Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories/Archive 15

San Deigo Grand Jury Article?
There is an obvious systematic bias in the use of the term 'conspiracy theory' on Wikipedia which should be embarrassing to anyone who values a neutral point of view. Witness the articles Conspiracy theory which devotes its content to a condescending analysis of various examples of Conspiracism; List of alleged conspiracy theories which conflates alleged conspiracies with conspiracy theories but does not include alleged conspiracies which have been proven true; and Conspiracy (crime) which does not mention specific conspiracy allegations. The allegation of conspiracy is presented as 'theory' on Wikipedia. But 'conspiracy theory' is presented as wild speculation. On the other hand 'conspiracy' is presented as a legal standard with no case history. Where is the Wikipedia article on proved conspiracies? Where is the Wikipedia article on factually-based allegations of conspiracy? None of the existing articles that I am aware of presents a neutral point of view on either of these topics.

In which article, for example, should we include references to the San Diego citizens Grand Jury investigation and allegations of conspiracy (http://stj911.org/paul/SDCGJ_HistoricResults.html) regarding the crimes of September 11, 2001? The September 11, 2001 attacks article will doubtless not take it because it is 'conspiracy theory'. It does not belong in 9/11 conspiracy theories because it is not a 'theory' in the sense of a wild speculation, but a court proceeding. Does this topic deserve a whole article of its own with no reference in any other article? That seems misleading. In fact so do the other two previous articles just mentioned when considering that a factual analysis does not belong in either place. Oneismany 01:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Is it a reputable source? If so, put it in and cite it appropriately. If it supports your view, great. If it supports the other side, great. This whole cite is about the free exchange of ideas. Don't be surprised when a "conspiracy theory" gets shot down with cold, hard facts. — BQZip01 —  talk 06:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Is that an actual court hearing, or a bunch of conspiracy theorists calling themselves a Citizens' Grand Jury? I hereby declare that I and my dog here are the Citizens' Ultimate Supreme Expert Investigating Grand Jury Of All Truthiness. Weregerbil 08:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * which article? how about none.  It isn't notable, it's a bunch of kooks getting together and calling their findings "historic results."

9/11 conspiracy theories is an Opinion Editorial
We certainly do append judgement on the term 'conspiracy theory', whether consciously or not. Under this definition come such theories as those suggesting that the 'rulers of the world' are lizards (hello David Icke) or that the U.S. government are in cahoots with extra-terrestrial beings. In popular culture it is always used to refer to the incredible (I use the word in its literal sense). It was used consistently with reference to 'The X-Files' for example.

So, it has connotations that the term 'alternative account' does not. I thought we wanted scholarly objectivity on Wikipedia: using glib popular terms at the expense of neutrality does not help towards such an aim. Eustace Plimsoll 11:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

You just have to be kidding me with this page. This is one giant straw man argument; you put words into the mouths of the 9/11 Truth Community, with statements like the following:

You say, "conspiracy theorists assume that the 9/11 attacks achieved more-or-less exactly their intended result."

How do you know how many assume, and to what extent?
 * We do not "assume" anything. Books and Websites that web sites that support these theories have said this in one way or another although what is "success" is varies upon theories. This is from the summery section some of the the details you ask for are are in the paragraphs dedicated to the specific theories. You are correct here and in other other areas the language could be more clear Edkollin 08:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be doing an interview, but the persons you are interviewing do not talk, you talk for them, and no rebuttal from the 9/11 Truth People is being allowed.
 * In the many hyperlinks given they do talk or writeEdkollin 08:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The conspiracy is not theoretical, it is a fact, and it could be proven beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law. Yet you assume that is a just a theory. It is not theory, and the people of the 9/11 Truth Community are not conspiracy theorist. You claim over and over again that it is just theory, and by theory you mean some sort of wild guess, more or less an unfounded belief, rather than ideas based on facts. definition a wild guess Edkollin 08:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * While I personally believe it "could" be proven in court it has not and therefore these are theories. And a theory is not in any
 * The 9/11 Truth community are conspiracy theorists because most people don't believe it's the truth. Theories are ideas based on facts. Facts are dots, and theories attempt to draw a picture by connecting the dots. Also, just because something is proven beyond a reasonable doubt doesn't mean it's still not a theory. Just because a court believes it doesn't make it true. ~Anon

You say, "a 9/11 conspiracy theory generally refers to a belief in a broad conspiracy" Now where and how did you get this? Did you do a poll?

This is clearly an attack on the 9/11 Truth Community. To show that you are neutral, you need to remove terms like belief, and theorist, as well as broad generalizations about what the 9/11 Truth Community is saying. An Opinion Editorial is not encyclopedic. It appears to me that you are agents of the conspirators, accessories after the fact, aiding and abetting the criminals, with a propaganda hit piece, and yellow journalism. Treason!
 * What words would you use?. Suggest a rewrite and put it here in the talk pages.Edkollin 08:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Can I make a page called, "9/11 Goverment Loyalist Theories" ?

Alfons http://www.v911t.org/
 * Yes, you may make such a page, and it will be subject to the same scrutiny and review as any other article on WP. If you notice a deficiency with this article, you are free to address the problem yourself. You seem to have access to a computer; use it to familiarize yourself with WP policy and improve the article accordingly. You might first want to review WP:NPA, as insults do nothing to enhance the article, nor your credibility. dr.ef.tymac 16:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Alfons Responds: WP policy is clearly indicated on your 9/11 conspiracy theories page. If you give me the same latitude as that seen in on your 9/11 conspiracy theories page, then I am in, I will not make the "9/11 Government Loyalist Theories" unless I can straw man them, and use broad generalizations to characterize them as the whackos that they are. If you get my drift here I want editorial control in my editorial rebuttal to your 9/11 conspiracy theories page which is clearly an Editorial. Alfons v911t
 * Alfons, respectfully, I think you are missing a crucial point. "Editorializing" of any form is not acceptable, regardless of what "side" you happen to be on. This discussion page is not a forum for advancing particular viewpoints, and if you were to create such an article, it would probably be summarily deleted. If you really want to help out, start by dropping the name-calling, then start with some basics: (see e.g., Wp:not, Your first article if you haven't already read these). dr.ef.tymac 17:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Alfons Responds: If "Editorializing" of any form is not acceptable, then you need to take this page down, 9/11_conspiracy_theories, or revise it to a great extent. The page is clearly slanted, makes unsubstantiated claims that can only be based upon opinion. It appears that you have arbitrarily decided that the "official story" is correct, and all others are wrong, that is your opinion, and the page in question is your editorial. I am on the side of the Truth, what side are you on? Alfons v911t
 * I suggested and wrote the original draft to the "official story" paragraph. I have explained why this was done again and again in these talk pages. The reason it was done had nothing to do with believing in a story I have many personal problems with. But I am not going to tell you what the reason was. You have to do that for yourself. You also will find vigorous debate about the wording you object to. You probably will not agree with the reason things were done and thats fine but calm down (hard to do on this topic I agree) do your research before leveling accusations at people Edkollin 08:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see Articles_for_deletion or Help_desk if you have concerns regarding removal or revision of an article. Those links, as well as the others given to you, provide a lot of useful information. As for your other comments, if you truly believe what you are saying, then it follows that not everything is as simple as it may appear on the surface. You might do well to remember that, before making casual accusations about what "other people" may think. That's all I have to say, regards. dr.ef.tymac 19:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This isn't editorializing; there's a lot of people who think this page doesn't even deserve to exist as the 9/11 conspiracy theory movement generally have little idea what they're talking about. Fundamentally, they feel you're an irrelevant minority. I think that's not true; there's enough random stuff out there to support the existence of this article. However, it is our duty to report from an NPOV, not from your POV. Titanium Dragon 19:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If you think the page is wrong, tell us where or fix it yourself. That these theories have holes and disagree with the official account is factual. That the official account has been called into question is also a fact. Both sides of this problem are addressed here. If they are not, put them in, but do not be surprised if there is a lot of information that contradicts any conspiracy theories (remember, they can read your thoughts...and you know who they are) BQZip01 18:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I suggest you look at the newest video which is labelled "Gordon Ross" at the bottom of the video section at the External Links. You will see one picture (shown at the 18 minute 14 second mark of the video) which shows that one tower actually imploded from the top, not with the power of the plane but by explosives. The official view is that the tower from the plane up imploded altogether. But that is not true. The very highest 17 or so floors imploded and the floors between those floors and the plane entrance floors were intact. This is proof that the plane could not have caused the implosion of those floors at the very top. In the light of this unassailable evidence, those who ridicule those who believe in a 9/11 conspiracy should change their tone here, and they should realize that we believe they do not know what they are talking about. bgamall

Pentagon crash pic
Howdy, the article says that the picture does not show the plane impacting, as a matter of fact you have to have a good imagination to say that the small silvery blob is a plane. Thus the image captioning should not claim that the picture shows something when it really does not, it is disrespectful towards the reader. Anyways, this article looks more like a rebuttal than an article. -Lapinmies 13:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, I don't think that a missile or what ever hit the Pentagon, I just think that the captioning is not appropriate for a fuzzy picture like that. -Lapinmies 15:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it is not clear.--Dcooper 15:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Reworded: regardless of personal viewpoints, the image caption should reflect: 1) a reasonably accurate interpretation of the content of the image itself; 2) a description that is consistent with the subject matter of the article; and 3) a neutral point of view that does not characterize disputed matters as though they are resolved. Since no credible source has disputed that the picture is a picture of the Pentagon, and since the other factual statements are under dispute (at least within the scope of this article) the caption has been changed to reflect only those matters which are not under credible dispute. The previous wording was inappropriate for the reasons enumerated above. dr.ef.tymac 17:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up: To those who keep changing the caption, and yet do not address the relevant issue here in the discussion page: Please do not present disputed factual matters as though they are not under dispute. Please do not make one-sided characterizations of cited sources, especially if it means omitting content relevant to the subject of this article. Please do not persist with undiscussed and unsupported edits to the article when discussion has been expressly requested.

The caption has been changed back *again* to reflect only non-disputed facts. Supporting rationale follows:


 * 1) The prior caption presented a disputed factual matter as though it were not under dispute;
 * 2) Cites were offered in support of (1) above, but the cites were either not dispositive, or actually substantiated the existence of the dispute;
 * 3) The existence of the dispute is the very subject matter of this article;
 * 4) Illustrating one aspect of the dispute is the very purpose of the image and its associated caption;
 * 5) Dispositive sources clearly identify the nature of the dispute, and some quotes even mention doubts are fueled (at least partially) by the image and the associated video itself.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1968910 -- mentions the subject matter of this article, and clearly identifies there is a       factual dispute.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/03/07/gen.pentagon.pictures/ -- does not even mention the subject matter of this article. therefore, this cite is not dispositive.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/16/AR2006051600788.html -- mentions the subject matter of this article, clearly identifies there is a factual dispute. For example, the article quotes in relevant part: "I don't hold those [conspiracy theory] viewpoints, but I really don't see how these        tapes are going to put anything to rest."

Regardless of your or my personal views, there are some who dispute or question what is seen in the video. The existence of this dispute is documented in mainstream sources. The existence of this dispute is what this article is about.

If you personally consider this dispute and the claims of the disputers to be fundamentally repugnant, then follow WP:AFD. Don't use one-sided characterizations of cited sources. That's simply misleading. It tends to imply the dispute does not exist, and that's why it was necessary to change the caption to present only those matters not under dispute. dr.ef.tymac 02:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Reliable sources describe the video as showing the plane crashing into the Pentagon, for example: The wording needs to be consistent with reliable sources. --Aude (talk) 02:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "tapes showing American Airlines Flight 77 striking the building" (CNN),
 * "split-second image of the hijacked airplane slamming into the Pentagon", Washington Post),
 * "showing how a hijacked airliner struck the Pentagon and exploded into a ball of fire on September 11, 2001. A surveillance camera in a Pentagon parking lot caught the  moment that American Airlines Flight 77 slammed into the southwest side of the military headquarters. Although the two video clips last about two minutes, the nose of the jet is seen for only a fraction of a second in one film before the explosion." (Al Jazeera)
 * That's funny, that's precisely the point I am making here. You seem to be agreeing with me. The sources cited (we can stipulate they are indeed reliable) clearly indicate that the content of the video and associated images is subject to dispute. That dispute is the subject matter of this article. Is there a rationale for omitting content from cited reliable sources that are directly relevant to the content of this article? Is there a rationale for supplying a caption that implies the matter is not under dispute? dr.ef.tymac 03:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * What they say is "lack of film evidence of the attack had fuelled conspiracy theories". They really don't dispute the subject of the images. --Aude (talk) 03:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Nor does the article you cite state "release of film evidence has definitively discredited conspiracy theorist views" nor anything similar. In fact the aljazeera.net link doesn't really address the issue in any depth. Additionally, other cites actually quote sources that assert the exact opposite, that the video and images are not definitive (see my previous remarks above). dr.ef.tymac 04:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The cited sources say a lot of different things yet no one has (to my knowledge) provided a single cite that definitively substantiates "no reasonable person could disagree that the images and video depict flight 77."

The Pentagon videos provide only the briefest glimpse of the plane as it hits the building; the images were recorded on cameras designed to record license plates of vehicles entering the Pentagon grounds and were too slow to capture the airplane's approach. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1968910


 * why is it necessary to selectively characterize only one interpretation of the video, despite the fact that reliable sources acknowledge there is ambiguity? Is there a wikipedia policy to substantiate selective representation of cited sources especially when the content from those sources directly relates to the subject matter of the article in question? dr.ef.tymac 03:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * While it is not a policy it certainly become a habit of many editors who try to "defend the world" from sources, or interpretations of these sources, that "fuel conspiracy theories". You're making very good points Dreftymac. SalvNaut 10:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The cited news sources do not question that the images show the plane "just the way witnesses described it to us" (CNN's words) (by the way, you need to click "Play video" on the CNN page to see the report). Two of the sources quote people who say that conspiracy theorists probably still won't be satisfied by evidence. How about say what reliable sources say: news sources say the tapes show a plane, and some interviewed people speculate that conspiracy theorists won't believe the pictures. Weregerbil 12:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, this remark is a bit beside the point, Weregerbil, and I think it reflects a reason why the credibility and neutrality of this article has been criticized by others. Although I don't consider their criticism as totally justifiable, I also think rigorous and unbiased attention to what is said in the sources is important. Therefore, please consider the following issues:


 * 1) ISSUE: Was the Pentagon building struck by a Boeing 757 (AA Flight 77)?
 * 2) ISSUE: Can a reasonable person conclude that the video and stills are unclear, and do not unambiguously depict what happened?
 * 3) ISSUE: Can a reasonable person answer "YES" to the previous two questions, and still not be a "conspiracy theorist"?


 * Cited and reliable sources already demonstrate that it is possible for a reasonable person to answer "yes" to all of the above questions. That means for the image caption, It is irrelevant that some of the people who might answer "yes" to (2) might also answer "no" to (1). The relevant dispute is not whether a plane hit the building, the dispute is whether the images and video are definitive, regardless of how you answer (1).


 * Moreover, as far as "news sources say the tape shows a plane" that's exactly what they are supposed to do. Since when are reputable news sources supposed to independently dispute findings in officially documented reports? Journalists are subject to same rules of attribution that we are. The same journalists have also interviewed people who have questioned the officially documented reports, and who have also said that the documentary evidence is not totally unambiguous. Omitting these latter points, and pigeonholing all people who may answer "yes" to (2) seems to represent a clear case of unbalanced representation of cited sources, as well as an unbalanced treatment of the subject matter of this article.


 * Thank you for taking the time to consider these points, for discussing this matter, and for your contributions to the article. Regards. dr.ef.tymac 15:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Follow-up: @ User:Cberlet It's difficult to tell if your edit histories + reverts variously sprinkled with POV, Undue Weight, O-R and other zero-context policy-buzzwords is intended as humor, but if not, you are welcome to discuss your serious concerns in detail here on the discussion page, so your points can be given fair consideration by me and all others attempting to maintain the quality of this article. Thanks. dr.ef.tymac 17:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

analysis by structural engineers still pending ;; 20070327_131310_898
Unless someone wants to clarify or explain this, the more accurate wording "do not support the controlled demolition hypothesis" should be re-inserted. As far as I am aware the only still-pending analysis is the detailed review of progressive failure scenario of WTC 7. dr.ef.tymac 20:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Why does it say "published reports" if these reports are "still pending"? Someone please remove this contradiction (lie?).


 * Please sign your posts even if you have no screen name
 * Interim reports have been published, but it is not yet finalized. BQZip01 16:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), has called for an independent review of NIST’s investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11. http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_alan_mil_070820_former_chief_of_nist.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patfromlogan (talk • contribs) 17:17, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Rename of article?
We certainly do append judgement on the term 'conspiracy theory', whether consciously or not. Under this definition come such theories as those suggesting that the 'rulers of the world' are lizards (hello David Icke) or that the U.S. government are in cahoots with extra-terrestrial beings. In popular culture it is always used to refer to the incredible (I use the word in its literal sense). It was used consistently with reference to 'The X-Files' for example.

So, it has connotations that the term 'alternative account' does not. I thought we wanted scholarly objectivity on Wikipedia: using glib popular terms at the expense of neutrality does not help towards such an aim. Eustace Plimsoll 11:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Conspiracy is defined as:

1. A combination of people for an evil purpose; an agreement, between two or more persons, to commit a crime in concert, as treason; a plot. [1913 Webster]

Given such, the accepted theory of Al Qaeda orchestrating the events of 9/11 is a conspiracy theory. Perhaps a better name is in order since it seems that the intent of the article is to summarize unpopular theories of 9/11. I understand that in many cases the vernacular allows for this, however, it is likely that the usage would be pejorative, thus biased. The name should convey the sense that the theories are unlikely, flawed, or otherwise unpopular without ridiculing the people who support the theories.


 * See Hot dog. Tom Harrison Talk 03:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * One should do ones research before posting on the talk page. If you look in the archives you will see that you are not exactly the first one to broach that idea or raise the points you have raised. And if you read the article you will see that public opinion polls showing that while the "Al Qaeda did it" remains the majority view alternative theories are far from unpopular Edkollin 04:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Edkollin, it is obvious you are here to disrupt this entry in the cause of some brand of 9/11 conspiracy belief. You need to stop. Now. Period. First warning. Carthago delenda est 18:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC) I'm not really interested in what excuses you allow yourself for attempting to heavily invest POV on a topic you have absolutely zero business editing or contributing to; this is Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia, not your personal online plaything. The very use of the phrase "Project for The New American Century" indicates that you have about as much business editing and/or contributing to this Wiki entry as Karl Rove does on the entry regarding George W. Bush. But, if you persist, I'd be delighted to see this taken to arbitration. Carthago delenda est 04:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I am doing nothing of the sort. I am strongly suggesting that the poster who started this thread read the earlier threads in the talk page dealing with renaming the article and the section of the main article dealing with polls taken on this topic. It was my judgement correct or incorrect that the person who started this thread had not done this. If I implyed that discussion should not be reopened on renaming this article or that the person who started this topic after reading earlier threards etc is not welcome to make suggestions let me apologize for that. If it was my intent to bias things towered a pro conspiracy theory POV I would do it in the article itself. If I do not follow your warnings are you going to send the Project for The New American Century after me (LOL)
 * What is wrong with you muchacho? I'd say the same thing about you, but I'd probably restrain from actually saying it. If this end's up with arbitration, make sure to leave me note about it. Thanks. Lovelight 04:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Lighten up Carthago. What horrible thing have I done to you or wikipedia except be a little to harsh(a lot less then you have been to me) on the original poster which I have apologized for. The “Project for the New American Century” quip was an attempt to get you lighten up. I know this is serious topic I know people that were involved in the incident. All I know is that all you do is attack me and think I am lower then scum.  You know nothing about me but from a couple of sentences figured out my motivations and my knowledge of the subject matter.  Now please explain nicely and in detail in a NON-PERSONAL WAY  what in my post you find so objectionable.  And no need to go to arbitration just go into the editor and delete my lines on this thread Edkollin 20:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. Carthago delenda est 14:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the name of this article needs to be changed. How bout "the truth about 9/11". In response to these so-called "conspiracies theories" as unpopular, here is a link to a New York Times/CBS poll that shows those who accept the mainstream media are actually in the minority. http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/13469
 * You are correct that the poll data shows that the public are not accepting the mainstream media version of events. What this survey does not say is that a majority of the public believes that a LIHOP or a MIHOP conspiracy happened. While a large percentage believes the administration is lying or hiding "something" that something could be any number of things. The survey also said that 70%+ believe the administration did not do enough pre 9/11. So the survey suggests but does not prove that the public believes that is what is being lied about or hidden. This survey is way to general to make any statement regarding the popularity of 9/11 conspiracy theories Edkollin 05:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The Times/CBS poll does not say people reject the fact bin Laden's terrorist attack was responsible for the destruction of 9/11. It says people don't believe the Bush Administration is telling the truth about how they were responding to the potential threat prior to 9/11. MajorRogers 11:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Angelaorders 02:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC) Please add the below information. It is important because in the introduction to this article, it suggests that there is a general consensus among top engineers that the official story is correct. The following points out clearly that is not true, as it lists three of the nation's preeminent engineering experts who believe we've been lied to regarding the NIST investigation and the official story of the collapse of the WTCs.

Former Congressional Office of Technology Assessment Senior Staff Member Calls for New Investigation of 9/11: On Sept. 4, Joel S. Hirschhorn, Ph.D., who served for 12 years as a Senior Staff Member of the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment and later as Director of Environment, Energy and Natural Resources for the National Governors Association, called for a new investigation of 9/11, saying "First, let the technical truth emerge. Then, if necessary, cope with the inevitable political, conspiracy and other questions."

National Academy of Sciences Member Calls for New 9/11 Investigation: On Aug. 27, Lynn Margulis, Ph.D., member of the National Academy of Sciences and world renowned scientist, characterized the official account of 9/11 as "a fraud" and called for a new investigation, "I suggest that those of us aware and concerned demand that the glaringly erroneous official account of 9/11 be dismissed as a fraud and a new, thorough, and impartial investigation be undertaken."

Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation: On Aug. 21 article reported that James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division, called for an independent review of the World Trade Center Twin Tower collapse investigation. "I wish that there would be a peer review of this," he said, referring to the NIST investigation. "I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they've done; both structurally and from a fire point of view. ... I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable."

Former California Seismic Safety Commissioner Endorses 9/11 Truth Movement: On July 16, J. Marx Ayres, former member of the National Institute of Sciences Building Safety Council and former member of the California Seismic Safety Commission called for a new investigation of 9/11, "Steven Jones' call for a serious investigation of the hypothesis that the WTC 7 and the Twin Towers were brought down, not just by impact damage and fire, but through the use of pre-positioned 'cutter-charges' must be the rallying cry for all building design experts to speak out."

Architects and Engineers have hosted ae911truth.org Where 168 Architectural and Engineering Professionals are demanding a new 9/11 investigation, and believe that the WTC collapses were due to controlled demolition, not due to the official "pancake" theory.

Compromise on renaming suggestion
As Ed points out, the most recent suggestion has been tried before. It may be okay to think about it again though. It occured to me, for example, that a rewrite of the lead might express a compromise that doesn't require a name change. It seems clear (and uncontroversial) that the label "conspiracy theory" is used by the mainstream to dismiss these views. So a good question is: should the article in WP participate in that dismissal or just objectively report on it? The article currently does the former (simply by labelling), but it could do the latter:


 * Since the September 11, 2001 attacks, a variety of theories that contradict the mainstream account of those events have emerged. The theories are typically dismissed by mainstream sources as "conspiracy theories" because they include suggestions that individuals in (or associated with) the government of the United States knew of the impending attacks and refused to act on that knowledge, or that the attacks were a false flag operation carried out with the intention of stirring up the passions and buying the allegiance of the American people.


 * The claims that the collapse of the World Trade Center was the result of a controlled demolition and that a commercial airliner did not crash into the Pentagon, and that United Airlines Flight 93 was shot down have occupied a central place in coverage the of 9/11 conspiracy theories. Published reports by structural engineers, of course, do not support the controlled demolition hypothesis, and U.S. officials, mainstream journalists, and mainstream researchers have concluded that responsibility for the attacks and the resulting destruction rests solely with Al Qaeda.

