9/11 conspiracy friendly but in the short term will continue to go along with the Democrats. In the long term as Bush time in office grows smaller and then disappears the issue becomes less prominent. Of the 2008 contenders on only Hillary Clinton and Giuliani would have even a very arguable relationship to a possible 9/11 conspiracy. As for the mainstream media I think the recent spate of 9/11 conspiracy talk was a one time thing spurned by the release of the poll results and the 5th anniversary of the attacks. 69.114.117.103 17:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)