This tone could then also guide a rewrite of the section on the mainstream account, which could take up the labelling issue directly by defining key notions such as "conspiracy theory", "mainstream account" and "official story". I'm still taking a break from active discussion here at Wikipedia for personal reasons, but I thought I'd put this idea out there if someone wants to run with it.--Thomas Basboll 09:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Are conspiracy theories dismissed as conspiracy theories, or are they simply called conspiracy theories because they are conspiracy theories in the truest sense and definition of the term? Ducks are dismissed by evil Illuminati-controlled media as birds that quack... Weregerbil 09:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

To change the direction a bit we need a better wording or explanation of what constitutes "mainstream" (My POV Network and cable news and most members of the two major political parties but where would you find a cite?). Once that is defined better then we could say something similar to what is said now that although the Al Queda by itself theory fits literal definition of a conspiracy theory the "mainstream" does use that term but does use that term to describe alternative theories. In most of the summary sections I have read a less strict citation policy is usually followed Edkollin 04:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I must diasagree sir, One of the defiantions of conspriacy is plot...so if we were to replace it with plot, a plot theory, this does include what the article does encompass.

Termborg 16:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Lets be perfectly clear here, wikipedia is not being completely objective by using "conspiracy theories" to identify this article. We already admitted that this title has negative connotations, even if it is an accurate description. But how often have we used it to describe more mainstream conspiracy theories in wikipedia. As stated above by definition the official report that Al Queda did it is in itself a conspiracy theory, yet how many times do you see it referred to as such in wikipedia? Time and time again throughout wikipedia when referring to a group conspiring against another group it isn't called a "conspiracy theory" unless it holds a biased POV. I propose the title "9/11 alternative theories", it is a neutral as you can get, on both sides. Debeo Morium 13:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If I could just jump in here... and apologies if my comments are redundant, as I haven't yet read all the archives (all hundred of them! :-)


 * But I don't have a problem with calling this page '9/11 conspiracy theories', even though I tend to believe in the truth of (at least some of) them. Basically because I feel that at the current time, they do fit into what are termed 'conspiracy theories' in modern English. This doesn't actually mean they're not true; it means they're not the 'official truth', essentially. I'm sure anyone who claimed Nixon was behind the Watergate break-in before the truth became known would have been accused of peddling 'conspiracy theories'.


 * But that's just my two cents. I'm sympathetic to those trying to remove the stigma from the 'conspiracy theories', as like I say I think there's a lot of truth there, but I don't actually think calling them 'conspiracy theories' is incorrect given what that term means in today's English.


 * On a lighter note, compared to the sort of POV and edit warring you see over at articles on the Balkan wars, where I've been wasting my time for the past few months (I feel like I've been on the battle lines in Bosnia myself!) the tone of the debate here - and willingness to find NPOV - is remarkably civilized! :-) Cheers everyone Jonathanmills 17:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That only proves to me that civilized discourse is less effective givn the state of those two articles Debeo Morium 17:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, which two do you mean? I think the ones on the Balkans are ridiculously POV, unlike the 9/11 ones, which are only somewhat POV (in my humble opinion). Civilized discourse is pretty much *impossible* over there. Actually, I think I might agree with you somewhat in your general point, at least when faced with uncivilized debate -- I went from being Mr Nice Guy to 'Get the &*#! off Wikipedia if you won't write NPOV!!' and I think the latter was possibly more effective :-) But I still doubt it will have any lasting effect :-( Jonathanmills 18:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * PS, I wanted to add that I just saw a vote had recently been taken on the naming issue and so my comments probably were indeed redundant. Apologies Jonathanmills 18:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

What about...
Overall, good work. But what about the anthrax fiasco that came right after the attacks? What better of a way to scare the hell out of an already freaked out American public? Also, why isn't it spoke of how American civil liberties have suffered (i.e. the patriot act) after the attacks? That could have been part of the plan; to create a scared, complacent population who would only allow themselves to give up their basic rights under such an extreme form of duress.
 * If you can find reputable cites for people claiming a nine-eleven/anthrax connection put it in this article and the 2001 Anthrax Attacks article. The curtailing of civil liberties as a motive was in here at one point but not now for some reason and I agree it should be because most conspiracy theory websites mention that at some point Edkollin 04:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * What of the issue that influential people who received the anthrax letters who were opposed to the Patriot Act initially (Daschle and Leahy come to mind), but changed their mind after receiving a flesh eating bacteria in the mail? Later reports make claim that this particular strain came from Ft. Detrick, MD. Although the FBI had found someone to put the spotlight on who worked there, eventually they got off his case and since then I've heard no workd of their investigation. I digress, the Senators who got the anthrax in their mailbox got scared and changed their stance on Patriot Act. Spectre 01:42 (CST), 4/24.

4000 Not Showing Up to Work
As stated on the page, there was a widely documented (in the Arab media) claim that 4,000 Jewish employees skipped work at the WTC on September 11 has been widely reported and widely debunked. The response has been -- "the number of Jews who died in the attacks--typically estimated at around 400 -- tracks closely with the percentage of Jews living in the New York area." Not quite. Anyone who works in Finance and Banking knows full well that almost 40% of finance professionals are Jewish. So yes, the number dead (if true) tracks the proportion of Jews in NYC, but not in Finance.

A simple analogy. Imagine if a busload of rap artists died in a tragic fiery accident. Investigation shows that 13% of the dead were black, closely tracking the proportion of black people in the United states. Accurate?...not quite, because we need to consider the context. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Patriot1776 b4 (talk • contribs).
 * WP:SOAP. Please reserve your thoughts for your blog or a message board somewhere. Jayjg (talk) 05:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I work as a trader and the percentage of Jewish exchange members is MUCH lower than 40%. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.94.21 (talk) 14:12, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Sure..I can, but why do you feel so intent on hiding this line of investigation? A simple answer would eliminate this alternative theory, so why dont you. Please present your story, I have presented mine. And dont give me any "holocaust denial" BS, just facts please. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Patriot1776 b4 (talk • contribs).


 * I was going to revert it per WP:BLP, but it may not be necessary. (Anyone who works in finance and banking doesn't capitalize the words, anyway.)  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 05:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "Anyone who works in Finance and Banking knows full well that almost 40% of finance professionals are Jewish." Is this discussion an April Fools joke?--Dcooper 01:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Umm...so your argument against this FACT is lack of capitalization? Tell me...were you also "running late" that day?  Come up with FACTs man.  I want to believe the truth, but I need some facts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Patriot1776 b4 (talk • contribs).


 * My arguement is that there is no evidence supporting your "FACT"s. The capitalization is just separate evidence that you are a fanatic of some sort.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 13:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * CONSPIRACY!!! THOSE WHO CAPITALIZE ARE PART OF IT! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!! WHAT INFERENCE SHOULD WE TAKE FROM PEOPLE WHO CAN'T SPELL?
 * YGBSM! There is no reason that your arguments (note the correct spelling) should be taken seriously. A lack of facts proves nothing. To quote the text below this editing box, Encyclopedic content must be attributable to a reliable source. That 400 Jewish people died negates the argument that 4000 Jews didn't show up for work that day. BQZip01 14:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I know arithmetic is hard for some so an easy example might help.
 * If 10% of a group in N Dakota is Jewish that is unusual. If 10% of a group in NYC is Jewish that is also unusual. This is called context. If 10% of a group in a financial/trade district in NYC is Jewish that is really unusual. More context. 159.105.80.141 11:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * More lies. That the "financial/trade district" is more Jewish than NYC is a word I may not use in polite company lie.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 13:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Even if your comments are true (again, no evidence to back it up), "unusual" is not proof. "I know arithmetic is hard for some...." is very condescending. I minored in Mathematics. I doubt the same can be said for you. BQZip01 16:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess I have to be careful how I answer - blocking threat etc for upsetting some.I believe in old archives the 4000 number is not Jews it is Israelis - of whom only 3 or 5 died ( but none of them were part of the 4000 - 2 in the planes, visitors ). Go ahead and use the word "lie" if you wish - the chances I will go a tattle to an adminstrator are 0 ( I have heard far worse on other sites and they seem to not be blocked). The 400 number may/probably is correct but of the 4000 the number is 0/5 - 400 out of 3000 is a little low but you are right it is possible ( in a hundred samples it might happen a half dozen times. 0/5 out of 4000 is way on the fringe - .0000000?% ). 159.105.80.141 17:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC) I majored in math.159.105.80.141 17:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Your numbers (4000 Israelis working at the WTC?, 4000 people not showing up for work, etc.) are so implausible that they require a WP:RS. (And I have a Ph.D. in math.)  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 19:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I heard they were transported aboard a spaceship and taken to that landing field they build in Argentina using labor provided by former Nazis, and funded by all the illicit Jewish gold the Illuminati hid in Switzerland during the War.Mzmadmike 00:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Good. now we have people who can understand the math we can get somwhere. With a PHD maybe you can give us the approximate odds for three skyscrapers collapsing ( within a few feet of each other ), in exactly ( pretty nearly ) the same manner - vertical, quickly ( no partial collapses in this story, we are talking in seconds right into the basement ), first skyscarpers ever to collapse like this from a fire ( not mush of a fire at that ), ..... My guess is 1:10000000 what's yours? More of question for an engineer - do you think this could be done again - an experiment ( demolition crews could try the kerosene fire trick in one corner of a building on their next job. I bet not many 911 believers would like to see that test. Maybe I am wrong but I doubt that too many demolition companies are seriously contemplating switching their techniques.159.105.80.141 11:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Odds would be "1/10000000," not "1:10000000"
 * Odds are based on fact and analysis, and in this case should be based on engineering and demolition experience. Yours seems to be based on wild speculation (unless you can show how you calcualted them).
 * Ignoring WTC Building 7 for a moment, can you tell me why you would not expect that 2 nearly identical "skyscarpers" (sic) damaged in similar ways wouldn't collapse in the same manner? Skyscrapers of that height have incredible vertical forces applied to them and will collapse vertically if damaged. Here's a real-world example that is analagous to the situation and can be tried by anyone. Take an empty coke can and stand on it on one foot. The can will be able to support your weight. Now have someone touch the side of the can with a stick and the can will collapse. Repeat the experiment but this time touch the can with the stick in a different place. Now examine the cans. Are they crushed exactly the same way? Of course not. Some parts of the cans are splayed out further than other parts (Had this same experiment been done with glass, I think we can assume that it would break outwards). But are the crushed cans similar? You bet.
 * Not much of a fire?! How is a fire fueled by jet fuel and encompassing 4-7 floors of a skyscraper (floors under immense pressure) not a major fire?
 * My degree is in Engineering, so I have an inkling of what I am talking about.
 * Again, questions and speculation are not reliable sources. Please provide some evidence  attributable to a reliable source. BQZip01 16:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Check the web - 4000 Israeli ( not Jewish ) - you will find seveal/many references - not many bosses showed up for work either - hell my sister in laws friend got a call to cancell her appointment ( the office was going to be closed - till that afternoon - just luck I guess). Odds - give us your odds - based on facts then. Yeah let's ignore Building 7 - the US government did why not us. Identical buildings should fall identically - those pilots may have been good with all their Piper Cub training but they weren't that good. Jet fuel explodes almost instantly - big flash - then we have paper and office furniture building to a steel melting blaze in 1 hour - try it in your back yard some day, if you can get much more than lead to melt you have done well. Jet fuel is classified as a cool fuel - not enough BTUs to melt steel on a good day - if it would work we could all cast metal in our basemnets.Citation -Pittsburgh. If you are an engineer - science background - do you think this could be replicated - it aint science if it can't be done again.Check the wikipedia Odigi footnote [1] - there's two lucky escapees - somone could go and question the other 3998 as to how they decided to call in sick.

Did the FBI,etc ever get the IP of the messenger who contacted the two Odigo workers - never seemed to be much followup ( lots of explanations of why the message may have been ( fill in the blank)- I like the one about being just a lucky guess and they did't really mean WTC - those are the best ones I have heard - what are the odds on that i guess 0/1000000000000......0 to the nth )159.105.80.141 14:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * As for the 4000, I did check the web. See, for example, http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2002/10/23/lettersToTheEditor (note that this may be a reliable source, as it's from the paper's staff.  In any case...)

Baraka tries to escape the charge of anti-Semitism by claiming only that 4,000 Israelis were told not to come to work on Sept. 11. But, with all his artistic accolades, he should be smart enough to know how close that sounds to the lie being perpetrated in Pakistan, Egypt and elsewhere that 3,000 World Trade Center Jews stayed home on Sept. 11.
 * http://www.islamonline.net/English/Views/2001/11/article9.shtml reports:

Consider the Kuwaiti press who held a press conference in Washington, DC, last week to demonstrate freedom of the press in Kuwait. One of the editors from the Gulf emirate restated the discredited notion that Israel had warned off 4,000 Israeli citizens from going to the World Trade Center on September 11. The genesis of this rumor is typical of the genesis of all gossip. Israeli media had begun to mourn the four thousand (American) Jews estimated to work in the World Trade Center. This was misreported as a reference to 4,000 Israeli citizens. When the Arab press reported that there were not 4,000 Israeli citizens at the World Trade Center that day, the story spread that 4,000 Israelis must have been warned to stay away.
 * As for replication, it was attempted on a small scale, confirming that steel softens in response to burning jet fuel. (Jet fuel does not explode unless well-mixed with air, as in TWA flight 800.)  If you want to donate a new multi-million skyscraper and a 767 to destroy it, be my guest.
 * I see no reliable source that the Odigo messages actually existed. They're not mentioned in the article, which suggests that no reliable source has been found.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 16:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah let's ignore Building 7 - the US government did why not us. I did not ignore building 7 for any other reason than to simplify the discussion and to point out that your arguments are nothing more than paper tigers, accusations and assertions with no basis in any established facts, and wild speculation.
 * Check the web - not exactly your best argument or any sort of proof. Any particular reputable website?
 * 4000 Israeli ( not Jewish ) - 4000 Israeli nationals worked in the WTC?! That would be approximately 8 out of every 100 people in the towers, not counting other Jews too. This is well above the population base and a large portion of foreign nationals from one country. Got a source to back that up?
 * not many bosses showed up for work either - source?
 * my sister in laws (sic) friend got a call to cancell (sic) her appointment ( the office was going to be closed - till that afternoon - A cancelled appointment is your evidence? How many people got cancelled appointments every day before they collapsed? Source?
 * Odds - give us your odds - based on facts then. I never made a claim that I could do so, only that you cannot make your claim based on mere speculation.
 * Identical buildings should fall identically - those pilots may have been good with all their Piper Cub training but they weren't that good. Can you tell me why two buildings damaged in similar manners shouldn't fall the same way? You keep making claims, but you have nothing with which to back it up. How about my explanation?
 * Jet fuel explodes almost instantly - big flash - then we have paper and office furniture building to a steel melting blaze in 1 hour - try it in your back yard some day, if you can get much more than lead to melt you have done well. Jet fuel is classified as a cool fuel - not enough BTUs to melt steel on a good day - if it would work we could all cast metal in our basemnets. Citation -Pittsburgh.'' Please read how to make a citation in the Wikipedia guide. Jet fuel does not explode instantly. It burns. You don't need to melt steel, merely weaken it.
 * If you are an engineer - science background - do you think this could be replicated - it aint science if it can't be done again. The basic science behind it has been replicated and explained:
 * somone (sic) could go and question the other 3998 as to how they decided to call in sick. You haven't established anything about 4000 anyones in the WTC or that they called in sick.
 * I grow weary of this "debate." I have unbiased facts on my side. You have nothing specific to back your assertions up. From this point on, I intend to delete any further postings by you (unless you get a screen name and back up your claims) as WP:Soap. BQZip01 17:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

"The basic science has been replicated"
If you are an engineer - science background - do you think this could be replicated - it aint science if it can't be done again. The basic science behind it has been replicated and explained:
 * Umm, no the basic science has not been replicated nor has it been adequately explained by 'progressive collapse' hypotheses. "None of the official theories can explain total collapses of any kind." 'Progressive collapse' is a neologism circa 2001 and (applied to free-fall collapses) it is a theory that violates Newton's second law of motion.  Build-up of mass does not increase velocity, no matter how many experts repeat it or how loudly.  Oneismany 03:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Respectfully disagree. This is not the best site to find information (though it is one of them). The author of this site makes several unjustified claims including
 * 1. Neither tower's fires covered even one entire floor. They don't have to cover an entire floor. Using the example of an empty coke can (admittedly a gloriously unsophisticated, inexact, but somewhat accurate example), an adult weighing 200 pounds can stand on the top of the can indefinitely. Try it if you don't believe me. Now tap the side of the can (it doesn't matter where), but quickly get out of the way because the can will quickly collapse at nearly the acceleration of gravity
 * But an empty coke can is not designed to support 200 pounds in 100 mph cross winds, and the Twin Towers were. Moreover, you are stacking a weight on top of the can but the weight of the upper floors are (in the progressive collapse theory) part of the can.  Does an empty coke can cave in on itself if you plug holes in it?  Oneismany 10:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. But it demonstrates how quickly something collapses and how a cylinder quickly fails. I have tried this "trick" before on a number of occasions sometimes in a slight breeze (a scale wind). Let's say that the building is only as tall as from the point of impact to the top. The top would collapse into the ground. In the skyscraper, this ground is the other floors which would subsequently collapse.
 * The ground does not collapse when I land on it, no matter how I try. Ow!  Oneismany 04:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The "ground" being the floor below. — BQZip01 —  talk 08:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 2. Eager's zipper scenario is impossible given the cross-trussing. Why? No explanation is given, only an assertion.
 * I think his point is that the Twin Towers were a mesh of multiple redundant supports. In order for them to unzip at nearly free fall speed, all of these supports would have to fail simultaneously.  Oneismany 10:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No they don't and they didn't collapse at the same time. They collapsed in succession. If you'll try the coke can experiment, you'll note that the can doesn't collapse sideways very much (if at all). That there were trusses and the like is immaterial to the discussion. As a whole, they behaved like a cylinder. I'm sure a computer monitor somewhere in the middle of the collapse slowed the building collapse down, but the momentum of collapsing structure quickly overcame that
 * Erm, each whole floor collapsed in rapid succession, so all of the supports on each floor had to collapse simultaneously. Watch the videos, and you will see that the lower floors "collapse" ahead of the falling debris (ejected sideways and yet reaching the ground after the "collapse" of each floor). Strange behavior for a "fire."  Oneismany 04:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It is a collapse at this point, not a fire. By simultaneously you mean within the same second, sure! If you mean at the exact same instant, probably not, but that is your observation, fine, but it is an observation, not a fact. — BQZip01 —  talk 08:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "all of the supports on each floor had to collapse simultaneously." No they didn't, They only had to collapse in quick succession.
 * 3. The fall of a floor would easily be absorbed by the floor below. This is the big one! How on earth do you expect the floor to absorb the impact of 30 floors (give or take) above it moving at nearly the speed associated with gravity. Anyone who has any idea of physics will show that this momentum was far more than the planes that struck the towers...and parts of them went clean through the towers!
 * Except that massive objects gain momentum more slowly, the more massive they are. In other words, the falling floors would not gain proportionally enough momentum to crash through the lower floors because they had always been holding that momentum in their weight and the structure beneath had been designed to support that weight, which it did for thirty years without collapsing. Oneismany 10:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "...massive objects gain momentum more slowly..." No they don't, at least not with respect to gravity. All of them accelerate the same way. Here's a little math example for you: Momentum is mass times velocity. Velocity of any object falling is determined by the constant acceleration due to gravity and is not dependent on variation in mass.
 * "Momentum is mass times velocity ... [but] velocity is not dependent on variation in mass"? Did you mean that the force of gravity (at a certain distance) is fixed and the momentum increases with mass, but velocity does not increase with mass?  See below.
 * The momentum of the aircraft that impacted =
 * = mass of aircraft * speed of aircraft
 * = 100 tons * 400mph
 * = 100 * 2000 lb * 400 * 1.467 ft/s (conversion from mph to ft/s)
 * = 200,000 lb * 586.8 ft/s
 * = 117,360,000 ft*lb/s
 * The momentum of the building collapsing one floor and falling 10 feet=
 * mass of building top * speed associated with falling 10 feet due to gravity
 * = 500,000 tons * (10% to take into account only the top...and this is a lowball estimate) * (in .8 seconds any mass will be falling at an instantaneous velocity of approximately 25 ft/s)
 * = 50,000 * 2,000 lb * 25 ft/s
 * = 100,000,000 lb * 25 ft/s ft*lb/s
 * = 2,500,000,000 lb*ft/s
 * The floors were designed to shift side to side and account for variations in mass, but the impact was only about 1/3 of the impact it could have withstood. While the top of the building moved 100 ft, it still didn't collapse then because it was still over its own footprint and within design limitations. I highly suggest you read http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html
 * Force is the rate of change in momentum and momentum is the difference in velocity between one mass and another mass. Motion is relative to the mass that is stationary, and force is proportional to the square of distance from the stationary mass (the second law).  A fixed mass, say the mass of your body, weighs more the closer you come to the center of the Earth, or less the further you climb away. Your change of motion (and weight) within this framework is your momentum.  We are all falling toward the center of the Earth, but most of us and our buildings also happen to be falling at the same velocity as the ground, which is spinning sideways around the center of the Earth.  That is angular momentum.  We do not notice it because we are in uniform motion with the ground and indeed in our frame of reference it is the Sun and Moon, etc. that are revolving around us.  Now the only way you can jump upward or a building can rise higher (say, under construction) is by a force besides gravity, because any two objects in uniform motion will remain in uniform motion unless acted on by an outside force (the first law).  That is what makes gravity a conservative force, i.e. it does no net work in a uniform frame of reference.  When a rocket takes off, it loses weight due to gravity as it climbs; but in response the Earth also slightly gains weight because both the rocket and the Earth have got gravity (the third law). In a closed system every increase in momentum is accompanied by an increase of inertia, because momentum is also a conservative force.  The momentum of the top of the tower cannot increase without a decrease of momentum (or an increase of inertia) somewhere else.  Now in a collapse the top floors of the Twin Towers weigh quite a lot but they also have got a lot of gravity so at the same time that they are pulled down they also pull the bottom floors toward them slightly, which should slow their increase in momentum.  So, the bottom floors should dampen the collapse at least temporarily.  But what we see in the videos is that the top floors are pulverized before they crash into the bottom floors and the pulverized floors crash straight through the structure almost as if it isn't even there.  Oneismany 04:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh Lordy. with respect to gravity - bad phrasing on my part; I meant with respect to the acceleration and resulting velocity associated with gravity.
 * Your "science" is wrong on so many levels after the rehash of basic college physics:
 * Now in a collapse the top floors of the Twin Towers weigh quite a lot but they also have got a lot of gravity so at the same time that they are pulled down they also pull the bottom floors toward them slightly, which should slow their increase in momentum. albeit correct, this effect is negligible.
 * So, the bottom floors should dampen the collapse at least temporarily. - how temporarily? a second? a minute? a microsecond? Somewhat, sure. But the momentum gained in falling 10 feet (as shown) would be more than the floor below could stand. The mass of the now collapsed floor would fall into the next one at nearly the same speed, but would gain momentum due to the added mass and increase in speed to the next floor.
 * But what we see in the videos is that the top floors are pulverized before they crash into the bottom floors... - Not all of them, but since you brought it up, there's the result of your change in momentum and where some of the inertia went: the impact with lower floors probably destroyed some floors in the upper structure
 * ...and the pulverized floors crash straight through the structure almost as if it isn't even there. Almost, but not quite.
 * 4. Some floors must have had large I-beams. Otherwise the building's tube-within-a-tube design made no sense. Even the picture shown has I-beams that are broken and not bent.
 * That is a straw man argument . Yes the I-beams were broken.  Nearly the whole building was pulverized.  Gravity can not do that. Oneismany 10:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure it can. Gravity can yield amazing results with a very large mass. I recommend reading the meteorite page. — BQZip01 —  talk 21:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * A meteorite is mostly pulverized by impact with the air and ground, falling from a height beyond the orbit of the Moon. I agree falling from the height of the moon or beyond would do a lot of damage, but in reference to the Twin Towers collapse that is a non sequitur. Oneismany 04:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I was only countering your absurd suggestion that gravity cannot cause this kind of damage. — BQZip01 —  talk 08:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 5. A "domino effect" collapse of the floor diaphragms would have left the perimeter wall and core standing. The floors would have slid down the cores like records on a spindle.
 * 5.1. This does not take into account the massive outward expansion of air being expelled as a floor collapsed. It also does not take into account the massive inward expansion of air to fill the void as the tower collapsed downward.
 * Are you suggesting that the progressive collapse acts like an air pump? But the air had many ways to escape, such as the elevator shafts or even the steel core itself.  Moreover, if the floors were buckling and weakening unevenly then the air could have escaped through the floors.  Oneismany 10:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Some air, yes. The vast majority, no. The air pressure has to escape eventually even as it accumulates in each floor (by your theory). What would happen at the base of the tower? Elevator shafts are generally closed off, but even if it weren't, all of the air wouldn't escape out through the shaft. — BQZip01 —  talk 21:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You are right that there would be some air pressure from beneath; and so this ought to add resistance to the collapse and increase the collapse time. Oneismany 04:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It did increase the time, but not much. It wasn't a freefall collapse and the term near-freefall is misleading since it doesn't say how near it is. The glass and steel quickly broke and flew outward due to the air pressure. — BQZip01 —  talk 08:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 5.2. It also contradictory with the previous statement. Either the I-beams held it up or they didn't. You can't have it both ways.
 * That is another straw man argument. No one is saying the I-beams did not break.  However, the pancake collapse theory ignores the I-beams.  Oneismany 10:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As for steel melting, ask the commuters in Oakland if steel can be weakened to the point of collapse long before the steel actually melted.
 * Oakland? Please elaborate.  Oneismany 10:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * http://www.registerguard.com/news/2007/04/30/a1.highway.0430.p1.php?section=nation_world
 * A skeptic demands evidence and proof. An idiot denies evidence and proof. — BQZip01 —  talk 21:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I stand by my original statement: build-up of mass does not increase velocity, no matter how many experts repeat it or how loudly.  Poking holes in the Twin Towers would not cause them the cave in on themselves, or cause them to collapse under their own weight.  However, poking holes in the progressive collapse theory might cause it to cave in on itself; or cause it to to collapse under its own weight.  Oneismany 04:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * A buildup of mass doesn't increase velocity and I never made such an assertion. Let us consider 3 objects that are sticky (they will stick together upon impact), but have the size and shape of a 16 lb bowling ball. If object A falls 32 feet and collides with object B which is stationary, it will not increase momentum at that moment and will simply become object AB, if you will, with half the velocity (double mass means speed decreases in half to conserve momentum). It now falls another 32 feet and collides with object C. The momentum once again changes for object ABC. This time it decreases the velocity but not by as much (50% gain in mass means a 25% decrease in velocity to keep momentum conserved), but the velocity still increases from point to point.
 * Now let us consider the WTC where 1/4 of the 500,000 tons fell 10 feet into a structure designed to support its own weight and the floors above it with a mass only 1/100th of the main structure (I'm rounding here, so work with me). The velocity would decrease at the first floor by only 3.85% or so and would decrease for each subsequent impact as the total mass increased. I'm guessing you can't tell the difference between a car traveling at 55 mph and one traveling at 53 mph at a distance. Most people can't. That is the same difference we are talking about here.
 * The overall time it takes is not much more than freefall: approximately a 34% difference (not counting for wind resistance in actual freefall). From 6-9 seconds of freefall compared to 9-12 seconds? In the grand scheme of things that difference is minuscule. While it is at "near freefall speeds," it isn't at freefall speeds and is only a few seconds slower.
 * On top of that, no one knows exactly how long it took for the collapse since the debris obstructed the view. Everything known is an educated guess. Please read for a much better analysis: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
 * But let's say all of your assertions are true and it was a controlled demolition, why wouldn't they just destroy the building, kill 50,000+, and just blame it on the Middle easterners anyway? — BQZip01 —  talk 08:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

What follows is a refutation of Oneismany's lengthy paragraph on physics, most of which is not correct:

"Force is the rate of change in momentum and momentum is the difference in velocity between one mass and another mass."

Almost, but not quite: F = dp/dt, but p ≠ Δv.

"Motion is relative to the mass that is stationary, and force is proportional to the square of distance from the stationary mass (the second law)."

That is 100% not true. F ≠ k*x^2. Newton's law of gravitation is an inverse square; the force due to an electric dipole is approximately k/x for large x.

"A fixed mass, say the mass of your body, weighs more the closer you come to the center of the Earth, or less the further you climb away. Your change of motion (and weight) within this framework is your momentum."

Not true.

"We are all falling toward the center of the Earth, but most of us and our buildings also happen to be falling at the same velocity as the ground, which is spinning sideways around the center of the Earth."

Imprecise. The ground does not fall inwards, supported by the Earth's interior, and we are not falling to the center of the earth by the support of the ground.

"That is angular momentum. We do not notice it because we are in uniform motion with the ground and indeed in our frame of reference it is the Sun and Moon, etc. that are revolving around us. Now the only way you can jump upward or a building can rise higher (say, under construction) is by a force besides gravity, because any two objects in uniform motion will remain in uniform motion unless acted on by an outside force (the first law)."

We do not notice the angular momentum because the difference in our angular position is zero.

"That is what makes gravity a conservative force, i.e. it does no net work in a uniform frame of reference."

The definition of a conservative force is that it does no work to a closed loop (which is true for gravity). Your last statement is incorrect; when a rocket launches into space, the earth is doing work on the rocket.

"When a rocket takes off, it loses weight due to gravity as it climbs; but in response the Earth also slightly gains weight because both the rocket and the Earth have got gravity (the third law)."

Weight is the gravitational force on an object due to another. As the rocket takes off, it weighs less because it experiences less gravitational force, but, at the same time, the earth loses weight with respect to the rocket by the third law (its gravitational force is, not surprising less).

"In a closed system every increase in momentum is accompanied by an increase of inertia, because momentum is also a conservative force."

Momentum is not a conservative force; it is not a force at all. Linear momentum and angular momentum are conserved quantities, however. Also, a closed system has no external or dissipative forces, so linear momentum cannot be changed AT ALL. To change the linear momentum (in an open system, like the surface of the earth), one needs to do work on something.

"The momentum of the top of the tower cannot increase without a decrease of momentum (or an increase of inertia) somewhere else."

They are gaining a lot of momentum: gravity is doing work on them. The surface of the Earth is not a closed system: the earth's gravitational field is an external force.

"Now in a collapse the top floors of the Twin Towers weigh quite a lot but they also have got a lot of gravity so at the same time that they are pulled down they also pull the bottom floors toward them slightly, which should slow their increase in momentum."

If, by gravitational attraction you mean "approximately several ten-thousandths of a Newton."

"So, the bottom floors should dampen the collapse at least temporarily."

Temporarily = a few microseconds.

In conclusion: take Physics 101. I can quickly pull out my physics book and show you where you are wrong. (This rebuttal written by iMacWin95, who is not currently logged in).

mainstream
Rosie O'Donell and Charlie Sheen are some of old/new names on that list of decent people who are wondering about unanswered questions. Shouldn’t there be a section which will deal with these "new radicals"? Anyway, the list of patriots has been updated… theirs questioning should be recognized, perhaps in a new section… perhaps in some other way… please share your thoughts… also, some of these folks need to be added to our conspiracy template, right? Lovelight 04:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see how their opinions are anymore relevant than yours or mine, if their "questioning" is added then I want mine added as well. They are actors right? Thanks. RxS 17:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No, they are Senior Military, Intelligence Service, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials, professors, survivors and/or family members… actors, entertainment and media professionals too…


 * Look! I'll quote Senator Mark Dayton:


 * Senate Hearings on the 9/11 Commission Report 7/31/04: "They [NORAD] lied to the American people, they lied to Congress and they lied to your 9/11 Commission. ... For almost three years now NORAD officials and FAA officials have been able to hide their critical failures that left this country defenseless during two of the worst hours in our history."


 * See, we are talking about wikipedia here… do you see that? As for your statement, agreed, our opinions have equal rights, but I'd like to reference this in our encyclopedia… popular culture, or something along those lines? Perhaps? Lovelight 22:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Rosie O'Donell and Charlie Sheen are not Senior Military, Intelligence Service, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials, professors, survivors and/or family members...they are actors, entertainment and media professionals certainly but that makes their opinion of equal worth to mine. Referenced or not. Thanks though. RxS 02:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Just look at the reference. Thanks. Lovelight 10:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * To find out that Rosie O'Donell and Charlie Sheen are not Senior Military, Intelligence Service, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials, professors, survivors and/or family members? I worked that out for myself. RxS 21:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, we are talking about Senior Military, Intelligence, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials that Question the 9/11 Commission Report; as stated before, it should be referenced & relevant names should be added to that conspiracy template. Lovelight 19:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Costly asbestos cleaning conspiracy
Have you heard about this thing? I read a theory somewhere that the towers were destroyed because they had a lot of asbestos that would have been extremely expensive to remove, thus they were rather insured and then destroyed to avoid the costly removal. -Lapinmies 06:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Could someone really be so callous to kill 3000+ people rather than pay an asbestos removal bill? I think if there were other forces at work, they'd have an agenda higher than avoiding mesothelioma claims in 30 years time...... Also why would they have to have had the asbestos removed? Untouched and undisturbed it is of little danger to the public and any tradesman working near it is aware of their personal need for protection and caution for themselves and others (I'm a Refrigeration & A/C Mechanic, so I know my responsibilty in this regard) 18:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Having done asbestos removal, I like this one. And yes, 3000 people would be cheap.  Also, if the building is gone it simplifies disposal.  I think we have the real reason right here.Mzmadmike 00:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I would think there would have to be more than Asbestos to justify that kind of mass murder. True, asbestos removal and disposal would be incredibly expensive, especially considering that you're talking about not just one, but several high-rise and low-rise skyscrapers. I'd hate to foot that bill, myself, but you gotta remember that Silverstein is probably one of the richest men in the country (especially after that multi-billion dollar payout from the insurance) and you'd think that he should be able to handle the expense. In my opinion, I think that asbestos falls short of a full, logical explaination. May be a minor possible factor under the Made It Happen catagory, but there would have to be more. Spectre 02:13 (CST) April 24, 2007.

It is purely speculative to suggest in any way whether or not people would consider the costly asbestos removal to be a sufficient reason to commit these atrocities. Certainly, human history suggests the possibility, but it is undeterminable without further investiation. The presence of asbestos and the extremely expensive removal process merely suggests a possible motive for committing the atrocities or for considering the building's destruction as advantageous. It is sufficient, in my opinion, to warrant further investigation by authorities, but not to deem Silverstein culpable in these crimes.

Considering that this evidence is presented on many conspiracy theorist's sites, I do feel that this should be included on this page. It could be presented that this evidence causes many conspiracy theorists to feel there should be investigation into the possible involvement, if any, of Silverstein in these crimes. Kevin77v 19:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Certainly there are people who would kill 3000 or more to save millions of dollars. People have been murdered for winning at Monopoly, for drinking out of the wrong water fountain, etc. The motivation for these crimes is not that relevant when discussing who it was that actually committed them. I think it is obvious though, that these crimes were committed by people who were capable of actually committing them, and that there are no people who were capable of committing these crimes who stood to benefit directly. I think the demolitions were done by hired hands in other words. User:Pedant 07:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree; I like this theory. If it really does show up on the websites than an editor should put it in the article.216.165.12.46 23:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Post-attack conspiracy
The article mentions that a conspiracy of tens or hundreds of people needs to have been formed before the attacks to accomplish them and to plant the false evidence that led the mainstream investigations to reach exactly one conclusion - that al Qaeda was responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks. What's unmentioned is that the conspiracy of those tens or hundreds of people has not been exposed to the mainstream after 5 1/2 years -- either by a failure of the conspirators to maintain the false evidence, or by a confession by any of the conspirators. With the passage of time, the failure to fully expose the conspiracy is evidence of the conspiracy's own implausibility. Is the omission of the post-attack conspiracy something that's being fully hashed out earlier in the editing debates on this article? patsw 13:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If it has been discussed in mutiple reliable sources, it should be included.--Dcooper 13:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Is the omission of the post-attack conspiracy something that's being fully hashed out earlier in the editing debates on this article, or something that's has been overlooked by other editors of this article by happenstance in 5 1/2 years? patsw 16:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you asking about the omission of newspaper articles that discuss the "post-attack conspiracy"? Or are you asking about the omission of original research of Wikipedia editors?  If its the first, lets cite those articles and include that topic.  If its the second, lets not.  I do recall editors making your point on the talk page, but I don't know if anyone discussed whether those editors' views should be put in the article--Dcooper 17:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

That is sort of an answer. At least if I gather up the information according to the WP policies, how this conspiracy has managed to hide for 5 1/2 years, I won't be harangued with "hey, there already was an editor consensus to not include this". patsw 18:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thousands of conspirators - who dreamed up that number. The technical parts could be managed by a very small core, most participants wouldn't even know they were involved. Wars are conducted by millions - only a handful know what is really going on, even fewer know why. 159.105.80.141 12:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Returned to 911 after seeing a show last night - Miegs of Popular Science has convinced himself that Building 7, etc fell in a patriotic manner. Mr Miegs is so confident that I think the next skyscraper that needs to be imploded ( and dropped in its cellar - not into the neighbors ) should be Mr Miegs project. Show us how it's done - a little kerosene, diesel, whatever in one corner of the building and in 1-+ hour we can watch Mr Miegs do his victory dance. Bring the 911 Commission to watch, they could learn something - they wouldn't even touch Building 7.159.105.80.141 12:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

There are two different issues under one topic here. The first was there a "cover up". In the article there is a Washington Post story that said Pentagon officials did lie to the 9/11 commission to cover up incompetence. There is a paragraph dealing with the "Flight of the Saudis" including members of the Bin Ladin family that while giving the 9/11 commission report version of events does not have a cite claiming it was part of a cover up. This might be because that issue was "hot" among conspiracy theorists in the first few years after the attack but not in the last few years as the controlled demolition theory has taken most of the attention. The article does not discuss allegations that debris was removed from ground zero at a rapid rate as part of a cover up. This is an area you might look into. Also of note in the many mainstream media stories about health problems of ground zero workers mention has been made of the deliberate misstatements of the EPA in regard to the toxicity of the debris none of these stories have alleged that those statements were part of a 9/11 conspiracy cover up.

Issue two is the amount of people needed to pull off a controlled demolition or other Make It Happen scenarios. Proponents of both the mainstream account and various Let It Happen accounts have assumed it would take a large number of people and cite the lack of a whistleblower as evidence that there was no Make It Happen scenario. The only counter to this argument I have seen is an interview on the Alex Jones show by former German Defense Minister & former head of German Secret Service Andreas von Bulow claiming an operation of this type would take less then fifty people. The relevant statements are about midway through the video. Edkollin 07:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Do not forget that there were vast conspiracies going on in Germany back in the 1930s and 40s. The Germans were all led to believe that the Communists burned down the Reichstag in 1933, and the truth of the matter that the Nazis themselves did it did not see the light of day until they were overthrown. That was over 10 years later. Big Conspiracies, if puled off by governments especially, can be orchestrated with a small number of people and well hidden indefinitely. If the actors get caught, they can easily show their badge and state that they are setting up for a drill and make a change in plan.
 * Also of note, the United States has engaged in a number of conspiracies that no one conclusively could prove until relavent documents become declassified, usually after anyone trying to prove it is long dead, and especially now with mass media being unable to dig up evidence, due to the fact that investagative journalism (Watergate discovery for example) has largely become a thing of the past. Spectre 02:28 (CST) April 24, 2007
 * It is not that they are unable to do investigative journalism it is that they are unwilling to do it for a whole host of reasons. Wikipedia can not do it for them. Edkollin 04:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

edit to World Trade Center collapse as controlled demolition
I changed "The collapse... was a surprise to the engineering community" to "a surprise to some people" for the following reasons:
 * no citation - proof?
 * at the beginning of this article there is a statement "Published reports by structural engineers do not support the controlled demolition hypothesis"
 * in the page Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center there are several statements contradicting this, including "Mainstream engineers, investigators, and industry experts generally dismiss it as a conspiracy theory" (cited) and "The controlled demolition hypothesis has been unambiguously rejected by manistream investigators and by structural engineers" (also cited)
 * if this statement meant that "at the time" engineers were surprised... well, we were all surprised by the collapses. But to say the "engineering community" was surprised implies that this reaction was due to specialist knowledge, and lends credence to the demolition theory when there is no proof (given here at least) that the majority of engineers support it. P. Moore 14:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The article on the collapse of the World Trade Center gives a good sense of what "a surprise to the engineering community" means in this context . It offers three sources to the effect that even given the aircraft impacts, and, yes, due to their specialist knowledge of how buildings are supposed to perform, engineers were puzzled about the behaviour of the WTC buildings on 9/11. Today, they believe they have solved the puzzle (at least in the cases of buildings 1 and 2). But "some people" is clearly not as accurate as "the engineering community" (Bazant and Verdure probably provides the clearest statement to support this claim).--Thomas Basboll 20:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If the collapse of the World Trade Center really was a "surprise to the engineering community" then why did the Journal of Engineering Mechanics and the American Society of Civil Engineers accept and peer-review a paper explaining the collapse on September 13th 2001, just 2 days after the attack? (the paper is available here: http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf ) If it really was a surprise to the engineering community then it would be impossible for peer-reviewed journals to have reasonable explanations within their hands in just 2 days.  Or is someone suggesting that the American Society of Civil Engineers is somehow beyond the purview of the "engineering community"?  Please change the language as the collapse was very obviously a surpise to "some people" but not the engineering community.24.1.156.114 22:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The main author (Bazant) of that early paper has since written: "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." (This is from a draft of Bazant and Verdure's paper, which was just published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics. I haven't seen the final version yet, but I don't think this part has been changed.) The fact that one engineer quickly got over the shock and worked out a plausible explanation doesn't change the fact, which he himself reports, about the initial reaction in the community.--Thomas Basboll 06:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thomas Basboll: OK, if you want to change it back to the way it was, and cite that report, I have no problem with that. But, just because the collapse surprised structural engineers, does not mean it's evidence of the ridiculous controlled demolition theory, since that is the implication in the context of this article!P. Moore 01:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The paragraph is already sourced to the Bazant and Verdure paper (note 49 as I write this) and was so sourced when you made your edit. The sentence we are discussing, like the paragraph it introduces, does not (and should not) provide "evidence" of controlled demolition. It simply provides the context in which the hypothesis arose. When/if I return to editing articles, I'll of course correct it. (I'm currently involved in dispute resolution.) But I think this discussion should make anyone "want to change it back", including you. That is, if you don't want to change it back then you should still argue that your version is better. IMO, the original sentence was more informative.--Thomas Basboll 06:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Addition to flight 77 section
I think the NTSB reconstruction and black box data finding by Calum Douglas needs to be added. perhaps wording as follows "Flight Data records of flight 77 in both binary format and reconstruction format, obtained by freedom of information requests, show the plane was 300 feet too high to have hit the 5 light poles in front of the Pentagon. The NTSB and FBI have so far refused to comment." source http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html 11 April 2007


 * http://pilotsfor911truth.org is not a reliable source. Possibly it could read "Pilots for 911 Truth claims that ...", but I don't think that's notable.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 16:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

If the black box is exists but the government refuses to release it that must be notable - does pilotsfor911truth have any documentation that can be checked?159.105.80.141 17:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course that it's notable, the data is requested through FOIA and it has been released by National Transportation and Safety Board (NTSB). This new info doesn’t support the 9/11 Commission Report of American Airlines Flight 77 impact with the Pentagon and that sounds pretty important to me… as for the validity of reference, we may also add a few notes about mainstream blackout on issues such as this one (press release was issued to Mainstream Media on 03/26/07, neither one agency dared to follow…) not to speak about that bbc cock-up, and all other things which are regularly omitted. Lovelight 18:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that pilots for 911 truth aren't particularly reputable, and while they CLAIM it to be true, no reliable source has said this has any truth to it. Most likely they don't know what they're talking about, which is a pretty universal issue with the 9/11 truth community. Not to mention, you know, the minor issue that this plane, supposedly at 480 feet, had its black box recovered and recorded no information beyond this point, with absolutely no explanation whatsoever as to why this would be the case. I'm callling BS. Titanium Dragon 16:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Just quickly looking over their evidence, they have some pretty major flaws in their analysis


 * The 180 foot figure already compensated for the pressure; they arbitrarily added 300 feet to the number because they (somehow) didn't notice that this number was already calculated; if they were to estimate the number themselves, they'd have to go from the DCAs altitude then figure out how much altitude would needed to be added to calculate the pressure. They failed to do this for some reason, most likely sloppy analysis.
 * The DCA is a distance from the pentagon, and it wouldn't be expected that air pressure is the same everywhere in DC. The margin of error in using the known pressure at DCA at the pentagon is unknown, though not unknowable; it'd be easy to set up an experiment to determine the average pressure difference between the pentagon and the DCA. I suspect the margin of error on this pretty much makes the pressure differential irrelevant.
 * Basically, this is pretty much bunk; whoever did these "calculations" didn't know what they were talking about. Titanium Dragon 16:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The source site above mentions they were able to have the radar height data decoded which supported 300ft too high theory. They also show the NTSB supplied reconstuction shows the plane way too high when over the freeway. I think they have raised a genuine issue which should be mentioned on the main page. Ccc001 12:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, they can tell that to the people inside the Pentagon (some of them USAF officers) who report pieces of a plane. Always glad to see an outside expert tell inside experts they don't know what they're talking about.  Let me get some popcorn:)Mzmadmike 00:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Mzmadmike. The conspiracy does not deny a plane hit the Pentagon. The conspiracy is that NTSB supplied black box flight data does not match the photographic and eyewitness evidence relating to flight paths. Thus was the black box data tampered with or was a different plane involved. The 'source' evidence is NTSB supplied data via FOI. Ccc001 07:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

poll for addition to flight 77 section
Well, let's make this simple and see if we can come to a consensus. Simply put your signature block into the heading that describes best how you feel. If ⅓ of the people want it, IMHO we should put it in since it would then be "significant." Add any short comments in comment blocks.

Support adding this discrepancy to the Flight 77 Section

Yes only if as credible or popular conspiracy (website,video,book etc) uses this discrepancy to point to a specific conspiracy theory or as part of a deliberate cover up Edkollin 04:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

More information is always better, especially since so much is still in serious dispute. I mean, if the basic numbers are wrong, then truth stands no chance. Truthful conclusion is impossible with truthful firgures, so let's make it globally known that someone involved with these crucial figures is a liar, tamperer, incompetent, or worse. Patriotick 05:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose adding this discrepancy to the Flight 77 Section

As a pilot, I don't see this as a reputable source or a logical conclusion — BQZip01 — talk 14:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

If they can show it is a reliable source, then sure, but until then... Titanium Dragon 00:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's what a real passenger jet crash into a building looks like: http://www5.flickr.mud.yahoo.com/photos/thiagorigonatti/852228878/in/set-72157600900344074/ Brazillian crash of TMA JJ3054

Flight 93 Shot Down Additional Detail
I think it should be included that Donald Rumsfeld had made a speech on Dec 24, 2004 in which he made a reference to flight 93 as "the plane that was shot down over Pensyvania." This has been fuel for the conspiracy theorists. The Pentagon responded that this was merely a mistatement. Kevin77v 07:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)kevin77v


 * BE BOLD!!! Add it as you deem necessary. This is wikipedia. As long as you cite your sources and don't get on a soapbox, you can add just about anything you want. The talk page is mostly used for settling disputes. BQZip01 08:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Its relevant; just be sure to source it. Titanium Dragon 10:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting article in Le Monde
The article 11 septembre 2001 : les Français en savaient long talks about what the French government knew about 9/11. 189.166.54.76 16:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If it isn't in English, don't bother linking. If it is, just add your information and cite it appropriatly. In addition, please get a screen name (it takes all of about a minute). BQZip01 17:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see how its particularly relevant to this article; its basically the same stuff the US government has acknowledged it knew prior to 9/11. Titanium Dragon 21:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Here is a Newsday article in English reporting on the Le Monde article . It concurs with the 9/11 Commission findings. Edkollin 05:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe there were nine different countries who warned us of 911 - one country even got the 19 terrorist count correct. Just luck - maybe another conspiracy theory - trying to confuse us with accurate intelligence reports.159.105.80.141 18:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Article lacks respectful and NPOV tone
As discussed above, this article dismisses the arguments it claims to address, using the commonly dismissive labeling as 'conspiracy theories'. Useless and vague appeals to the authority 'mainstream' thought are cited in an effort to discredit the claims that are the subject of the article. Any faithful discussion of this subject would recognize not the importance of 'theories' about the 9/11 attacks, but questions about the validity of the official record of those attacks. Again, labeling the questions of millions worldwide (majorities in many nations) as well as many within in the U.S. as 'conspiracy theorists' does not reflect a neutral point of view. If the aims of those who have primarily authored this article are to refuse questions about the September 11th attacks, it is a mere truism that an honest and objective analysis of opposing arguments in light of relevant evidence is the best way to discredit false arguments in an open forum.

It is imperative that this article be renamed and that it makes an honest attempt to address the subject matter if it is to be of encyclopedic value. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 136.242.228.149 (talk • contribs).


 * Please sign your posts with ~ . This lets us know who posted it and when.
 * Please put new comments at the bottom of the page.
 * Please get a screen name. It literally takes all of 1 minute and facilitates conversation on a much mroe personal level. In addition, you can make more edits that a simple IP address.
 * Conspiracy may have a dubious connotation, but it is accurate since it requires the collaboration of numerous individuals. Even if you believe that the 9/11 hijackers were alone, it was still a conspiracy between them and Osama bin Laden. Theory may have an associated connotation of not proven yet, but it is also accurate since little supporting evidence stands without serious public doubts associated with it.
 * Wikipedia is not a place for mere complaints. If you wish to change the name of this article, please tell everyone what it should be, we'll discuss, and, hopefully, come to a consensus as to what should be done. — BQZip01 —  talk 15:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Again one more time the "mainstream theories" section is there to re familiarize to the reader the theories the "alternative theorists" are disputing. 9/11 happened almost six years ago and the 9/11 commission report was released almost three years ago and people have forgotten the details. As for the criticism of the specific theories and of "conspiracy theorists" in general written in the article they are there to show the reaction to the popularity of the alternative theories. Polls show support for conspiracies around 25% to 45% that means the majority still support that it was Al Queda with no government complicity or involvement. Also that vast majority of the network,cable news popular and influential newspapers support the basic tenets of the 9/11 commission report and are highly critical of "conspiracy" theories and theorists. I do not personally do like it but it would be irresponsible of Wikipedia not to report these criticisms. As for the tittle change I would prefer "Alternative theories" but am not offended by "conspiracy theories" since that is a popular term for them. As for getting a user name I was resistant to it but got one when I was being autoblocked all the time. Now I wounder why I was so resistant. If you do not want your name used log out. Edkollin 18:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Defending the application of the the phrase on purely definitional grounds is rather ludicrous because virtually any topic in political science could be thus termed. The use of the phrase 'conspiracy theorists' has a strong history in the United States as a means to dismiss dissenters, labeling them as mentally unbalanced. Therefore, in an attempt to maintain some standard of objectivity an encyclopedic article should adopt more neutral language. It does not take much imagination to conjure up an accurate label. 'Challenges to the official account' or simply 'alternative accounts' seem the most reasonable - 'alternative theories' at the least. It is most important that within the article the arguments are presented straightforwardly and not attached to 'conspiracy theorists' who might as well be called 'wackos'. Again it doesn't take much imagination, but rather normal practice, to refer to those proposing arguments either without direct naming, or as 'some argue', 'those who question the official storyline' and so on. SDali2008 11:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Conspiracy theories are what they are called outside of Wikipedia, whether the term is inteded as pejorative or not. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 14:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It is even less of a reason to use dismissive and pejorative language if it is already common in public discussion. Wikipedia should always use neutral language in keeping with standards of encyclopedic objectivity. SDali2008 04:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is to be descriptive, not prescriptive. See WP:NC(CN).  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 14:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

If someone went to see a psychiatrist, would we from then on label him or her a psychiatric case? While literally true, it would be offensive due to it's connotations. Yet people here on wikipedia have no problem throwing around the conspiracy theorist label. Why? Because it's literally true. Is that not POV? Kevin77v 00:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family anatidae on our hands. Not labelling them conspiracy theories would be incorrect, because that is what they are called. Titanium Dragon 02:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The article doesn't dismiss the conspiracy theories, reliable sources do. The article merely reports this fact. --Tbeatty 03:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

If you dismiss a conspiracy theory you instantly become reliable - I see this circular argument frequently on wiki. 159.105.80.141 12:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Any crime (such as the murder of 3000 people and the unlawful destruction of buildings in an unsafe manner) which has been planned by two or more persons, (one or more of whom has committed an overt act which is an element of such plan) is the result of a conspiracy and was committed by conspirators and any unproven hypothesis as to the nature of the conspirators or their plan is by defintion a conspiracy theory.

It follows that every explanation possible for the events of 9/11 is in fact a conspiracy theory, therefore the term lacks any descriptive merit whatsoever''' and should not be used in an encyclopedia article about the events of 9/11. User:Pedant 07:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Does anyone disagree with Pedant's argument here? Or do people keep introducing "conspiracy" into the article under the guise of "we've been through this before" because they disagree and don't feel like providing a responsible argument? If "conspiracy" is appropriate to apply to this article, it is also appropriate to apply "conspiracy" to the 9/11 Commission Report's version. It is important to use words that contribute meaning to the article, and it is even more important to use words that describe essential differences between the explanation that most people accept and the "other" explanations that fewer people want to believe. "Conspiracy theory" is obviously meeting a lot of resistance, so is there some other way to describe them without those words? How about "alternative explanations" or "alternative theories" or "unofficial theories" or "unofficial explanations"? There are a lot of other options! Kanodin 01:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Read through the archives. Like I said in my edit summary, we've been through this before.   Pablo   Talk  |  Contributions  06:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The snippet of talk from Mr. Harrison's talk page is important to be relayed here. While I am not satisfied with the response that the argument is merely "ridiculous", it is enough that the point was asked and rejected by consensus.
 * That being said, think about dropping 'conspiracy' and not using any substitution word. Would 9/11 theories be an unreasonable suggestion? Consider the Google hits: "9/11 theories" picks up 4,940,000 Google hits, "9/11 theory" picks up 3,300,000 hits, while "9/11 conspiracy" picks up 1,930,000 hits and "9/11 conspiracies" picks up 2,950,000 hits. Is the title chosen on an expectation that the term is the most popular label? It may turn out that the 9/11 Commission Report and every other theory under the sun are not semantically separable, which lends to why the official account is in the conspiracy article.
 * In the meantime, would it be appropriate to add provisos in an overview regarding this specific controversy? Basically, at the top of the article, state why "conspiracy theory" is being used, and what connotations that the article wants to avoid. Kanodin 09:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The reliable sources that exist in this topic refer to these theories as conspiracy theories. I don't think we need to justify why they are called as such on the top of the page.   Pablo   Talk  |  Contributions  17:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

molten metal
"the difficulty of preparing the building for demolition without being noticed makes controlled demolition implausible." is neither an explaination, nor a refutation of why there is molten metal underground cooking for days. it sounds more like a weak argument against the theory, which is hardly mentioned,it sounds bias, and i vote that it is removed. 10 bucks says this ends in bloodshed 04:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * eh there was more than enough heat from the fires to produce molten aluminium.Geni 04:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * ...and to make it sparkle and glow white, and to make its temperature stay over 1000K for 5 days (also under WTC7)? I won't believe that without a scientific study.
 * I wouldn't remove the discussed sentence completely, as this argument (weak indeed) was brought by many debunkers in newspaper articles. SalvNaut 11:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * no evidence of 1000K? 726C? not that high. Dump enough material on top of a fire and it will stay that hot no problem.
 * That's the point. I wonder what was that material that burned in the rubble which consisted mainly from concrete and steel. And there are numerous witness accounts of having seen molten steel in the rubble (like lava, like in the foundry). Intriguing at least. SalvNaut 13:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * paper probably. Molten steel looks nothing like lava btw so we can safely rule that out.Geni 14:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Not much is needed to satisfy you scientifically. nothing like? SalvNaut 15:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That shows what a camera sees not what a human eye sees.Geni 16:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I have seen no reliable sources that said molten steel flowed for days. Maybe a metallurgist or two can be found? But there is no doubt that conspiracy theorists have twisted non-reliabe reports into something that supports their views. Sort of like the way UFO conspiracy theorists play videos of people seeing lights in the sky as evidence that we were visited by little green men. Even when the people in the UFO videos say "we saw lights that looked like they were from out of this world" doesn't mean they saw extraterrestrials. --Tbeatty 03:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Tbeatty, there are many reports in media about molten metal, molten steel. Here catch this and check for references.
 * Why don't you trust firemen on molten metal?(video, here) Don't you think they've seen many molten things in their lives before? You're definition of reliability is quite rigid as you would only trust metallurgist on molten metal. Of course, we cannot forget that there would be one or more at the place and there would be a lot of to discuss and analyze if steel from the rubble had not been improperly disposed, had not the evidence been destroyed (according to official expert assigned to check and comment on NIST investigation ).
 * And when it comes to UFO, you might want to skim through this list and draw a conclusion. Mine is that many of them must have seen something that most people, including you I suppose, have no knowledge about at all, maybe except for its existence. SalvNaut 19:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

That is approaching its own conspiracy theory - all the firemen and construction workers were noticing phantom heat for days. I believe it was on tv reports for some time.159.105.80.141 18:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Where do we put this video?
You all should check this out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcrF346sS_I

Penn & Teller on 9/11 conspiracy theory.

-- My Ancestor Is a Pirate


 * Pretty much nails it. --Tbeatty 07:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, so this is a source to every debunker's "infinite" knowledge about 9/11 conspiracy theories and debunking them? Congrats... It is laughable. Not even touching the issues and/or scientific arguments. Some minor figures interviewed, but where are, to name few, David R Griffin, Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan? I dare anyone interested to read the book Debunking 9/11 debunking by David R. Griffin. For a start, please try to debunk this. SalvNaut 15:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, Penn and Teller was not a source on debunking conspiracy theories. It is a valuable source on the conpiracy theorists.  Does David Griffin, Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan do the same dance with the funny hat as we saw on the video? As for your video, there is nothing to debunk.  I have no doubt that those people believe those things.  Pardon me if I don't believe that when any old CTer dies, he was killed by Dick Cheney pissing molten arsenic into his Wheaties or sharks with laser beams pulverized his house.  There are people who believe the earth is flat and space aliens will take us to heaven.  It is not our job to debunk that, rather the burden of proof is on those that propose it.  Penn and Teller gives us some insight into the people who hold those beliefs.  What was their exact phrase again? --Tbeatty 03:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It's laughable that any one would even consider the Penn & Teller video to be of any value at all. To me it illustrates a common practice among people against the opponents of the official theory. They don't discuss a single claim made by the alternate theorists. This video contains nothing but character assaults against non-prominent theorists and the false logic that the character of these few negates the arguments of all the alternate theorists. Using hyperbole, they even suggest that we should murder someone who aligns themselves with a particular alternate theory publication. There's no place in the page for this video. Kevin77v 06:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

This cannot be in the article because it is a You Tube video and violates “copy write” protection according to YouTube policy. I have never liked this policy. At this point in time the only people not using YouTube videos are Wikipedia editors. But if a version of this video can be found that does not violate policy it should be in the debunking section because while not “reliable” it is “notable” and because it does use many of the common anti 9/11 conspiracy arguments. Actually I am surprised that the mainstream media did not pick up on this. I thought it would be newsworthy that Penn and Teller would go out of character to make a statement like this. Edkollin 07:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Ed is right. This is apparently posted in violation of copyright.  Personally, I think the policy is a good thing.  Regardless of how widespread copyright violations have become, Wikipedia should steer clear of taking advantage of the situation by linking to infringing downloads.  (Aside: There is plenty wrong with current US copyright law, but this video pretty clearly should be protected by copyright law.) Phiwum 17:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The video is not notable unless important sources write or talk about the video. Leave it out until that happens.--Dcooper 18:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Correct or not Wikipedia is known for printing the social,cultural implications of the article topic. Examples are "this song lyric was referred to in this movie or TV program" or Kate Bush songs were covered by so and so. In this article the South Park's urinal deuce reference is an example.Edkollin 00:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * TV shows and movies are much more notable because of the attention they receive. Anyone can put something on youtube.  I don't think it belongs in the article unless the youtube video is discussed by a media source.--Dcooper 01:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * YouTube is relevant only as to its legality the important point is how notable Penn and Teller are. If we used only internet sources that were discussed in the mainstream media the very article this talk page is about should not have existed until 2005 as that is when the "conspiracy theories" started receiving exposure. Even today there are sections of this article that are basically only discussed on the internet. The video in question has a very large number of hits and commentaries and in 2007 this is a legitimate indicator of cultural relevance. Edkollin 05:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

"debunked"
Nearly all the conspiracy theories have been debunked. Yet the article only uses this term concerning the anti-Semitic theories. Shouldn't we put this term everywhere? It is definitely true that the anti-Semitic conspiracy theories have been debunked but so have all the other ones. Shouldn't we add debunked to all the other theories so they are portrayed the same as the most widely held conspiracy theory on the planet? --Tbeatty 06:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No the term is a judgmental term that should not be used anywhere in the article as a flat statement. Something like "Those attempting to debunk that theory state that etc" is ok because it is being used as a descriptive term Edkollin 06:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Its better to just indicate how they were disproven/why they are disputed, such as pieces of the plane being well-documented within the pentagon and the like, rather than saying "debunked". Show, don't tell. Titanium Dragon 21:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

"Nearly all the conspiracy theories have been debunked." User:Pedant 07:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Shafig bin Laden
Is he Osama's brother or half brother?. The article has been revised to say that he is a half brother. The Wikipedia article on him claims half-brother as does the Washington Post. A quick search I did shows every other reference of him uses the word brother including The Guardian cite used in that section and Fortune Magazine. Edkollin 05:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

WIlliam Rodriguez?
He is listged as a conspiracy proponent at the footer of the article but he was a janitor in the North tower who claims to have heard an explosion in the basement before the plane hit. Shouldn't there be a discussion of this? (NO i'm not a truther; just curious) Mre5765 19:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * He is the lead plaintiff in a RICO suit against President Bush and others charging a conspiracy Edkollin 08:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

That case was dismissed. The governmental defendants were dismissed June 26, 2006, by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on sovereign immunity grounds. (Case No. 05 CV 5402.) The plaintiff's sole argument against dismissal---that the defendants were immune from liability, but not from trial---was laughable. He never served any of the non-governmental defendants named in the complaint, even though he had at least two years to do so. 75.3.122.222 22:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If you have the cites for this dismissal this case should get a brief mention in the other points section Edkollin 01:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There are copies of the court documents dismissing the case here: http://rodriguezlawsuit.googlepages.com/home, more specifically here:  http://rodriguezlawsuit.googlepages.com/14-OpinionandOrderDismissingComplain.pdf and here: http://rodriguezlawsuit.googlepages.com/15-OrderDismissingBalanceofComplaint.pdf Jazz2006 01:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Saddam-al-Qaeda link was a 9/11 conspiracy theory
was saddam hussein linked to al-qaeda, the supposed culprits behind 9/11? in a way, thats just another phony conspiracy theory, much like the ones mentioned on this page. funny thing is, this particular conspiracy theory was pushed by the US government! and it resulted in a pretty huge war! funny how things work out. or, not so funny, given the death and destruction and what not. lets call it what it is.

70.107.12.147 14:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

- Debeo Morium: to be morally bound (Talk | Contribs) 21:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

This should actually be listed as one of the conspiracy theories. Osama is also another theory - no proof as far as I ever saw.159.105.80.141 18:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

really? should we consider listing it? it may qualify as a conspiracy theory. i guess its been pretty much disproved, but it had mainstream backing at one point (assuming you view the bush admin. as "mainstream"... some view it as "extremist" but thats for another discussion).

btw... i very much believe that this is a worthy topic of discussion, so user BQZip01 should stop deleting it from the discussion page. deleting stuff from the talk page just shows that you have an absurd sense of duty and it really just amounts to censorship. this isnt communist china. this is a healthy discourse that you are trying to squash. you cited the "Wiki is not a soapbox" rule, which is primarily a guideline for the main ARTICLE, not the discussion page. this is why the WP:SOAP page specifies that "Wikipedia articles are not..." (read: ARTICLES... not discussion pages). BQZip01, your actions as driven by your absurd sense of duty really just amount to censorship. this isnt communist china. we're having a healthy discourse, and you arent doing much to facilitate it. we all have a responsibility to make wiki articles more informative, which is why we have discussion pages for issues such as these. our duty does not extend to purging the discussion pages of whatever we dont agree with. perhaps this issue we're discussing (the saddam-al-qaeda theory) won't amount to anything worth including in the article, but that's for all us wiki editors to decide collectively (i havent even added anything to the article!), not for you to declare unworthy of even a discussion. 70.107.12.147 14:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

This if put in will have to deal with a lot of parsing. The Administration claimed a Saddam/Al Queda link but never directly said Saddam had knowledge of 9/11 Edkollin


 * Even more parsing would be required as it was always an Iraq/Al Qaeda link, not Saddam per se. I believe the claim was that Iraqi intelligence officers had contacts with Al Qaeda in a third country (Sudan?). I don't recall any claim by the administration that Saddam was involved in 9/11 or that even Iraq was involved so I don't think it belongs in the article.  --Tbeatty 04:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Saddam-Al Quaeda definitely deserves a section in this article, given how many people were (and are!) gullible enough to believe it. Titanium Dragon 05:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't this theory what George W. Bush believed when he invaded Iraq? I remember he's tried to make claims of ties between Hussain and 9/11. SakotGrimshine 07:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This is where the parsing comes in. They claimed ties between Saddam and Al Queda thus letting people infer a Saddam/9/11 connection which the majority of the U.S. public did. President Bush was forced to admit there was no 9/11/Saddam link after numerous press reports and a blanket statement by the 9/11 commission that there were no ties. Even after these statements the percentage of the American Public that believed a 9/11/Saddam tie remained in high 40's percentile if I remember correctly. I have not seen a recent poll on this subject. I started this as a clarification and have realized I have inadvertently made a convincing case for putting this in the article Edkollin 06:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Put in "less common theories" section new Newsweek poll indicating 41% of Americans agree with direct Saddam/9/11 link up 5% from 2004. I put in there because that is where the other Saddam mention is although if 41% agree it is a pretty common idea. It appears the mainstream media,9/11 truth movement and some of us Wikipedia editors have mistakenly thought the story was dead and buried years ago. The percentage of the public agreeing with this theory is higher then for the thories getting tons of ink in this article. Edkollin 05:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This section seems out of place. If 41% is accurate then these people are not the same people that believe in any of the theories on this page because all the theories on this page point to US government involvement.  These people are probably those who have little interest in these issues and have become 'confused' by the way the Iraq War 'feels like' a consequence of 9/11.  I would just delete it but it is interesting - perhaps it should be moved to the Iraq section on Responsibility for the September 11, 2001 attacks.  Corleonebrother 22:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Newsweek Magazine is one of the two main American Newsweeklies and does regular polling so their is no intrinsic reason to doubt the accuracy of the 41% number. Common sense might tell us that the 41% are probably not the same folks who believe in the controlled demolition theory but common sense said the issue was dead and buried. The poll does say anything about it either way. But while it might belong in the other article you mentioned it most defiantly belongs here. The "Saddam" did it view is an as much of an alternate theory to the 9/11 commission (who made a specific point of saying there was no evidence of Saddam's involvement) as the theories presented in this article. This article is not entitled "9/11 conspiracy theories involving the U.S. government". An argument can be made that the Saddam done it theory is more notable then the controlled demolition theory because many more people believe in it. The fact that the conspiracy theory websites,films etc quoted in this article and other places have not mentioned the Saddam theory does not make the Saddam theory less notable(legitimate is another issue) it means there is a disconnect. As for this article the "disconnect" will make this a difficult write with a lot of parsing as mentioned above. The best that might be done is citing reputable sources discussing how a large percentage of the American public came to believe in this particular conspiracy theory Edkollin 04:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I changed the title of this section from 'less common theories' to 'Claims relating to Saddam Hussein' as both points now relate to Saddam and, as you say, the belief is actually quite common. I will try and find a source that discusses possible meanings of the poll result.  I'm not sure what you mean by 'parsing' and 'disconnect' though.  Corleonebrother 18:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Like the change in the section title. Added denials from President Bush and the 9/11 commission and John McCain and support by a Congressmen who was vice chairmen of the subcommittee on terrorism at the time he made his claim. The "disconnect" is in thinking or POV between both mainstream and CT sources (and Wikipedia editors) who have largely ignored this theory since 2004 and a large minority of Americans. The "parsing" as mentioned above will be in reporting statements by Bush Administration officials discussing an "Al Queda/Saddam" link but not a "Saddam/9/11" link. Did they mean to purposely "imply" a Saddam/9/11 link or did the public hear what it wanted to hear. Wiki editors will have do word tap dances not to "mislead" the readers ourselvesEdkollin 02:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC).
 * The claim that there were operational contacts between the Iraqi Ba'athist regime and al-Qaeda in the planning or execution of the 9/11 attacks definitely counts as a conspiracy theory. It is fueled by speculation, circumstantial evidence, and fantasy.IanThal 16:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Operation Northwood comparison
Taken from article:


 * It should also be noted that whereas the World Trade Center attacks could have had up to 50,000 casualities, Operation Northwoods would have had none.

The declassified documents explicitly state that some of the acts of terrorism proposed could be either real or simulated. For example, it proposes sinking a boatload of Cuban immigrants, either real or simulated. It seems obvious that a real sinking involves sinking an actual boat with actual immigrants in it. Nathan Baum 12:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The way it is written, it reads like an apologetic rather than a factual statement. It should be removed or edited. 24.150.203.74 07:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Mineta Testimony at 9/11 Commission Hearing
The following is testimony of the Secretary of Transporation, Norman Mineta, that comes from the 9/11 Commission Hearing: MR. HAMILTON: We thank you for that. I wanted to focus just a moment on the Presidential Emergency Operating Center. You were there for a good part of the day. I think you were there with the vice president. And when you had that order given, I think it was by the president, that authorized the shooting down of commercial aircraft that were suspected to be controlled by terrorists, were you there when that order was given?

MR. MINETA: No, I was not. I was made aware of it during the time that the airplane coming into the Pentagon. There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, "The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to, "The plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the vice president, "Do the orders still stand?" And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?"

You can find the quote here: http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hearing2/9-11Commission_Hearing_2003-05-23.htm. Or you can watch the video of it on google video here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3722436852417384871&q=mineta+testimony.

It has been argued that rather than the orders mentioned being to shoot down the plane, it makes more sense that the orders were to not shoot down the plane. Hence, the questioning by the aide. If the orders were to shoot down the plane there would be little reason to question it.

Regardless of the truth regarding this testimony, this is something I feel is certainly worthy of inclusion but I'm not sure where this should be included in the page and the best way to do so. Kevin77v 08:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reliable source that makes that argument? Find one, and then we can discuss if it belongs in the article.   Pablo   Talk  |  Contributions  08:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The argument is presented by David Ray Griffin in his book 911 Commission Report:Ommissions and Distortions. As well, it appears here on the 911 Research website.  No doubt, it appears on many other conspiracy theory websites as well. Kevin77v 16:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You think there'd be "little reason to question" an order to shoot down a plane full of innocent passengers?216.165.12.46

I've added the Mineta testimony to the page. If there is a better way to place it in the article or word it, be my guest. Kevin77v 23:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 9/11 conspiracy theories article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. If you want to talk about the issues I would suggest the reference desk or better yet, an online forum dedicated to these discussions. RxS 20:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Odigo Instant Messages?
I couldn't find mention of this issue when I quickly viewed the article but is there any mention of the IM's received by the employees of Odigo? That seems to be one of the unexplained incidents regarding 9/11. The story goes as follows:

"At least two Israel-based employees of Odigo received warnings of an imminent attack in New York City more than two hours before the first plane hit the WTC. Odigo had its U.S. headquarters two blocks from the WTC. The Odigo employees, however, did not pass the warning on to the authorities in New York City, a move that could have saved thousands of lives."

I think that this should be explored and added to the article. Jtpaladin 18:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * One of the Alex Jones videos deals with this or a similar topic. There was a supposed Fox News video on this topic that was never aired Edkollin 03:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I found an article about Odigo says workers were warned of attack that I think is a good source. Oddly, the trail ends there and no one seems to have followed this up. Claims that this was a joke and someone got it right are absurd. That's gotta be a billion to one shot if anything. Jtpaladin 12:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * With no follow up this article cite belongs in the "Other Points of Interest" section Edkollin 05:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe Haaretz must be a premier reliable source for wiki. Odigo is a major 911 conspiracy theory - Other Point of Interest? is where the minor stuff goes. The news articles (citation) about the two different school boys in NYC ( both of Middle Eastern ancestry ) who seemed to know about 911 on 901 seemed to even interest the FBI for a brief moment in time. ( One boy I believe pointed out his school window and told his teacher that the WTC was not going to be there next week, the other boy ( a nicer kid it appears ) tearfully told his teacher not to go downtown on 911 because it wasn't safe. Odigo and two Arab boys all knew more than the FBI and CIA - they must have been good guessers. 159.105.80.141 14:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, no source other than "I heard some Middle Eastern kids..." Good logic there. I think my grandma used that logic when she was sure of a space-alien invasion in 1976... — BQZip01 —  talk 19:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I suggested the cite go to the "minor stuff" area based on being presented with that cite and that cite only. If I was presented with more credible cites theorizing Odigo as being part of a 9/11 conspiracy I would have recommended it go under the Israel/Jewish conspiracy theories section. As for the "Other Points of Interest" the Bush/Bin Ladin family "Flight of the Saudis" is listed there and that while not being discussed as often as the "controlled demolition" theory it is discussed as much or more then Odigo so I do not no how minor that particular section is Edkollin 05:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The Wall Street Journal - May 30, 2007 has an interesting article "The Long Fall Of 130 Liberty St". They are having a hard time taking down one of the building across the street from WTC. With what appeared to be substantial damage the darn building - built i the 1970s - is going to cost a fortune to tear down. It just wont fall - have they tried kerosene, according to the government, a little kerosene and lots of black smoke and down she'll come ( in 1 hour +-).PS From all my searching I can only assume that 911 was a day of magic - 910 and before and 912 and after, kerosene can't melt steel. They missed their chance, only on 911 could you melt steel - not very good planning on thier part - Odigo obviously didn't call these guys or they could have "pulled" their building to.159.105.80.141 15:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The official story doesn't say that the fire melted the steel. Also, your claim that fire can't melt steel is ludicrous.   Pablo   Talk  |  Contributions  14:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Gotta go with Pablo on this one. Your rambling above doens't appear to make a lot of sense. Please slow down and type coherently. In addition, maybe your assumptions aren't based on fact.
 * Kerosene can melt steel in the right circumstances
 * Kerosene is not the same as jet fuel, but it is close, as is diesel fuel which can weaken steel to the point of collapse: Oakland bridge collapse
 * It would not have needed to melt the steel to make the building collapse, only weaken it.
 * The ensuing fire and collapse could have raised the temperature of the rubble and melted some metals
 * The melted metal that was seen is not necessarily molten steel.
 * In short, you make assumptions and dismiss any explanation contrary to your preconceived "conclusions" as "that's what they want you to think." Neither is proof of a conspiracy. — BQZip01 —  talk 19:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Wiki has some articles on jet fuel, kerosene and steel. Kerosene and jet fuel are both classified as "cool" fuels. To get either above the 600 -700 degree level requires factors that most skyscraper offices lack - forced oxygen, etc. Your paper and office furniture would actually be more likely to do the job. Haaretz must be "reliable" and the NYC newspaper reports about the boys being investigated are available on the web.


 * No they wouldn't. Hydrocarbon fuels are still hotter than burning wood and other office supplies. For carbon burning in pure oxygen, the maximum burning temperature is 3,200°C; for hydrogen it is 2,750°C. Thus, for virtually any hydrocarbons, the maximum flame temperature, starting at ambient temperature and using pure oxygen, is approximately 3,000°C. This maximum flame temperature is reduced by two-thirds if air is used rather than pure oxygen. The reason is that every molecule of oxygen releases the heat of formation of a molecule of carbon monoxide and a molecule of water. If pure oxygen is used, this heat only needs to heat two molecules (carbon monoxide and water), while with air, these two molecules must be heated plus four molecules of nitrogen. Thus, burning hydrocarbons in air produces only one-third the temperature increase as burning in pure oxygen because three times as many molecules must be heated when air is used. The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1,000°C—hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1,500°C.


 * But it is very difficult to reach this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best ratio. Typically, diffuse flames are fuel rich, meaning that the excess fuel molecules, which are unburned, must also be heated. It is known that most diffuse fires are fuel rich because blowing on a campfire or using a blacksmith’s bellows increases the rate of combustion by adding more oxygen. This fuel-rich diffuse flame can drop the temperature by up to a factor of two again. This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500°C to 650°C range. The WTC fire was clearly a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke. Soot is generated by incompletely burned fuel; hence, the WTC fire was fuel rich—hardly surprising with 90,000 L of jet fuel available. Factors such as flame volume and quantity of soot decrease the radiative heat loss in the fire, moving the temperature closer to the maximum of 1,000°C. However, it is highly unlikely that the steel at the WTC experienced temperatures above the 750–800°C range. All reports that the steel melted at 1,500°C are using imprecise terminology at best.


 * Structural steel begins to soften around 425°C and loses about half of its strength at 650°C. This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse. It was noted above that the wind load controlled the design allowables. The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the yield strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire.


 * The additional problem was distortion of the steel in the fire. The temperature of the fire was not uniform everywhere, and the temperature on the outside of the box columns was clearly lower than on the side facing the fire. The temperature along the 18 m long joists was certainly not uniform. Given the thermal expansion of steel, a 150°C temperature difference from one location to another will produce yield-level residual stresses. This produced distortions in the slender structural steel, which resulted in buckling failures. Thus, the failure of the steel was due to two factors: loss of strength due to the temperature of the fire, and loss of structural integrity due to distortion of the steel from the non-uniform temperatures in the fire.


 * So, in short, yes, the fire had the ability to bring down the buildings. — BQZip01 —  talk 14:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC) plagarized from http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

The Oakland article says the tanker was carrying gas - it appeared to burn for hours and was able to sag a beam ( did the road surface consist of concrete or pavement (oil based)? I doubt the physics of the bridge and 911 are even close - reason (that's all we would have seen on tv for weeks).


 * Well, that depends on your definition of close. It was a sustained fire fueled by a hydrocarbon-based fuel which caused steel to weaken and the structure to collapse. However a bridge beam is not designed to hold a building above it, 50,000 people weren't working on it, etc. Your logic is horrendous: it can't be related because the news didn't report it for weeks and weeks? Um, let's go with that one for a minute...why haven't your theories been on the news for the past 6 years then? — BQZip01 —  talk 14:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

A slow smoky trash fire has yet to melt/weaken my trash barrel - a hot roaring fire and the barrel survives another day. The beams were designed to take a hit and a fire but failed rapidly, totally and at fairly low temperature. (Cockburn appears to be angry at conspiracy theorists because he believe it is a red herring drawing attention away from poor construction. In honesty, if the official version is correct, the building would have had to be massively under-code. This may be another theory that seems to have little play anywhere.) But assuming the building was not made substandard the fire, melting/weakening... official theory comes way up short.


 * A slow smoky trash fire is FAR less similar to the bridge, so using that as an example is pitiful: there is no stress on the trash can. Try the same thing with a pallet of bricks above it and see how long it lasts. As for how the official explanation comes up short, please read above. — BQZip01 —  talk 14:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Cockburn's theory of poor construction may not be as farfetched. Does anyone know if the same architect designed all three building, the same contractor, etc. The height of the building should be irrelvant - how many stories above you in a fire may be the key. Are there any other buildings, anywhere, that just collapse starting at approximately the same floor from the top due to fire. I would expect a twisting, creaking, growning, leaning mess in most cases - instantaneous catastrophic total collapse must be unique (maybe a design flaw?).159.105.80.141 14:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Leaning - near impossible. The building was not designed to sway in that manner (otherwise it would collapse from lateral forces).
 * Creaking and groaning - These are primarily associated with a fire in a wood structure, not steel
 * Twisting - How exactly would the structure twist? Why would it?
 * Instantaneous catastrophic total collapse/design flaw - Nearly every large building has a redundant design that allows for loss of one primary structural member, such as a column. However, when multiple members fail, the shifting loads eventually overstress the adjacent members and the collapse occurs like a row of dominoes falling down.


 * The perimeter tube design of the WTC was highly redundant. It survived the loss of several exterior columns due to aircraft impact, but the ensuing fire led to other steel failures. Many structural engineers believe that the weak points—the limiting factors on design allowables—were the angle clips that held the floor joists between the columns on the perimeter wall and the core structure. With a 700 Pa floor design allowable, each floor should have been able to support approximately 1,300 t beyond its own weight. The total weight of each tower was about 500,000 t.


 * As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.1 It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down.


 * The World Trade Center was not defectively designed. No designer of the WTC anticipated, nor should have anticipated, a 90,000 L Molotov cocktail on one of the building floors. Skyscrapers are designed to support themselves for three hours in a fire even if the sprinkler system fails to operate. This time should be long enough to evacuate the occupants. The WTC towers lasted for one to two hours—less than the design life, but only because the fire fuel load was so large. No normal office fires would fill 4,000 square meters of floor space in the seconds in which the WTC fire developed. Usually, the fire would take up to an hour to spread so uniformly across the width and breadth of the building. This was a very large and rapidly progressing fire (very high heat but not unusually high temperature).


 * So, in short, sorry, but the facts don't back up your theories. A skeptic demands evidence and proof. An idiot denies evidence and proof. — BQZip01 —  talk 15:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe an idiot wouldn't know evidence and proof if he saw it ( an different version of the same thought). Where did all this fuel come from - I heard someone say that planes only carried what they needed on a flight plus a little and the fire ball pretty well took care of most of what there was ( of course some people think that kerosene can't explode). Some defenders of the faith have switched to the paper and office furniture for a fire source, I am glad that wiki doesn't like that one.159.105.80.141 20:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * LOL. Fair enough (nice rewrite or an different version). A lot of the fuel came from the jets. While a lot of it was burned in the explosion, not all of it was. I have seen a plane crash (trust me, you don't ever want to see one), but fires from the incident burned for at least 10+ hours after the crash (there was no way to put the fire out...and I am not allowed to explain why, so please don't ask). If you don't believe me, fine. There is nothing more I can say, but I am telling the truth. In short, a fully loaded jet would splash fuel EVERYWHERE on impact and a lot of it would stay right there in the buildings. — BQZip01 —  talk 01:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 *  [...] I am not allowed to explain why, so please don't ask). If you don't believe me, fine. There is nothing more I can say, but I am telling the truth. 

The very inclusion of those lines cause me to question what you have to contribute to the conversation.IanThal 16:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Like I said, you don't believe me, fine. As for questioning what I have to contribute, my opinion is as valid as the next person's. I have given reliable and well researched information (see above) in the past and on other pages. You shouldn't have any reason to doubt my integrity or my honesty. — BQZip01 —  talk 19:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

What burned for 10+ hours was likely not being carried on a commercial flight - willie petes, etc. Kerosene, jet fuel doesn't cut it as far as steel damage goes. I have read - may or may not be true - that firefighters etc were on or near the floors that were on fire ( crash floors) and they didn't report blast furnace conditions. Experienced, trained firefighters were totally surprised by the whole collapse scenario. After the event I suspect patriotism overwhelmed science and experience ( say if two planes not connected to terrorists had accidently ran into WTC ( remote but just for discussion's sake ) I suspect many of the people involved - firefighters, newsmen, politicians would have asked many more technical questions an demamded that not a bit of debris be touched until the cause was totally researched. 159.105.80.141 13:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * What burned for 10+ hours was likely not being carried on a commercial flight - willie petes, etc. Based on what? — BQZip01 —  talk 14:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Kerosene, jet fuel doesn't cut it as far as steel damage goes. See above discussion regarding steel and its weakening point due to heat. — BQZip01 —  talk 14:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have read - may or may not be true - that firefighters etc were on or near the floors that were on fire (crash floors) and they didn't report blast furnace conditions. Well, since heat rises, this wouldn't exactly be surprising. Where did you read this? Kinda hard to discuss "I heard somewhere something like..." — BQZip01 —  talk 14:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Experienced, trained firefighters were totally surprised by the whole collapse scenario. EVERYONE was surprised and horrified by the collapse. Gulliani was surprised. Firefighters were surprised. Engineers were surprised. So we looked into it to see what happened. This is what the experts found: http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html — BQZip01 —  talk 14:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * After the event I suspect patriotism overwhelmed science and experience (say if two planes not connected to terrorists had accidently ran into WTC (remote but just for discussion's sake) I suspect many of the people involved - firefighters, newsmen, politicians would have asked many more technical questions an demamded that not a bit of debris be touched until the cause was totally researched.
 * A small bomber ran into the empire state building in heavy fog in the 1940s, but it didn't nearly have the mass or speed of the jet aircraft in question, so the scenario has happened before.
 * Maybe they would and maybe they wouldn't. That is merely speculation...as are most of your assertions. — BQZip01 —  talk 14:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

An aside - I am interested in metal-casting - hobby only. Instead of buying propane tanks, regulators, oxygen, fans, crucibles, Tiger torch, etc, I would like to save the money involved and use kerosene instead. Any links to this? Splashing kerosene in the open air so far has not gotten me very far. I suspect I am missing a step - but if it was done once I should be able to do it again - no special equipment needed I hope. So far I have not been able to get copper to melt - lead sort of works but I can do that on my stove anyway. The open air part may be a problem ( I also have to keep adding kerosene and an hour isn't enough, I have always quit after a few hours with a hot copper pipe that wont melt. I am a long way from steel but I am sure there is a website that has the "secret". Thanks.159.105.80.141 13:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, there is no claim that steel melted due to fire. The fire weakened the structure and along with variations in lateral forces caused the buildings to collapse. Please read this to understand why your hobby is a waste of time, but the WTC towers did indeed collapse due to the fire. — BQZip01 — talk 15:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I was afraid that kerosene wouldnt/couldn't melt much of anything - worth a shot though. So according to MIT and tms and NIST a fire not any hotter than my kitchen stove took down two building because it weakened them. ( Great design - I would avoid this architect. ) I understand that the designer ( said architect ) said a plane would have the affect of a mosquito on a screen door ( re his building - of course this was before the mosquito struck ). Per tms, besides the fire it appears that the structural damage only required my kitchen stove to bring em down. It appears that whoever designed WTC7 only needed my stove ( hold it that one didn't get hit by anything). I have heard when the Commission ignored 7 that some enterprising guy had a diesel fire raging inside that pumped fuel all over the place and that fire brought 7 down. Is it true it fell 23 minutes after the annoucement of its demise?( the news guys et al should coordinate this stuff better ). Maybe the fire on the 11th floor in 1974 that raged really hot for many hours weakened the support beams of the entire plaza. You never know when a hidden design flaw will show up - hopefully other skyscrapers aren't ready to fall at 500F degrees plus a mosquito.159.105.80.141 19:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Browsing the tms site I hit the NIST report which rebukes the "pancake" theory ( and the heat theory). It appears that the pancake theory is an essential part of the whole story. The magically evenly distributed heat that weakened( they claim 500F) and stretched the floor joists and then, because of inertia could only fall vertically was rejected by NIST. TMS says in effect - any collapse is going to be funnelled down the tube due to weight. TMS says that even at the "weakening stage" the steel still was 2 to 3 stronger than needed ( but due to thermal expansion it tore itself to pieces ( at 500F) - did the architect forget thermal expansion in his design - my stove doesn't expand any of my pots that much I hope.159.105.80.141 19:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Revelvant?
Is this page on 9/11 CT's really relevant. Its like saying the Moon is made from Cheese, or like taking David Icke seriously. It just plays into the hands of the idiots that come up with these theories, who at the end of the day are/ were trying to get to get 15 minutes of fame on the backs of the victims of 9/11.Freedom is&#39;nt free 13:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 9/11 CTs are notable enough to make the news fairly regularly, so they deserve a WP page. 69.59.212.172 20:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If the moon was made from cheese theory was believed by a decent minority of people had numerous web pages and discussion boards talking about that theory then that theory would belong as a Wikipedia article. And I notice that Mr. Icke has a very lengthy Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is as much of a pop culture barometer as it is a encyclopedia Edkollin 04:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I have yet to see any reliable source state that there are people who believe the moon is made of cheese. User:Pedant 07:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * But there is this Edkollin 06:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

What happened to [[Image:CNN911scrn.jpg]] ???
Who deleted that image, and why? There should be a mechanism in Wikipedia to enforce accountability of those who remove images! --AVM 19:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There is a mechanism. It's called peer pressure.
 * I didn't remove it, but assuming it was an image from a copyrighted broadcast, I think they were right to remove the image IAW WP:MoS.
 * Just my [[Image:2005-Penny-Uncirculated-Obverse-cropped.png|30px]][[Image:2005 Penny Rev Unc D.png|30px]]. — BQZip01 —  talk 19:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It was removed for wp:csd - Missing fair-use rationale. Tom Harrison Talk 23:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Theories
I added inline text to the effect that the 'mainstream account' is itself a theory. This was reverted. Since the mainstream account has certainly not been proven, Wikipedia should not be pushing it as if it were fact, for Neutral POV, it must be presented as a theory, however widely promulgated. User:Pedant 18:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The article does not violate NPOV. Read through the archives.   Pablo   Talk  |  Contributions  18:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Nonetheless, it is a theory and not proven facts. I am re-adding the theory verbiage unless someone can show reliable sources that state that it (the 'mainstream account') is not a theory.  Being 'widely accepted' is not sufficient for anything more than placing the phrase 'widely accepted' before the word theory. It is however a theory, and only supported by evidence that is mostly disputable and widely disputed. Stating the mainstream account as if it were fact is not acceptably neutral. Especially not within an article on conspiracy theories. Besides, if the mainstream account is not a conspiracy theory, why is it even in the article?? User:Pedant 22:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It is in the article to provide context. For example, you cannot say the Bible is false and never mention its contents once. — BQZip01 —  talk 22:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The theory that 2 planes can destroy 3 buildings has no basis in logic. Building 7 was so clearly demolished with explosions it doesn't take a leap of imagination to see what happend with the towers? 82.217.41.25 08:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

wording; "mainstream" journalists and researchers in intro
Is there a better way that we can think of to refer to the vast number of popular media publications as well as independent authors and journalists whose work is has contributed, among other things to the mainstream account that we have of the events of 9/11. it seems that any work which doesnt promote a conspiracy theory is passed off as "mainstream" which in some ways makes it seem less legitimate (even though it should be more legitimate). Anyone have an idea for a better wording of this phrase? Bonus Onus 20:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC).

From google definitions synonyms "prevailing thought" which could be translated to "prevailing theory". The theory of the "leading opinion makers" Edkollin 05:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Fact not conspiracy
"On September 17, 2001,[212] the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz' reported that four hours after the attack the FBI arrested five Israelis who had been filming the smoking skyline from the roof of their company's building for "puzzling behavior." The Israelis were said to have been videotaping the disaster with cries of joy and mockery.[213] On June 21, 2002, ABC reported that the FBI has not reached a consensus on whether they were Israeli intelligence operatives but concluded they had no advance knowledge of the September 11 attacks.[214] The five were released and deported to Israel on November 20-21, 2001.[215]"

This is a fact, not a conspiracy theory. Why is not on the main page? It's a conspiracy theory in itself that it appears to reside here as an afterthought. Marlinspike 11:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It appears to be a fact that a newspaper reported some people, who were said to be from Israel (but of unspecified ethnicity; you are aware that quite a few Moslems live in Israel, right?), and who were said by unspecified sources to have appeared joyful to those unspecified sources. (I vaguely recall reading the unspecified sources who reported the "joy" was a single person, observing the arrestees from a distance, and even she did not appear very certain what she really saw.) The whole thing appears to be vague rumor-mongering rather than anything real. Weregerbil 14:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

synthesis template
i am removing the template since the article appears to be adequately footnoted to me and morton devonshire gave no reasons on this talk page for the addition of the template Mujinga 17:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

this article
expresses far too much subjective opinion. it needs to be more even and scientific and the tone sould be less hysterical.

but then I guess this is an open site... A subject such as this is open to manipulation and adjustment by parties both for and against such theories so has little value as a resource.

simplifying this page into source material only is possibly a good idea


 * Specific suggestions? Edkollin 15:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Request quote
Request quote in section Less common theories. Could not access Judi McLeod of Canada Free Press suggested the possible involvement of the mafia theory article source. --Francisco Valverde 21:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Kids with Prior Knowledge
Somewhere in the archived thing on Odigo a reference is made to students who mentioned the coming destruction of the towers to their teacher a few days before 9-11. Source was missing as noted by contributor BQZip0. This is covered in Newsweek, October, 2001, by Jonathan Alter.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_kmnew/is_200110/ai_kepm316210 --Jcblackmon 22:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this needs to be added
http://www.nypost.com/seven/07162007/news/columnists/9_11_skeptics_lunatic_fringe_columnists_andrea_peyser.htm?

--Tbeatty 20:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

A 9/11 conspiracy movie so revealing, it can't even be mentioned on wikipedia?
Or maybe it should be?

I'm talking about the The 911 Octopus. (1 hr 33 min., you can find it on Google Video...) Shouldn't it be listed with the other conspiracy films?

70.105.48.94 22:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion? OK, have it your way...


This pic was repeatedly removed on a number of shifting pretexts, the most recent being from an editor who says that he doesn't see what this image has to do with any 9-11 conspiracy theories. Can anyone more knowledgeable on the subject perhaps shed some light on explaining what this image has to do with 9-11 conspiracy theories? Os Cangaceiros (Yippie!) 02:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you give a reference for the claims in the caption? This "infamous" frame is new to me (but I'm a casual observer). Phiwum 03:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I think that's the first thing. But in any event, it's placement in the energy weapon section is a non sequitur and indicates that it will always run into WP:SYN issues. If you have to ask others to explain what it has to do with 9-11 conspiracy theories then you shouldn't be adding it in the first place. To me it's pretty clear that it's just part of the impact that can be seen on the right hand side of the building. RxS 03:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Uh, I think the picture shows debris exiting the other side of the building...nothing else. Anything else read into the photo is probably speculation. The video quality is too poor to make any specific conclusion. As to it being a computer animation, how do you get multiple news agencies to video it from multiple angles and then cover it up. It's ridiculous. — BQZip01 —  talk 04:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It doesn't really matter what we think (although I agree with RxS and BQZip), to be included in the article we need a reliable source that suggest the photo is evidence of doctoring the video. I'm willing to bet a lot of money that no such source is found.   Pablo   Talk  |  Contributions  09:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

All the conspiracy theories about this event are ridiculous. None of them pass the litmus test for sanity.--Beguiled 21:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, but sanity is just a conspiracy by the sane people to keep the others in the dark. By definition, if you have sanity you are part of the conspiracy.  --Tbeatty 06:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If sanity is a definable state of mind then it is possible for everyone to fall outside that definition. If everyone fell outside that definition then the definition of sane could hardly be relied on if it was defined by the insane. Could it? If you believe there is a reality then reality is unchanging and consensus does not define it. 121.45.121.10 00:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * They government could not have CGIed the plane in to the minds of all the people who looked up and screamed "Oh my God, another plane." This is pure idiocy. Complete and total stupidity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.200.142.206 (talk) 04:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Truth Movement article
I have started re-writing the article on the 9/11 Truth Movement and I would like to invite comments. It is currently here as it is not yet finished. Thanks, Corleonebrother 17:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, it might be inherent in writing that type of page, but I was hard pressed to find a single reliable source. Gtadoc 02:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Which ones in particular would you say are unreliable, given the context of the article? There are quite a few mainstream media sources and the alternative media sources are mostly websites that are central to the truth movement.  Corleonebrother 18:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

To do list review
It seems that the directive "Note that citation [1] refers to WTC 7 only and not buildings 1 and 2." is satisfied. We should consider removing it from the to do list. I also added a link to the Operation Northwoods page; and am removing the corresponding to do directive. Kanodin 19:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I am removing the directive "Note that citation [1] refers to WTC 7 only and not buildings 1 and 2." from the "to do" list. Kanodin 03:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Historical 9/11 conspiracy theories
Some of the theories mentioned on this page have been throroughly debunked by other conspiracy theorists (referred to as 'hoaxes' or 'errors'). For example the claims relating to Jews and Israel, and the 'Pod' and 'Flash' claims. I don't think we should remove them from article entirely, but I think it should be clear that they are historical in the sense that they are not (at least not now) the prevailing views among 9/11 conspiracy theorists. Compare this to the controlled demolition, NORAD stand-down, and President's Behaviour sections for example - these elements are included as part of all 9/11 'inside-job' conspiracy theories. Corleonebrother 23:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think all these conspiracy theories have been pretty thoroughly debunked...not a lot separates them in that regard. I would think they would rise or fall together. RxS 04:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * But my point is that they are all specific variations on the one big theory that the US government is responsible. All those who advocate that general theory say 1. The WTC was destroyed by controlled demolition, 2. NORAD was made to stand down, 3. The President and Secret Service behaviour was odd, 4. Motives were clear (money/power/oil), 5. Cover-up is obvious.  This should be stated near the top of the article (a macroscopic view of what the 'inside-job theory' always includes).  Then the variations in views about specific parts (e.g. how the WTC Towers were destroyed, what exactly happened on the planes, at the Pentagon, and to Flight 93) should be discussed in the sections below that.
 * As for the debunking, members of the 9/11 truth movement say precisely that the debunking media cleverly avoids the strongest claims and debunks only the hoaxes and errors (i.e. using them as straw man arguments). Then, they say, the 'most legitimate' arguments are discredited by association.  Corleonebrother 19:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * But the 9/11 truth movement isn't the final arbiter of 9/11 conspiracy theories...there's lot's of conspiracy theories around and the only way to distinguish them is by using reliable and expert sources. When you do that you find that there really isn't much difference between controlled demolition and energy weapons (or whatever) when it comes to scientific veracity. They should all be treated the same. Now, if you're saying that you want to present the content from the general to the specific I'm not sure I have an issue with that (depending on how it's done), but to depreciate one theory over another because of what one set of conspiracy theorists say is not right. RxS 21:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Old stuff at top of talk page
Can we remove the old AfD flag from Aug 2006? It's almost a year old. Kanodin 03:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think those stay infinitely. -WarthogDemon 22:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Architects & Engineers FOR 9/11 Truth
The page begins by saying that 9/11 truth is not supported by any architects or engineers. I have a link directly contradicting that statement: http://www.ae911truth.org/ --ShurizenVenra 02:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The page makes no such claim. BTW it is spelled "Engineers"  — BQZip01 —  talk 05:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course I know that, it was a simple typo, everyone makes them. Also if you'll look in their About Us section you'll see this: "We are a non-partisan association of Architects, Engineers, and affiliates, who are dedicated to exposing the falsehoods and to revealing truths about the “collapses” of the WTC high-rises on 9/11/01." Therefore it does make this claim. --ShurizenVenra 00:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess I should have been more specific: The wikipedia page makes no such claim. — BQZip01 —  talk 04:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not see the page at this time making a claim that "9/11 Truth is not supported by any architects or engineers" just a "vast majority". That being said I will put your link under the supportive webpages section Edkollin 02:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Over 200 footnotes
Just like I saw in 2006 Duke University lacrosse case, I see that this article has over 200 footnotes and is over 130KB in size. That suggests to me that it is refactor time. It seems like Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center has already been a refactor out of this article. Any objections? Where to slice? We could start by just making the "External links" section its own article...--SallyForth123 10:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for splitting article
I agree that this article is too long and would like to propose the following new articles are created to take some of the information from this page...


 * 9/11 Opinion Polls - this would include the huge paragraph currently in 'Origins and Reception' and the whole section 'Claims relating to Saddam Hussein' - this article could discuss in more depth the reliability of each of the polls and state clearly exactly what questions were asked and what the responses were. It could also include 'Media reception' section.  (To see this potential new article under construction, please click here.)
 * Suggested US government motives for 9/11 - this would include the sections 'Motives' (which could be greatly expanded) and 'Links between the Bush Family and Bin Laden Family' - it could also mention other alleged acts of false-flag terrorism that 9/11 is sometimes compared to. (To see this potential new article under construction, please click here.)
 * The section 'Claims relating to Jews and Israel' could be moved to the article 'Responsibility for the 9/11 Attacks' and put into the 'Other Culpability' section. And (if we can find some numbers) the 'Jewish plot' theories could also be mentioned in '9/11 Opinion Polls'.

Other than the 'Media Reaction' and 'Criticism' sections, this article would then contain only information relating to the physical events of the day that are disputed. We could explain at the top of the article that this page relates to physical 'evidence' that conspiracy theorists bring up to suggest government complicity, with a link to the new 'suggested US government motives' article. We would also need to make it clear that not all 9/11 conspiracy theories point to the US government being responsible - this would link to '9/11 opinion polls' where you can read about Saddam theories and possibly Jewish plot theories as well.

Please let me know what you think about this proposal. Thanks, Corleonebrother 11:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know, I think a little boiling down is in order. This goes into a lot of detail, and ventures into arguing for the theories rather than describing them. A little editing here is all that's needed. RxS 15:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm concerned that those "split" articles would become POV forks.  Pablo   Talk  |  Contributions  03:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the '9/11 opinion polls' one would be fairly easy to keep NPOV as it would just state the facts, questions and responses on each poll without discussion. We'd just need a brief explanation at the top about why some polls are more reliable than others.  The 'suggested motives' page could be a little trickier, but the use of 'suggested' in the article title would make it clear enough that the article is about the speculations of conspiracy theorists, based mainly on the perceived benefits the government has had from 9/11.  I am not aware of anywhere on wikipedia that 'beneficiaries of 9/11' is presented (independent of the conspiracy theories).  I think this would be interesting, but it would be easier to keep a 'suggested motives' article NPOV than a 'beneficiaries of 9/11' article NPOV.  Corleonebrother 13:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The last thing we need is two more pages about 9/11 conspiracy theories. Tom Harrison Talk 18:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This article needs shortening and taking bits out here and there is not going to do it. For me, the obvious way to split it is to remove the parts that are not directly about the different theories, since these sections make up most of the article.  I think a page showing the results of opinion polls, if done right, would easily be kept NPOV and could also be linked to from the main 9/11 page as I think it would be of interest to people who are not interested in reading about the conspiracy theories themselves.  The other article is because not only are the suggested motives a quite different subject to the suggested hypotheses about events of the day, but also because the section is very short and needs improving.  I would expand this section now, but that would seem counterproductive to my aim of shortening the article.  Corleonebrother 19:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The 9/11 opinion polls should not have been moved out. A separate 9/11 opinion poll article is ok. First there was no consensus for it. More importantly if you look at Wikipedia articles say on a specific pop music group you will get a lot of media reaction pro and con and while you will not get opinion polls many of the articles will mention sales, downloads etc which are a similar concept. Trying to shorten this article to recommended length is as the cliché says trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. There are many theories that have nothing to do with one another or represent fundamentally opposing points of view. Since these theories are highly disputed and in some cases complicated concepts a pure listing inadequately informs the readers. You need both to explain the theories and what is in dispute. Edkollin 07:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for supporting the opinion polls article. My main reason for taking the paragraph out of this article was that the information was a duplicate of the information in the new article.  I didn't think there would be opposition to this so this is why I did not seek a consensus first - sorry!  If you'd like to put the information back in, go ahead, but perhaps in an easier-to-read format (and leave the link to the main article so that the reader can find more information if required).  I'm not sure what you mean by the second half of your comment - what is a 'pure listing'?  My idea is to separate out the suggested motives from the suggested events of the day.  Corleonebrother 19:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "Pure listing" would look like this List of terrorist incidents. There is a movement among some here to make this article look like that. Upon further review why do both an article and a listing?. This is common Wikipedia practice.New Wave Music,List of New Wave bands and artists Edkollin 19:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

Since i am making a formal request to move this page i wanted to add this section (right now opinion on this seem to be spread over many sections, so i wanted to make a single spot for the discussion.

Lets be perfectly clear here, wikipedia is not being completely objective by using "conspiracy theories" to identify this article. We already admitted that this title has negative connotations, even if it is an accurate description. But how often have we used it to describe more mainstream conspiracy theories in wikipedia. As stated above by definition the official report that Al Queda did it is in itself a conspiracy theory, yet how many times do you see it referred to as such in wikipedia? Time and time again throughout wikipedia when referring to a group conspiring against another group it isn't called a "conspiracy theory" unless it holds a biased POV. I propose the title "9/11 alternative theories", it is a neutral as you can get, on both sides. Debeo Morium 15:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No. The fact that "conspiracy theory" is often used as a pejorative term doesn't make it any less of a conspiracy theory. "Alternative theories" is too broad.  Mel sa  ran  (formerly Salaskаn) 16:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The article does mention that the "conspiracy theorists" point out that the mainstream theory fits the definition of a conspiracy theory. I would merge the media reaction and criticism and the poll results section into a "reaction to the conspiracy theories" section. I have been saying this for over a year now but somehow we must find a way to get the words "tin foil hat brigade" into the article. As much as I do not like it this or worlds like it are the used heavily among CT critics. This broader section would be the place where we have cites discussing the negative connotation of the word "conspiracy theory" preferences for the words "alternative theories" etc. Edkollin 18:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No. "Alternative" is much too broad, and the "real world" uses "conspiracy theories", so we should, also.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 18:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I oppose the move. Reliable sources who discuss the topic call them conspiracy theories. Tom Harrison Talk 19:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Edkollin, the "reaction to the conspiracy theories" section that you describe sounds similar to my suggestion above for a new sub-article called "9/11 opinion polls". We could change the name to something broader if we include the 'media reception' section as well.  I think the summary of published criticism of specific theories (eg Popular Mechanics, Scientific American etc.) should remain here or on the 9/11 Truth Movement page.  I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this proposal.  Corleonebrother 19:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Basically agree. Media Reaction and Poll results could be subsections of the general reaction section(The Saddam Poll results should stay in the Claims against Saddam section). I agree that reactions to specific theories belong with those theories so "reaction" is probably a poor word Edkollin 06:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC).

Oppose, not a pejorative term. Reginmund 19:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Theories that ignore the preponderance of evidence do not warrant the "alternative" label (which connotes equal weighting). Zubdub 23:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose - This is the generally used term in the real world. DAJF 23:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I agree with Zubdub.  By calling them alternative theories we would be giving them credibility, which an encyclopedia simply can't do.   Pablo   Talk  |  Contributions  00:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose - The term is used in real world, 'alternative' is too strong and conspiracy theories is what they are. I agree with Edkollin that we should state somewhere that people find the term pejorative.  I do feel that the article title could be perceived as misleading (since the mainstream account is a conspiracy theory, and this article is all about other theories).  For this reason, I think we should define the term in the opening text (rather than as it is having a kind of clarification in the first section of the article).  One sentence would do it - this would be my suggestion:


 * Since the September 11, 2001 attacks, a variety of conspiracy theories emerged which dispute the mainstream account of the events that occurred on and after September 11, 2001. Although the mainstream account is itself a conspiracy theory (involving only Al Qaeda), the term "9/11 conspiracy theories" usually refers to all theories that differ from the mainstream account. Corleonebrother 01:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Proposals: 9/11 non mainstream conspiracy theories, 9/11 not officially accepted conspiracy theories, 9/11 not generally accepted conspiracy theories, 9/11 alternative conspiracy theories. SalvNaut 16:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: 9/11 conspiracy theories (alternative), 9/11 conspiracy theories (mainstream) ? Or perhaps:
 * This article is about non-mainstream conspiracy theories for the events of 9/11. For the mainstream conspiracy theory, see ...
 * &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * How about just 9/11 unaccepted theories? It is true the theories arent accepted by the mainstream, and that "conspiracy theory" is often used because they are considered crack pot theories. But much of the speculation is supported by evidence and research. The theories isnt just crazy tales, they are backed up with lots of evidence. Now i agree there isnt enough evidence to prove the alternative theories, but the points should still be presented in an unbias way and let the public decide. It is a controversial theory on events supported by research. I dont think it should be treated in such a manner. I think the title should reflect 1. neutral point of view 2. the fact that it is not generally accepted 3. The fact that it has been scrutinized with legitimit research on both sides still leaving room for debate/consideration. Unfortunately the way this article stands right now it does not do 1 or 3 very well. Debeo Morium 18:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose - The generally accepted term for these theories in public discourse and in the news media is "conspiracy theories" and to call them anything different would simply be a euphemism. Bonus Onus 19:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose they are conspiracy theories. No need to make it complicated.  --Tbeatty 23:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The article is about conspiracy theories, and it's a good topic. If some of the ones described don't fit that label, then they should be removed from the article. That's a different issue. Andrewa 07:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose The fact conspiracy theory has bad connotations thus not mean we shouldn't use it, or else we should call Armenian Genocide article Armenian Incident.--Aldux 14:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose I just do not like the use of the words "accepted" or "unaccepted" that is even more vague then mainstream Edkollin 06:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Counterproposal: How about "Unofficial 9/11 theories"? What ties all of the theories together? Are they conspiracy theories? Says who? What sounds more true: that the previous arbiter bowed to undocumented original research claiming that "9/11 conspiracy theories" is the most unambiguous and nonpejorative definite description among the article-name candidates, or that "9/11 conspiracy theories" is the most universal term used by the reliable sources (in the absence of a textual content analysis, which would verify the claim)? Look at the references: the more reliable sources use the term "conspiracy" less than the articles that push their own POV or are partisan players in American politics. For example, if you read the articles written by official government agencies responding to specific countervailing claims regarding the 9/11 events, the term "conspiracy theory" never appears in their statements. We cannot appeal to "9/11 conspiracy theories" as a group term, unless by virtue of a previous consensus manufactured by admin fiat, or by an reference to original research that does not even exist. If we take a look at all the explanations grouped together under this article, the only universal nonpejorative element is that each of these explanations disagrees with the 9/11 Commission Report. What about renaming the article "unofficial 9/11 theories" and redirecting "9/11 conspiracy theories" to the renamed article? People concerned about name recognition would have have a redirect, and the folks concerned about pejoratives would have little to worry about. Besides, if people want to claim a name recognition, they at least should canvass Internet sources and write a paragraph about name recognition. Otherwise, the name as it stands is original research. —Kanodin 05:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * comment Personally, I strongly agree with this counterproposal. Thank you! Considering the opinions of the majority however, I agree to abide with the found compromise: "conspiracy th..". &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 10:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no "official" 9/11 theory.  Mel sa  ran  10:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with this proposal as well. And yes, there most certainly is an official theory, arabs working for al queda flew some hijacked planes into key targets, and america did their best to stop it, thats the official theory. Debeo Morium 15:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 16:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It seemed at the end a counter proposal was made which had 3 people support it (kanodin, Xiutwel, Me) and no one opposed the counterproposal. Seems to me we should have waited a day or two more to see i anyone opposed it. Debeo Morium 16:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Suggested new sentence
I recently added the new sentence I proposed above into the article and it was reverted.


 * Although the mainstream account is itself a conspiracy theory (involving only Al Qaeda), the term "9/11 conspiracy theories" usually refers to all theories that differ from the mainstream account.

Below text copied over from user talk page:


 * Hi Tom - please can you let me know what you think about the sentence I added to the 9/11 conspiracies page and why you reverted it? I suggested it's inclusion on the talk page and I didn't think anyone was opposed.  Thanks,  Corleonebrother 19:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's inaccurate, because what you describe as the 'mainstream theory' is not a conspiracy theory, and it sets up a false dichotomy by implying there are two explanations about which reasonable men disagree. This is not the case. The reliable sources say al Qaeda destroyed the World Trade Center by crashing planes into them. Please do not take my reply as an invitation discuss conspiracy theory, in general or particular, either on my talk page or elsewhere. Tom Harrison Talk 19:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a good point - thank you for making it. Since you seem to have an interest in the article, surely you're not against discussing the article?  I am trying to get a clear definition at the top of the page about what the article is about.  Do you think the same sentence but with 'official account' instead of 'mainstream theory' would be OK?  (I'm happy to take this to the article talk page if you prefer)  Corleonebrother 19:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Best to take it there so everyone who has anything to say can take part. Tom Harrison Talk 19:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

In fact, my sentence originally said 'mainstream account' so I am not sure what Tom's objection is as I thought that it was the word 'theory' he was objecting to. Does anyone else have any thoughts on this? Corleonebrother 20:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you should add the line back. It will go a long way to help fix a disastrous bias POV in this article. Debeo Morium 16:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

.com
I worked on the ref's to get rid of all of the visible occurrences of "http" in the visible text. I still see a lot of occurrences of ".com" in the visible text. I would like to see less of that. The "conspiracy theories" are not an Internet phenomena (I hope).--SallyForth123 23:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, fringe "theories" such as these are almost exclusively published on the Internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)
 * Before the internet, the village idiot used to stay in his own village... — BQZip01 —  talk 06:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

intercepts
I would like to propose the following addition to #Claims that US defenses were deliberately disabled, but since I see it is disputed by people who call themselves skeptic, I write a proposal here on the talk page:
 * Maj. Douglas Martin, NORAD spokesman, told Associated Press that from Sept. 11 to June, NORAD scrambled jets or diverted combat air patrols 462 times, almost seven times as often as the 67 scrambles from September 2000 to June 2001.
 * REF: 1. Military Now Notified Immediately of Unusual Air Traffic Events, AP, 8/12/02 [cached]
 * Intercept is mandatory for any plane that veers of its planned course.
 * Average intercept time is 12 minutes, and never more than 18

&mdash; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 20:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

radar
In addition to above: both this article and the main September 11, 2001 attacks article do not mention much about radar. Both from testimony as from common sense, I assume that the USA, after 40 years of cold war, with Russion nuclear missile subs, would have excellent primary radar capabilities. (Nuclear missiles do not ☺ have transponders.)

Primary radar detects objects by means of the Reflection of a signal. Secondary radar requires a transponder. Information on enemy objects, like missiles or hijacked planes can simply be obtained by subtracting both sets of information. If hijackers turn off the transponder, the hijacked plane becomes more visible instead of less. It is quite strange for hijackers being able to evade alerted military radar for 80 minutes, I would guess.

Am I correct and if so, are editors willing to help me find RS for this? &mdash; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 19:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You are incorrect. Most radar systems (even military ones) in the US are secondary systems with no capabilities to see aircraft that do not have a transponder (this is the number one reason for air-to-air mishaps: pilots and ATC aren't aware of the aircrafts relative proximity). Those defensive systems that are primary radars were focused OTUSIDE the US looking for intruders coming into US airspace from outside the US. In fact, the entire US posture was arranged that way (fighter's default alert routes, radars looking OUTSIDE the US, etc.) — BQZip01 —  talk 03:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Consider this: most cars aren't police cars. Does that mean that bandits can escape them? And could it not be, hypothetically, a "very clever statement" to say that your defences were focussing outside when you intentionally disabled them? It is your right, BQZip01, to believe this statement is the truth, but I fear it may be naïve. And every ATC and every F16 has primary radar, so I think your claim is factually untrue on all counts. Pretend this happened in China or in Iran, and then consider the likelyhood that there was government complicity. Addition: you may be right that ATC has primary radar usually turned off or low or standby. Anyone willing to help? &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 10:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is a NYPress source on NORAD "routinely intercepting aircraft":

''Mike Snyder, a spokesman for NORAD, echoed Myers in a Sept. 15 Boston Globe story, which stated: "[T]he command did not immediately scramble any fighters even though it was alerted to a hijacking 10 minutes before the first plane…slammed into the first World Trade Center tower... The spokesman said the fighters remained on the ground until after the Pentagon was hit..." U.S. inaction was all the more astonishing because the same story had Snyder admitting that "fighters routinely intercept aircraft." So why were no fighters dispatched to intercept planes on an extraordinary day like Sept. 11? Within days the story changed [...]''

Here is another source stating (words by 9/11 Commission Staff):

''But NEADS did not know where to send the alert fighter aircraft. "I don't know where I'm scrambling these guys to. I need a direction, a destination." Because the hijackers had turned off the plane's transponder, NEADS personnel spent the next minutes searching their radar scopes for the elusive primary radar return. American 11 impacted the World Trade Center's north tower at 8:46:40.'' I hope this helps. SalvNaut 21:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Excerpt from CNN's Coverage of 9/11 Commission Hearings:


 * Radar reconstructions performed after 9/11 reveal that FAA radar equipment tracked the flight from the moment its transponder was turned off at 8:56. But for 8:13 seconds, between 8:56 and 9:05, this primary radar information on American 77 was not displayed to controllers at Indianapolis center.
 * The reasons are technical, arising from the way software process radar information, as well as from poor primary radar coverage where American 77 had been flying.
 * According to the radar reconstruction, American 77 reemerged as a primary target on Indianapolis Center radarscopes at 9:05, east of its last-known position. The target remained in Indianapolis Center airspace for another six minutes, then crossed into the western portion of Washington Center's air space at 9:10.
 * As Indianapolis Center continued searching for the aircraft, two managers and the controller responsible for American 77 looked to the west and southwest along the flight's projected paths, not east, where the aircraft was now heading. The managers did not instruct other controllers at Indianapolis Center to turn on their primary radar coverage to join in the search for American 77.
 * In sum, Indianapolis Center never saw Flight 77 turn around. By the time it reappeared in primary radar coverage, controllers had either stopped looking for the aircraft because they thought it had crashed or they were looking toward the west.
 * In addition, while the flight center learned Flight 77 was missing, neither it nor FAA headquarters issued an all all-points bulletin to surrounding centers to search for primary radar targets.
 * American 77 traveled undetected for 36 minutes on a course heading due east for Washington, D.C.


 * Just sum up all of this: The managers did not instruct other controllers, controllers had either stopped looking, or they were looking toward the west., American 77 traveled undetected for 36 minutes.
 * And this is only about FAA controlers. who did have access to primary radar. Assumption that NORAD, military command post, had less information than FAA is outrageous, as is the assumption that they could do nothing to track hijacked planes... (btw, I do recommend http://news.google.com/archivesearch). SalvNaut 21:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

radar / intercept
Thanks SalvNaut! And also for the google tip, I didn't know that one. Now I'm most interested in finding a quote for this one, hope I will:
 * "Intercept is mandatory for any plane that veers of its planned course to help it avoid colliding."

&mdash; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 02:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC) &mdash; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 03:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * interesting story of an intercept that did work &mdash; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk)
 * http://www.google.com/search?q=transponder+intercept+routine+collision
 * http://www.druckversion.studien-von-zeitfragen.net/Chapter%20V.htm - pretty good one, hope to find better.

I think you should review WP:SYN and WP:OR, it sounds like you're searching for primary sources to backup conclusions rather then finding WP:RS sources making similar claims. RxS 03:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I can understand your suspicion, RxS. Instead, I cannot take credit for this. I read it years ago on conspiracy websites and I want to find the best RS we can find, before drafting a section. OK?May I please ask you: suppose, hypothetically, if 911 would be an inside job, would you be able to handle that? I was ill for three days when I first thought it was (2004), and I live 6000 km away in Holland.


 * Your personal feelings shouldn't enter into it, we're here to provide a free enyclopedia and not advance a personal adgenda. This isn't a forum, nor is it a workshop to develop arguements supporting a certain viewpoint. You've got links to Google searchs, Post articles and rescue stories...none of which make any claims about radar or intercepts. This isn't a soapbox and it doesn't matter that something made you ill or that I may or may not be able to handle something, please respect why we're all here. RxS 04:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I see your concern, I am keeping my personal feelings in check when I'm writing, but I was worried that you might let your feelings interfere with your judgement. So would you tell me, hypothetically, how it would be for you if it were the case: 911 an inside job? Would you be able to handle it and write it on wikipedia?I cannot deny that I have strong personal feelings regarding 911; if I did not I would edit on less contentious and less important wiki topics.
 * For the links: I am solliciting help from other editors, showing them what I've found and hoping someone comes up with something even better. I am quite enthousiastic about results so far. I guess you are not?
 * Do you now see that the reason I'm here is the same as you would like it to be, or do you still feel I do not respect something? &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 04:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * At the very least you're not respecting the purpose of this talk page. Can I suggest you move this section to a sandbox in your userspace where you're freer to develop content in this manner? Or would you mind if I moved it? At least until you can clear WP:SYN, WP:OR etc concerns. I'd also appreciate you leaving motivation out of this, thanks! RxS 05:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Aha, I understand. I will accumulate additional material in private from now on; but I would like my current request for sources to remain here, where others can contribute. &#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 06:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC).

Some more: &mdash; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 03:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * FAA Managers Destroyed 9/11 Tape (WP)
 * FAA Chapter_7._ESCORT_OF_HIJACKED_AIRCRAFT_/cache
 * http://www.cartome.org/faa-aim-ch6.htm
 * ''6-2-7. Search and Rescue [...]
 * '' f. Emergency and Overdue Aircraft.
 * ''1. ARTCC's and FSS's will alert the SAR system when information is received from any source that an aircraft is in difficulty, overdue, or missing.
 * ''(a) Radar facilities providing radar flight following or advisories consider the loss of radar and radios, without service termination notice, to be a possible emergency. Pilots receiving VFR services from radar facilities should be aware that SAR may be initiated under these circumstances.&#151; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 04:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

American Airlines Flight 77
I reverted this edit there is no reliable, third party source that disputes the fact that it was American Airlines Flight 77. There is more evidence (much more) that it was 77 that hit the Pentagon than just the video and it can be stated that it was in fact 77 that hit the building. RxS 21:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

"conspiracy theory" is not a neutral way of describing something
I have proposed that articles titled with "conspiracy theory" be renamed at Conspiracy theory titles, please direct all comments to the proposal's discussion page. zen master T 22:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This proposal, as you well know T, has been discussed and rejected so many times that to raise it again is a form of disruptive tendentious editing. You have been admonished for doing this time and time again.--Cberlet 22:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Version 1 of the proposal was rejected 2 years ago, consider this version 2 of a resubmitted proposal. Feel free to make counter arguments against the proposal at Wikipedia talk:Conspiracy theory titles, thanks. 22:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * As much as I agree with the proposed action, I must object to the method in deference to the editors that resolved "version 1", or whatever the community considered and rejected two years ago. Whoever is serious about this new proposal: you need to dig through the old debate(s) and rehash the issues on the policy proposal page. The two topics are similar enough (some say identical) that they warrant reiteration and comparison. The responsibility for a good faith representation of the issues starts with T. If this reiteration does not happen, the proposal is either disruptive canvassing or an instance of asking the other parent. Write proposals with a neutral point of view; and barring that, represent the opposing standpoints.


 * Dismissing a proposal merely by citing the existence of an old consensus decision is equally suspect. Consensus can change. Unfortunately, as it exists, this proposal will succeed or fail for the wrong reasons. —Kanodin 00:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Given that 2 years have passed I figured the best way is to re-start the discussion fresh, how else should I go about this? zen master T 00:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Reference the old discussion, if in a single location. May I suggest both on the proposal page and the proposal talk page?  You don't have to attempt to summarize it, as I don't think either of us would do a good job, but please supply the pointers.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 00:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok. zen master T 00:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Zen, I could be mistaken, but isn't this subject the very reason that you got blocked for an entire year?  MortonDevonshire  Yo   · 07:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If bringing up a very valid subject such as this is cause for being blocked in and of itself, then that is a very sad state of afairs. You may not agree with the idea, but the intentions are well meaning, and open for a valid debate. Also as mentioned, consensus can change, and an idea can be adapted to try to come to a compromise. Lets not be so harsh on the fellow! Debeo Morium 09:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "Conspiracy Theory" is a perfectly legitimate label if the claim fits certain criteria-- notably: 1.) it is a a theory that does not conform to the preponderance of converging evidence upon which historians and social scientists rely; and 2.) the theory makes the claim of a collusion of actors and motives whose involvement, motivations, or relationships to one another do not conform to the preponderance of converging evidence. If the preponderance of converging evidence indicates that there is, in fact, a conspiracy (for instance, the Watergate break-in, or the attempt to by officials of the State of Maryland to assassinate Abraham Lincoln on his way to his inaguration), then it's not a conspiracy theory.  "Neutrality" should never be grounds for lowering standards of evidence.IanThal 14:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Any evidence that a theory is non "mainstream" should be put inside an article and no title should ever connote dubiousness. We have to cite who and how many people believe theory X to be a "conspiracy theory", we can't just call it that directly since at least the proponents of "theory X" likely do not agree with the "conspiracy theory" label, wikipedia shouldn't choose sides in any dispute. zen master T 15:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit reverted without cause.
I made an edit, it was removed because the person indicated that i it had a "tendentious" point of view. I am adding it back, and placing the text here. I think it is quiet clear there is no point of view, i even cite a goverment publication to support the evidence. If you think it is biased, change the wording, but the evidence is cited and stated clearly. Also i encourage discuss, not straight removal. Anyway, here it is...

There are several points of evidence supporting the use of thermate, including the presence of molten iron, aluminum, and sulfur mixture throughout the rubble. Which is the residue left by thermate which consists of iron oxide, aluminum, and sulfur.

Debeo Morium 18:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The source you cite makes absolutely no mention of thermate, does it? Weregerbil 18:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I only said that thermate would cause these residues, i never said it is indisputable proof of the use of thermate. It clearly states that iron, aluminum and sulfur were present in a molten mixed state. it does not make mention of any other foreign materials in these regions. Now if you need another refrence that indicates these chemicals are the result of a thermate reaction, i can certainly provide that. The refrence is only used to indicate that these chemicals were present. The fact that they are the result of a thermate reaction is generally accepted knowledge, but id be happy to find a source indicating this fact. Debeo Morium 18:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you have neutral, reliable sources which consider different possibilities and conclude that thermate is the only possible source of iron, aluminum, and sulfur? Especially in the light of the fact that airplanes, office furniture, etc contain much aluminum; steel (of which the buildings were largely made) is 98% or so iron; and gypsum plaster (of which drywalls are made) is a sulfur compound. So all of those elements were present in great quantities. Weregerbil 19:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I certainly dont mind these opposing views to be added as well. i agree that thermate isnt the only possible source of these chemicals. Thats why wikipedia is so great, if you have a source that opposes a view you are encouraged to add it. unfortunately i can not find a source that would explain the high temperatures needed to melt the steel, aluminum, and sulfur together into a single eutectic compound. Granted these chemicals can be found throughout the building, but that doesnt explain how they got hot enough to melt together. If anyone can find an opposing source with describes this i would of course encourage its addition to the article. Debeo Morium 19:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * From Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center: According to NIST's computer fire simulations air temperatures in the towers reached up to 1100°C. That's higher than needed for an eutectic reaction (see the NIST FEMA report you quoted above). Weregerbil 19:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That doesnt explain the source of the temperature, only that the temperature existed (which was my initial point in the first place, thermate would cause these temperatures, so we need a source that gives another explanation for the temperature other then thermate, i think that would be the most helpful opposing POV)Debeo Morium 19:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The computer simulations simulated burning office furniture, and found the temperature to rise to 1100°C. To double check the simulations, NIST purchased some real (not computer simulated) office furniture and burned it in a real, non-simulated fire, in a compartment built to have the size and shape of WTC offices. Temperatures rose to 1100°C. No thermate was needed to produce the temperature, and no thermate was needed to produce iron, aluminum, and sulfur because all of those elements were present in large amounts in the buildings. Weregerbil 05:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * What page of the report is the real life test indicated? I have never heard anything to suggest wood, in any size compartment can burn up to 1100 C unless infused with pure oxygene. If this is in the report i would love to see it, cause they just broke the laws of physics :). Seriously though im really curious what page this is. Everything i keep reading suggests either the flames did not get that hot. Not contradicting you, ust like to read it for myself. Debeo Morium 05:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Search for something like "1,100" or "fire test" in the PDF linked above. There's four or five pages describing the test, with pictures, graphs, text. When experiment contradicts one's understanding of the laws of physics, one has to know what to do with one's understanding and the sources of that understanding. There is the test between a scientific mind and a religious one. Weregerbil 06:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If i wern't willing to do that i would have never asked for the page number in the first place. Thank you, i will. If i ever find it (if we are to use this for the article we need the page numbers) Debeo Morium 06:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I should also point out that the article states... "The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 [WTC7] and 2 [Towers] are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified." While this doesnt prove thermate, i thought it was an interesting point to note since thermate would explain the presence of sulfur. Debeo Morium 19:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Take a look at drywall. Sulfur is also a component of jet fuel. Weregerbil 19:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes it contains sulfur, but it doesnt contain Iron Sulfide. Which means there needed to be hot enough temperatures to melt the sulfur and iron and aluminum in the first place. I have yet to see any scientific papers explaining how this could occur, but if you find one i encourage you to add it to the article. Debeo Morium 19:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Answered above. Weregerbil 19:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No original research; Tom Harrison Talk 19:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * How is a FEMA report original research? Its their opinion not mine that these residues exist, and commonly accepted that it is the result of a thermate reaction. Like i said if you disagree these are the results of a thermate reaction there are plenty of sources to cite for that as well. Debeo Morium 19:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It is original research because you are synthesizing individual factoids to advance a position. Tom Harrison Talk 19:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * What factoid did i synthesize. I can cite reliable references for anything i stated. So if you believe there is something i synthesized i would be more then happy to provide such a reference. Debeo Morium 19:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Just a point: Isn't this: Take a look at drywall. Sulfur is also a component of jet fuel. Weregerbil 19:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC) an original research used in order to prevent inclusion of some information?
 * No scientific study has been made to identify the source of sulfur, and I think it should be clearly pointed out. Because this article deals with so-called 9/11 conspiracy theories' it is absolutely natural and justified to connect this with thermite hypothesis put forward by 9/11 Truth researchers. However, it should be clearly stated which facts are attributed to known science, which to 9/11 researchers, which to NIST or FEMA. SalvNaut 20:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think I actually agree with SalvNaut's remarks about attribution. Tom Harrison Talk 20:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I am sure the people who wrote the report knew that sulfur was present int he building in dry wall, rubberbands, even rain water. That isnt really the question. The reason, i think, that the report said it was unaware of the source of the sulfur is that the unusual part is that it is mixed in with the metal, as if molten at the time. So showing that sulfur was present doesnt explain it, you need to explain how it got mixed with the metal. Of course we are trampling on original research to say "oh but sulfur is in the dry walls". We need a source that is credible that says the sulfur int he drywalls would explain how it got molten and mixed with the steel. And that hasnt been done yet. In fact, tom brings up a good point about original research. I think we should remove the mention of sulfur being in the dry walls as a possible cause of the sulfur int he molten iron since you did not provide a reliable source that connects the drywall's sulfure to the sulfur in the iron, and therefore is a synthasized factoid as tom points out.Debeo Morium 20:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Im not sure how we can prove that no research was done on this (as ive seen some things that support thermate as the source of sulfure, but im not sure if their reliable enough for WP standards so i didnt want to include them. But generally i agree, we should be clear about who concluded what. Debeo Morium 20:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Tom i just reverted an edit you made. You changed the wording to suggest the residue claimes were made by stevens. In fact they were made by FEMA in the refrenced source. So i reverted it back. Debeo Morium 20:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Tom the same source used for the quote also indicated (on the same page) that it was a "liquid eutectic mixture", so the citation is already there. Please remove yoru citation needed on the word molten. Debeo Morium 21:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

We can easily describe Jones' theory. Begin with "Jones says..." and end with citation to a reliable source where he says it. Selecting and presenting as fact points in support of his theory, is something Jones needs to do for himself. Tom Harrison Talk 21:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No i meant the FEMA quote. FEMA (the source i had given) indicates it was a liquid/molten metal, not jones. So the citation needed should be removed as it is already given. Debeo Morium 21:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, this an issue to think about because Jones (and other 9/11 researchers) claims are constructed from mainstream reports and their own research. If we want to present only Jones's claims then we will end with: "Steven Jones argues that WTC towers were demolished with the use of thermite."Jones' Paper (It may be that this is the way to proceed, but, imho, it's good to have a lot of properly attributed information, even in the summary) SalvNaut 22:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

SalvNaut i have one major problem with your recent edit. The FEMA source cited indicates that the sulfur, aluminum, and iron found were liquid, and mixed. Byt refering to them simple as "samples" it suggests that they were found individually, and seperate, and not molten. when in fact it was found as a single big blob of the three melted together as one huge mass. Debeo Morium 21:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. I see you've fixed that and it looks great to me. SalvNaut 22:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The "Steve Jones support" section appears to consist of quotes taken out of context, and references where one source says A (but denies B), another says B, and a third which says that A and B imply C. We can't do that.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 05:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thats a mighty big claim. Can you please indicate which quote or source was taken out of context, and what its proper context would be? If something doesn't properly reflect the reference sourced it should either be clarified or removed. But you'll need to share with us why it seems out of context so we can debate it and come to a consensus. So far you've just done several reverts to several wikipedians work without supporting your reasoning or entering it into an already on going debate with no clear consensus Debeo Morium 06:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Note. I didn't contact Rx StrangeLove, or post on any of the noticeboards this article is frequently referenced in.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 06:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Same goes for me and Badmark Debeo Morium 06:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to copy the conversation i had with Arthur Rubin on his talk page here, since it seems to apply to this conversation and should be made part of this debate (not sure if this is against any WP rules, if so i apologize)...

You removed a paragraph on the 9/11 conspiracy theories page against consensus. There has been an ongoing conversation on this topic. If you would like to contribute i suggest you head on over to the talk page under the heading "Edit reverted without cause.". this paragraph has been evolving all day. And while your efforts are welcome, please do not just delete the work which several wikipedians have been contributing throughout the day. While there may be some sections with dubious sources (i didnt check them all) you deleted at least one which references FEMA's on report and a quotation from it. Debeo Morium 05:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I see that you seem to think everyone is questioning the sources. While it is true throughout the day we have debated the wording (and as a group it has evolved to its current state) i dont see a single person who disputes the sources themselves. You need to keep in mind some comments were made early in the day when the text was very different to what it is now. Look at the history and you will see that the current wording was arived at as a group, and at no point were the soruces in dispute. Debeo Morium 05:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I see Tom (although frequently making WP:POINT edits in the 9/11 fields) and others questiong whether the sources say what you say they say without interpolating additional information from other sources. I rate the entire section as a WP:SYN violation, consensus or not.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 05:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * First off whoever badmark is, it isnt me, and not a sock puppet. Secondly, tom did not remark about synthasis regarding the entire paragraph. Only an earlier form of it which has since been resolved. So lets see we have badmark, salv, and me on one side.. toms hasnt risen any objections since the new version, and you on the other side who has done three reverts so far on two different people. Ill ask another friend to look at it. If he feels its worthy of a revert and you do yet another revert i will regretably report the 3 revert rule (since it will be 2 reverts for me and 2 for 2 other people). I would much rather have debated this properly with you. Debeo Morium 06:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * And I would rather you commented on it rather than editing against the clear previous consensus that the FEMA report didn't say or imply "molten metal". The paraphrase in the main 9/11 article was "glowing liquid", but it was apparently never sampled.  I still think your edit does not reflect what is actually said in the sources which are at all reliable, but I'll wait a while to revert.  .  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 06:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Did you bother to read the FEMA report cited. I have it open in front of me now. Yes it does say refer to molten metal several times. The last sentence on the first page of appendix C refers to it as "A liquid eutectic compound consisting primarily of....". Tom seemed uncertain, when ic clarified this to him he didnt seem to disagree or agree, my guess is that he didnt view the source and had no comment on it. Also ive been accused twice of using a sock, i did not and never have. A clear check into the ips should reveal that. I doubt any of the ips are anywhere near mine in location, and certainly not the same. Debeo Morium 06:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "eutectic" is not "metal", and Tom probably hasn't been back on since you wrote that. He's not on 24/7, like User:Bov.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 06:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * A eutectic compound (and im oversimplifying here but feel free to look at the WP page on it) is an alloy or mixture of solids with a lower melting point then its constituents. Another words when you melt sulfur, iron and aluminum together you have a eutectic compound. However i choose not to indicate the full quote above. It when on to say consisting primarily of iron and the other compounds mentions. So yes, these materials were in a molten state. I guess you didnt read the source that you are saying is quoted out of context huh? cause the very next word int hat sentence where i have ... was iron. Debeo Morium 06:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Debeo Morium 07:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey tom, i tried to find a good compromise to your last edit that didnt leave out any of FEMA's details (And i didnt revert any of your work, or at least tried my best to leave it all there except for a word or two). Basically you pointed out on you talk page your edit was to indicate that it was no longer molten when fema got it, so i put "once molten" there instead, cause it is important to show that it was molten at one time (fema says this themselves in the cited source) let it all mix into one compound. Also i added a statement regarding these compounds as the result of a thermate reaction along with a source indicating it as such. If you dont like it please debate it here, id love to reach a mutual conclusion with consensus. Debeo Morium 14:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

WAY too bias.
My crazy little friends, we seem to have a little problem. many of the sections in this article simpley state the conspiracy, then forgo offering any direct response. Like most of these theories, instead of actually breaking it down scientifically, the article just throws overwhelming evidence to one point. over all this article is more on level with an editorial than an encyclopeda based on hard facts. 71.143.134.202 07:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)NutopianCitizen


 * I agree completly. Ive been trying to argue this point in various ways (and expierncing it right now with the topic directly above this). But its hard to make any leadway. Debeo Morium 07:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If it were unbiased, then the refutation sections would be larger than they are now. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 07:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * However, the elimination of #Allegations of insider foreknowledge is unreasonable. I cannot revert, as certain people inserting misleading interpretations of reliable sources have caused me to hit the 3RR limit.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 17:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not an edit I would have made, but I'm not prepared to restore the whole thing either. Tom Harrison Talk 17:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * How can you say it was a misleading quotation when you clearly never even read the source in the first place (evident by our conversation above). Not to mention it is obvious that there is no consensus because no one seems to have supported your view for reversion in the talk (id be curious on toms view but as far as i see he hasnt commented, and 3 people seem to support it salv, me and mark). If you actually read the source and explained how it was taken out of context maybe you would have a leg to stand on. Debeo Morium 20:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And who exactly is that a reply to? plain and simple this page should be protected and each respective section should contain a rebutle.71.143.134.202 01:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)NutopianCitizen


 * It was directed at arthur rubin, his statement "certain people inserting misleading interpretations of reliable sources" was almost certainly directed at me. And that was my response to it. Debeo Morium 01:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Quote:"If it were unbiased, then the refutation sections would be larger than they are now. - Arthur Rubin | (talk)" An interesting statement. I notice you also argue that refutation sections should not be on the September 11, 2001 attacks page at all. I actually agree with you there but as this page is for "conspiracy Theories", refutations should not be a large part or the page becomes too POV by pushing the official account. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Wayne 08:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Debate over a paragraph
This discussion began 2 sections up in this talk page in a section called "Edit reverted without cause". It has gotten a little off track so i wanted to start a new section for it.

This conversation is regarding a debate on the proper form of the following paragraph under the section entitled "Twin Towers collapse as a controlled demolition", the current paragraph im refering to (which will likely have changed since i posted this) is as follows:

There is a range of opinion about the most likely sort and amount of explosives, the way they were distributed, and how they were successfully brought into the building. Steven Jones, of the new Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice organisation, believes that the molten metal found underground weeks after 9/11 suggests that jet fuel could not have been the only incendiary used that day, and that thermite (in the form of thermate), perhaps in combination with other devices, was likely involved. Jones says "molten material" streamed out of the south tower shortly before it collapsed.[55][56] There were reports of "molten steel" in the pockets of the rubble.[57][58][59] Firefighters described having seen in the rubble "molten steel running down the channels, like you were in a foundry". World Trade Center USGS Thermal study, conducted on September 16, 2001 using Airborne Visible/Infrared Imaging Spectrometer, showed hotspots in the rubble reaching temperatures greater than 1000 K (727°C, 1341°F).[60] Samples of a once molten mixture of iron, aluminum, and sulfur were found in the rubble and analyzed by FEMA, who was unable to determine the source of the sulfur stating: "The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 [WTC7] and 2 [Towers] are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified." [61] Those elements as residues, as well as high temperatures sustained in the rubble, can result from burning thermate[62]. Jones believes the sulfur is a result of deliberate demolition using thermite. Debeo Morium 14:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey tom, i tried to find a good compromise to your last edit that didnt leave out any of FEMA's details (And i didnt revert any of your work, or at least tried my best to leave it all there except for a word or two). Basically you pointed out on you talk page your edit was to indicate that it was no longer molten when fema got it, so i put "once molten" there instead, cause it is important to show that it was molten at one time (fema says this themselves in the cited source) let it all mix into one compound. Also i added a statement regarding these compounds as the result of a thermate reaction along with a source indicating it as such. If you dont like it please debate it here, id love to reach a mutual conclusion with consensus. Debeo Morium 14:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I replaced the FEMA bit with a NIST source. I think it's better to list someone who has information about the source of sulfur, rather than list all the people and organizations in the world who haven't. Weregerbil 18:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Why is FEMA's inability to explain the sulfur notable, when the NIST report readily explains it? Two generally respectable editors have been inserting that information.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 21:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I hate to keep saying this, but did any of you actually read the FEMA report and the full NIST report? I did, and i highly encourage those of you that haven't to read it before getting involved in the discussion. The fact that sulfur existed within the building is not the unusual factor. As the FEMA report points out (the one that was removed) that despite the fact that so many other high rises have seemingly similar sulfur content in its dry walls and rubber bands, and even rain water, the unusual fact is that it mixed with the metal to make a molten eutectic compound. This has not happened before. This is the unexplained mystery, the presence of sulfur inside molten metal support beams, NOT the presence of sulfur within the building as a whole. The NIST report does not address this. The FAQ briefly mentions that sulfur was present in the building, but provides no conclusion or explanation as to why it was found in a eutectic compound. The full NIST report (not the FAQ) doesn't even mention the sulfur at all. So while the NIST does assert that sulfur existed within the building, that is all it does, and really didnt "solve" the mystery that FEMA put forth in the first place. Now im not saying the presence of sulfur means thermate (jones said that, not me). In fact NIST in the FAQ goes as far to say they didn't even test for sulfur in the steel itself (but FEMA did in its report), saying "NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel." that is right out of the FAQ. So you see, NIST made absolutely no attempt to explain the sulfur found by FEMA cause they found it irrelevant since according to them there are other reasons explosives were ruled out. So to say that NIST claimed sulfur existed within the building, and this is enough to explain its presence in the steel is in fact synthesis (since FEMA itself couldn't come to that conclusion and NIST never formally addressed it at all). Debeo Morium 22:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Now that I've given it more thought id go as far to say the reference in this paragraph to NIST mentioning there was sulfur int he building is irrelevant and has nothing to do with the presence of sulfur in the support beams (NIST clearly stated that didn't investigate the presence of sulfur in any way) and therefore should be removed Debeo Morium 22:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No, thinking it over, the FEMA report is irrelevant. NIST might be relevant.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 01:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You seem to be the only one who has replied to the case ive made. Why dont you let consensus form instead of deciding or yourself. - Debeo Morium: to be morally bound (Talk | Contribs) 02:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The FEMA report has to trump the NIST as it addresses points raised in the paragraph where NIST does not. Of course mention can be made that NIST did not test the steel for Sulphur but to add anything more is encouraging readers to assume NIST tested and discounted the claim which they did not. The NIST conclusions may well be correct but they are not reliable for something they neither tested for nor mentioned. Wayne 09:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * In this article, we only include things relevant to the conspiracy theories. As the FEMA report fails to address things relevant to the conspriracy theories, it doesn't belong here.  The NIST report probably doesn't belong here, either.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 13:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * As for a potential explanation, doesn't sulphur disolve in metal? I mean, we can't make that observation ourselves, but we can make the observation that FEMA didn't ask that question, making their report questionable, can't we?  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 13:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Arthur Rubin, your stance, apart from lacking arguments, is unsustainable. FEMA addressed things most relevant to CT (in both WTC7 and WTC1&2 cases). By your logic, should we remove from Flat Earth article all information about previous hypotheses and about the Earth being round? What is more important, similarly to aforementioned article, this article also covers/should cover all relevant reasons for which conspiracy theories have emerged. Those being, most importantly in not only my opinion, terrible scientific quality of official investigations. Speaking of quality of NIST report: here is a good site that gathers criticism from all sides: government institution, government employees, third party institutions, etc.
 * When comes to sulfur in the steel I agree with Debeo Morium and with Wayne's arguments. Arthur Rubin's argument is WP:OR in the very essence. Besides, Arthur wants us to think bad of FEMA for them not having considered the idea (given by him) in their report. On the other hand he would like us to praise NIST for not even having touched the sulfur in the steel subject - how unreasonable this is? SalvNaut 18:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You (arthur rubin) bring up the point of relevance. The paragraph is on the topic of thermate. FEMA's quote is very relevant in this topic because of one very important reason. FEMA found the residues associated with thermate inside the support beams and even pointed out how unusual it is to ever find sulfur inside support beams. Now i agree that this isnt proof of thermate, however it is one of the points supporting the conspiracy theorists who believe thermate was used, and therefore very relevant to this article. It isnt the fact that sulur was found but no one knows how it got there that is so striking. It is the fact that sulfur is so rarely found in this manner. - Debeo Morium: to be morally bound (Talk | Contribs) 02:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh also, i know we are treading onto WP:SYN with this next statement, but i wanted to address your point about sulfur dissolving in steel. Yes you are correct, sulfur dissolves into steel and effectively lowers its melting point (thats why it is used in thermate in the first place). However in order to do so the steel would have had to have been molten in the first place. Which is why in most cases you dont find sulfur dissolving into steel beams and melting them during office fires, despite the presence of sulfur. - Debeo Morium: to be morally bound (Talk | Contribs) 02:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The relevance of FEMA report being unable to explain the sulphur, is, itself WP:SYN, unless the report itself is referred to by some of the conspiracy theorists named in the section. Whether it's objectively relevant (which is what we're arguing) is not relevant; it should only be here if Jones referenced it.  (And, whatever the liquid metal was, it would disolve sulfur.) &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 08:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * FEMA couldn't explain the sulfur, FEMA admitted this themselves. FEMA also admitted this is an unusual ocurance. Many conspiracy theorist have used FEMA's statements in this report as a point of evidence for thermate. No WP:SYN is present in this regard. I cant recall how many times ive heard this brought up by conspiracy theorists. Please name one act that was synthesized and not drawn directly from the sources themselves? We are ater all debating a quote here, how can a quote be synthesis considering that it wasn't taken out o context? - Debeo Morium: to be morally bound (Talk | Contribs) 08:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Useful clarification removed from 9/11 conspiracy theories
By Tom Harrison's suggestion, active users here should read this and comment. —Kanodin 05:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I have to go to kanodin on this one. While I wouldnt be opposed to a rewrite of the sentence to satisfy all involved i think its good the way it is too. The fact disputed really becomes "is the main account a conspiracy theory, or just a conspiracy". The way i see it, if evolution is called a theory, so is the mainstream account. There are scientific laws, and there are theories, unless you can show me the mainstream account is true with a scientific proof, it is a theory. Debeo Morium 16:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think Tom's second objection is worth talking about, but we disagree over how much the sentence implies that all theories (or accounts, or reports, or whatever) of a conspiracy are conspiracy theories. I admit that the sentence explicitly reminds the reader that the 9/11 Commission Report posited a conspiracy. Some person can make a connection (some people do), and the reader may end up being one of those people. I think that is different than implying that all theory-strength (in the positivist sense) conspiracy explanations are conspiracy theories. That is also different than making an explicit claim, which the previous version of the removed sentence did. Such an implication of predication does not appear in the sentence, because it would be original research. To make this short: I think that the possibility implication is much weaker and more acceptable than the predicate implication. Some people may see a possibility implication, but seeing a predicate implication should be very unusual. I am also dubious about how responsible the text is for reader-side implications, since such a discussion would expand to cover every word in the article. —Kanodin 02:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Obviously you don't understand what theory means, otherwise you'd not try and use "evolution is a theory" in your argument. Is the main account a conspiracy theory? No. Conspiracy theories have certain features, and the main story lacks them. It is about a conspiracy, but it isn't a "conspiracy theory". In any event, you don't use "theory" when talking about narratives, generally; theory is used scientifically for one thing, and colloquially for another; a narrative like the story behind 9/11 is not a "theory" as it actually happened and was well-documented. You might use "theory" for a narrative that is shaky, but you don't use it for one with a lot of documented evidence. Titanium Dragon 07:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I find any statement directed at me that begins with "Obviously you don't understand what XXXX means" to be rude and condescending. I know what theory means, and i know that evolution is proposed as a theory despite there being overwhelming evidence to support it. Therefore the mainstream account may or may not have a great deal of evidence to support it, this is irrelevant, it is still a theory. You say the mainstream account "actually happened", however there is a large group of people who disagree, many of which are educated. Im not one of the people who disagree with the mainstream. My personal stance is that the mainstream account has a lot of holes and unanswered questions, and so do all the other conspiracy theories out there. My only intent with this article, and this argument specifically, is to get both sides of the story out fairly, and factually. I believe there is enough opposition to the mainstream account to consider it a theory even colloquially, but that in no way suggests i consider the mainstream events flat out wrong, i do not. Debeo Morium 08:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Titanium Dragon, if narratives are not theories, then "9/11 conspiracy theories" should contain no narratives. If you do not want to call narratives or well-documented explanations "theory", then you exclude the text of virtually every competing explanation worthy of mention in "9/11 conspiracy theories". How many "conspiracy theories" do you think would disappear from the article? Is that a wise course to take? There are some concerns about what features conspiracy theories have, and what features they do not have, but that is not what this discussion is about. Are we going to construct original criteria of conspiracy theory? The sentence in question makes no such efforts, and I find such a project to be beyond the scope of Wikipedia. It is not the case that narratives cease to be "theory" when they become well-documented and accepted--rather, their strength and level of acceptance increases. I suggests that people who identify with Titanium Dragon's standpoint familiarize themselves with Paul Davidson Reynolds's book, A Primer in Theory Construction. That background will provide a traditional and down-to-earth explanation of theory, and it will help people realize the wide scope of the word, even within a scientific context. —Kanodin 20:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It may be condescending, but your reply indicates that I am absolutely correct. A scientific theory is the opposite of a conspiracy theory. A scientific theory is something that is well-supported by the evidence and accepted by the scientific community as the way things work. A hypothesis is the equivalent of what YOU think a theory is - something that is a guess but isn't supported by sufficient evidence to show that it is true. A conspiracy theory is the scientific equivalent of a hypothesis which has no real grounding in evidence and doesn't even seem to be a reasonable guess, or perhaps even the work of a crank with the hypothesis being blatenty wrong. Titanium Dragon 03:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That would contradict the recent consensus on wikipedia regarding the title of "conspiracy theory" to be neutral and not to have the secondary definition of "crack pot theory". If your assertions are true then we need to find a word to use that is better NPOV, but everyone is against that. - Debeo Morium: to be morally bound (Talk | Contribs) 05:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Titanium Dragon, read some scholarly refereed journals to find out the substantive difference between a hypothesis and a theory. You will find the difference couched in terms of a provisional acceptance by other researchers in the field. Many articles have comprehensive literature reviews and are specific in terms of who agrees and disagrees with a particular theory. The scope and depth of that acceptance defines a spectrum between (1) a bare hypothesis that not even the original author accepts, and (2) a theory that everyone unconditionally accepts. Theories of all shapes and sizes exist somewhere between these poles, with some existing closer to hypothesis with just a few scholars agreeing with the theory, and some existing closer to law with almost everyone in agreement. You may think there is some magical threshold that divides hypothesis from theory, but the process of conducting and publishing original research respects no such arbitrary boundary. —Kanodin 04:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like to propose this revised sentence for addition into the article: I think this sentence is true and unlikely to be disputed. We use the term because we intuit that name as the most recognizable, not because of attributable evidence (we can cite no content analysis of our reliable sources to determine name usage; many sources use the term, but no reliable sources say that "9/11 conspiracy theories" is the most appropriate term). This sentence also categorically excludes any discussions that critique the 9/11 Commission Report without positing an opposing version that significantly increases the U.S.'s culpability (e.g., if someone merely says that the Commission did not adequately interview Richard Clark, the 9/11 conspiracy theory predicate would not apply). Of course, the word "colloquially" above is optional and can be removed if anyone has a serious objection, but I think it best captures the spirit in which we justify using "9/11 conspiracy theories". It is a real but informal expression. —Kanodin 01:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Although the official account specifies a conspiracy between Al Qaeda members, this article uses the term 9/11 conspiracy theories colloquially to refer only to theories that significantly contradict the 9/11 Commission Report.


 * Replace "official" with "mainstream", and it seems sufficiently NPOV. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 01:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I dont care if "official" is used or "mainstream" the sentence looks good for addition on my part. - Debeo Morium: to be morally bound (Talk | Contribs) 06:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Arthur, I do not think mainstream is better than official, but I get your point about NPOV. Consider this version:
 * Although the 9/11 Commission Report specifies a conspiracy between Al Qaeda members, this article uses the term 9/11 conspiracy theories colloquially to refer only to theories that significantly contradict the 9/11 Commission Report.
 * The antecedent has a citation that refers to the Commission Report, so perhaps calling the source by name is the best presentation. —Kanodin 03:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That isn't colloquial use, it is use consistent with the terminology of academics, researchers, and journalists as expressed in reliable sources. A theory involving a conspiracy and a conspiracy theory are two different things. The drive to conflate one with the other is like the "official account" - a rhetorical device Truthers use for self-promotion. Tom Harrison Talk 12:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * So, your objection is just with the word "colloquially", or with the whole sentence?
 * "Conspiracy theory" is not colloquial? Who makes that analysis? The closest we get is George Johnson's book on conspiracies, but that text offers little help in discriminating conspiracy theories in real life (indicating that Johnson merely refers to a colloquialism). As I said before, the sentence rejects the conflation for the purposes of the article. It implies the potential for prejudicial conflation, then informs the reader that the article does not conflate the terms. Furthermore, the sentence makes a predicate claim about "9/11 conspiracy theories" in the article, not in world-wide semantics. So tell me, does the article use conspiracy theory as a formal term, referring to a delineated category with clear rules for inclusion/exclusion, or does the article use the term colloquially, forcing readers to use a nebulous I know a conspiracy theory when I see one test? —Kanodin 21:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Conspiracism
Relying on the internet alone for definitions of conspiracy theory and conspiracism is alarmingly superficial. There are dozens of scholarly books in print that define conspiracism. Here is one definition from Right-Wing Populism in America (which I co-wrote as Chip Berlet:


 * Conspiracism is a particular narrative form of scapegoating that frames the enemy as part of a vast insidious plot against the common good, while it valorizes the scapegoater as a hero for sounding the alarm. Like other forms of scapegoating, conspiracism often, though not always, targets oppressed or stigmatized groups. In many cases, conspiracism uses coded language to mask ethnic or racial bigotry, for example, attacking the Federal Reserve in ways that evoke common stereotypes about “Jewish bankers.” Far-right groups have often used such conspiracy theories as an opening wedge for more explicit hate ideology.

What are the key elements of conspiracism?


 * First, the conspiracist worldview assigns tiny cabals of evildoers a superhuman power to control events; it regards such plots as the major motor of history. Conspiracism blames individualized and subjective forces for political, economic, and social problems rather than analyzing conflict in terms of systems, institutions, and structures of power.


 * Second, conspiracism tends to frame social conflict in terms of a transcendent struggle between Good and Evil that reflects the influence of the apocalyptic paradigm.


 * Third, in its efforts to trace all wrongdoing to one vast plot, conspiracism plays fast and loose with the facts. While conspiracy theorists often start with a grain of truth and “document” their claims exhaustively, they make leaps of logic in analyzing evidence, such as seeing guilt by association or treating allegations as proven fact.

The work of Barkun, Goldberg, Mintz, Fenster, and Pipes can also be consulted. Try using a library card--it is a wonderful key to knowledge.--Cberlet 13:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It should be noted that Conspiracism is not exactly a mainstream topic of study. It is a pet theory of sorts for Chip Berlet and some of the authors mentioned above. --MaplePorter 21:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Cberlet, that's interesting. The analysis of conspiracism would do well for the conspiracy theory article, and it would make people consider what falls under conspiracism. As soon as you add it to 9/11 conspiracy theories, however, you will see editors demanding reliable sources connecting conspiracism to the 9/11 grouping. Consensus on word choice would simply not be enough. —Kanodin 00:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

# 5.1 Claims that Al-Qaeda investigations were blocked and warnings ignored
I think that FBI agent Coleen Rowley's letter to then FBI Director Robert Mueller has reason be be cited in this section. Time Magazine article It shows that she was compelled to write to the director to politely express her frustration at the difficulty of attaining and following up FISA search and detainment requests for accused 911 terrorist Moussaoui in the weeks up to and after the attacks. She indicates that had those requests been granted on the wealth of probable cause evidence collected, it would have gone a long way toward preventing the attacks. These are serious claims, as is in small part indicated by the following passages from the letter:

"...FBI Supervisory Special Agent (SSA) who was the one most involved in the Moussaoui matter and who, up to that point seemed to have been consistently, almost deliberately thwarting the Minneapolis FBI agents' efforts (see number 5). Even after the attacks had begun, the SSA in question was still attempting to block the search of Moussaoui's computer, characterizing the World Trade Center attacks as a mere coincidence with Misseapolis' prior suspicions about Moussaoui."

"...(The SSA in question actually received a promotion some months afterward!)"

JWarwick 04:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I could see a place for this in the article. I would support its inclusion. - Debeo Morium: to be morally bound (Talk | Contribs) 06:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

How are these paragraph's?

In 2002, FBI whistleblower Coleen Rowley wrote to then FBI director Robert Mueller describing her experience working with Minneapolis FBI division agents leading up to the 911 attacks Time Magazine article. Her division was tracking suspected terrorist Zacaraias Moussaoui. Rowley states the Minneapolis bureau had desperately sought a warrant to search Moussaoui's computer. She asserts that there was probable cause for this because Moussaoui signalled he had something to hide in the way he refused to allow them to search his computer . She also indicates her view that division intelligence on flight training and French intelligence reports on Moussaoui received leading up to the attacks fully necessitated such a warrant FBI eMails concerning Moussaoui.

Stated for reasons of integrity and frustration, Rowley goes on to describe the behavior of an FBI Supervisory Special Agent; her superior Deputy General Counsel Marion "Spike" Bowman as having consistently, almost deliberately thwarted the Minneapolis FBI agents' efforts to attain the FISA search warrant up to the day of he attacks, and that even after the attacks had begun, the SSA in question was still attempting to block the search of Moussaoui's computer, characterizing the World Trade Center attacks as a mere coincidence with Misseapolis' prior suspicions about Moussaoui. . Further to this she says that the SSA agent in question received a promotion some months afterward! FBI watchdog Sen. Chuck Grassley, Republican-Iowa, later wrote to FBI Director Robert Mueller: If the application for the FISA warrant had gone forward, agents would have found information in Moussaoui's belongings that linked him both to a major financier of the hijacking plot working out of Germany, and to a Malaysian al-Qaida boss who had met with at least two other hijackers while under surveillance by intelligence officials. Coleen Rowley's account was not reviewed by the 911 commission as she was never asked to testify. JWarwick 03:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Please minimize the block quotations (make them in-line). The article is already long enough. —Kanodin 19:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay then I will request to put them (the paras above) in without blockquotes.JWarwick 06:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Uhh this page is only semi-protected. If you have a user you can do it yourself. - Debeo Morium: to be morally bound (Talk | Contribs) 05:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

A question
I know this probably isn't the place for it, but I was discussing the 9/11 article proper, and came across ppl discussing this and just had a question I always wondered how all you conspirarcy nuts (enthusiasts/keepers of the truth - however you like to be referred to) figure out: If the towers were brought down by bombs, how do you fit in the fact that it was the top of the buildings that collapsed first? I know that there was/is a lot of whoohaa about whether the temp fuel burns at is enough to make the steel melt, but do you take that to mean there were bombs placed where the planes crashed to help the fire along with its job? How did they know exactly where the planes were gonna crash? Big Love :) Wireless99 20:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, the theorists do speculate on the feasability of that hypothesis, and certainly the way you put it does make it sound the most outlandish of claims since how would they know where to start the charges if the planes could have crashed at any height? Others seem to follow the Sherlock Holmes route for this type of problem, where he say's to the similarly enquiring Watson
 * "As you know dear Watson, once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth."
 * JWarwick 00:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Conspiracy theories are marked by their lack of plausibility, as almost all 9/11 conspiracies are. All the "we did it" conspiracies are completely outlandish. Bush and the government beneath him was completely incompetant, and after their horrible mishandling of Hurricane Katrina, I think it has become obvious that there is no possible way people as wildly as incompetant as the Bush administration would manage to execute something like this successfully; no, their repeated ignoring of warnings has nothing to do with conspiracy and everything to do with incompetance. Conspiracy theorists just want to believe there is a greater purpose and that random acts of this magnitude can't occur, but it is obvious that with an incompetant enough administration it can and does. They just try to cover their butts, and people unfortunately let them. Titanium Dragon 01:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Incompetence in being good doesnt necessarily imply incompetence in being bad, it depends on the motivation. JWarwick 03:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

- Debeo Morium: to be morally bound (Talk | Contribs) 03:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You need to understand what "all you conspirarcy nuts" actually means. Only 16% of the general population believe in a conspiracy theory 100%. 36% believe a conspiracy theory is plausable and an investigation is needed. Only 30% of the population actually believes the official account. 65% believe at least part of one of the conspiracy theories. These numbers indicate that it is appropriate to consider conspiracy theories until outstanding questions are answered. It means this article is relevant and should be maintained as NPOV as possible regardless of what the supporters of the official account want. I point out that the Pearl Harbour conspiracy theories were discounted as implausable but we now know they were in fact partially true and it is only the degree of truth that is still debated. If everything "implausable" is discounted and not mentioned then the truth never comes out. Ergo conspiracy theories are a public service. Wayne 04:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It isn't that I'm advocating abdication of NPOV, but it is well worth noting that these conspiracy theories have been throughly debunked. In any event, the American populace is known to be notriously ignorant about reality; a huge percentage of them believed (and STILL believe) we found WMDs in Iraq, 18% think the Sun orbits the Earth, only about half believe in evolution, ect. The American populace isn't exactly a reliable source. Titanium Dragon 06:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Its been shown in surveys that it's the people who get their information from the Internet who a) know that WMD were not found in Iraq and b) are more likely to believe a conspiracy about 911. Coincidence much? Nevertheless it is contradictory to the idea that 30% of American populous is so misinformed that they believe the conspiracy theories and incorrectly that WMD were found. JWarwick 10:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

JWarwick's comment is interesting. Anyone with the internet has to know no WMD were found yet only a few months ago I read an article in one of the big mainstream newspapers that mentioned WMD being found. This is a good example of the problem. Mainstream media will knowingly support false information if it suits them. Lets not forget that after FOX got sued for knowingly lying about Iraq the courts ruled that the media have the right to intentionally disseminate false news. Wayne 15:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The only conspiracy theory debunked to date was the "no plane at the Pentagon" and that was never supported by the majority of 9/11 conspiracy theorists anyway as they condemned it from the start as a "poisoning of the well" conspiracy. For the other conspiracies, for every expert that "debunks" a theory there is another expert just as prominent who still supports it (from what I've seen many are even more prominent that the debunkers). It is only that the "debunkers" get more mainstream media coverage that gives the impression that the conspiracy theories are "fringe". The only way to debunk the theories is to investigate them which the government refuses to do and this only gives added support to them. This page is for conspiracy theories and it annoys me that many editors try to restrict edits (often using spurious reasons) that may support them while adding edits themselves that take away NPOV by making the article lean to debunking, by this I mean the language used not the edit content. It is easy to debunk if you don’t allow evidence that can't be easily debunked or not allow the views of experts because they are not on the front page of the NYT. For example I added (on another topic) a video of an interview as a cite for a quote by an expert with impeccable credentials. It was deleted 3 times because the website that carried it was not a recognised RS. Did that matter? Is not a video confirming the accuracy of a quote good regardless of site? Mainstream media refused to carry it so what do you do? I guarantee that if that same site posted something debunking a theory these same editors would include it without blinking.


 * FOX News is not exactly the most reliable source for reality, and I think a lot of educated people understand this. But no, they all have been debunked. The controlled demolition theory is easily discredited by the fact that setting up a controlled demolition is a complete pain in the arse; you aren't going to be able to set up a controlled demolition in a burning 40 story building, and you can't set up a controlled demolition without people noticing in an occupied building. That the hijackers survived is obviously false; they're all dead. The reports of them still being alive is the result of them having the same name as other people; hardly shocking, given several of them have common names. If someone with my first and last name did something crazy, a lot of people would be surprised, but I know at least two other people who share my name and suspect there are many others. The faked cell phone calls sounded plausible at first after initial testing failed to let people make phone calls, but I've accidentally left my cell phone on many times while in planes and been able to get a signal even at cruise altitude, and apparently this is not unusual - apparently the average number of cell phone calls per flight is above 1 (obviously cell phones don't cause planes to fall out of the sky). If people had been told to stand down, we'd know - there are waaaay too many people in the administration who are mad over something and would have said something, and a LOT of the people who would have been told to stand down were simply randoms who had no reason to stay quiet.
 * The reason that these are called conspiracy theories is because that is exactly what they are. They are things that people with insufficient knowledge came up with. The main story is accurate; terrorists from Al Quaeda managed to hijack four planes and crash them into three buildings and a random field in the middle of nowhere. The buildings collapsed as a result of the impact of planes at high speed into them. The degree to which the terrorists succeeded due to blind luck, due to incompetancy on the part of the Bush administration, and due to competancy on the part of Al Quaeda is not entirely clear, but it is evident that all three were involved and likely that the incompetancy of the administration in responding to the attacks has been underreported and understated. However, neither Bush nor Cheney nor anyone else in the administration ordered these attacks.
 * Conspiracy theorists always seek a greater cause, but often there isn't one. The people with all these crazy theories don't really know what they're talking about. I myself am an engineer, and after looking into these things it is obvious that the conspiracy theory models all have serious flaws whereas the real story is what I'd come up with myself, more or less, just from watching it happen. Titanium Dragon 06:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thats called speculation, not debunking. Debunking requires a bit more of the scientific method my friend. But anyway, i shall repeat my warning above as the OT chatters seems to keep going...

- Debeo Morium: to be morally bound (Talk | Contribs) 07:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Apologies. However, I do feel some of this IS relevant. He simply is denying that they've been debunked, and they have been, and I think that is important to keep in mind while writing the article. Titanium Dragon 08:12, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * My main position is that al Quaeda has undue weight in the article considering there is no proof they were involved which is admitted by the FBI. Everyone knows they did it does not qualify as proof. I point out that an action being "pain in the ass" is not proof such an action is debunked. Wayne 09:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Where does the FBI "admit" that they have no proof regarding al Qaeda's involvement? Phiwum 10:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Bad use of words on my part. The FBI state they have no proof that Osama bin Laden was involved. al Quaeda involvement is specualation based on several hijackers being suspected of being members. I think Atta is the only one where the connection is proven. This can be dangerous though, because you can also go on to say (as have some conspiracy theorists) that bin Laden's involvement with the GOP is proof they too were involved. Wayne 10:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I see that | Global Research claims that a spokesman for the FBI says there is no "hard evidence" connecting bin Laden to 9/11. Assuming that this is an accurate report (the Washington Post also reports the same), what does it mean?  Do we expect the FBI to have such evidence?
 * From the Post article:
 * Exhaustive government and independent investigations have concluded otherwise, of course, and bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders have proudly taken responsibility for the hijackings. FBI officials say the wanted poster merely reflects the government's long-standing practice of relying on actual criminal charges in the notices.
 * "There's no mystery here," said FBI spokesman Rex Tomb. "They could add 9/11 on there, but they have not because they don't need to at this point. . . . There is a logic to it."
 * Seems to me that the current emphasis on al Qaeda's role is perfectly defensible. Phiwum 17:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Wirt Walker III not cousin of George W Bush
There is no fact at all supporting the claim that former CEO of Securacom, Wirt Walker III, is a cousin of president Bush.

I've yet seen any source supporting the claim, and therefore I think that the claim either should be removed here, or supporting evidence be added to the article. As it is now, the only source cited is an article written by David Griffin (note 67), hardly an unbiased source and one that actually doesn't provide anything at all to show that Walker III is in fact anyway related to George Bush.

From WP:RS

Sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight should only be used in articles about the sources themselves. Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources.

--SLOB1 11:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There is this and I read somewhere else that the Walker kinship is more than 3 generations ago. Also no one has denied it which you would expect. It's not unusual to stay in contact with relatives so distant and I myself have visited relatives where the connection was 6 generations ago. Wayne 16:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

First, the Wiki-entry states it as a fact, which its not. The Washington Specator writer, Margie Burns, states in her blog :

"A former colleague of the head of the company, Wirt Dexter Walker III, suggested to me that Walker is a distant relative of the Bush family. While any blood relationship to the Bush Walkers would have to be remote (the first Wirt D. Walker, two generations ago, was based in Chicago; the second in McLean, Virginia, in the DIA), "

A "former collegue", "suggested" "distant relative". That is hardly enought to state, as the Wiki article does:

"from 1999 to January 2002 their cousin Wirt Walker III was the CEO".

Its_pure_conspiracist_speculation. He is definately not their cousin, and no evidence show that he's even a distant cousin.

Secondly, "Also no one has denied it which you would expect", is argumentum ad ignorantiam. Its a logical fallacy.

The claim should either be supported with proper sources, or removed.

--SLOB1 21:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * A year or so ago when I wrote the piece I did not state Wirt Walker was his cousin but explicitly said that David Ray Griffin was claiming that he was. That and the Burns blog claiming he is a distant relative is what should be written. It deserves to be here because we have to write what prominent conspiracy theorists are saying. It would be inaccurate to write that at this point this matter is "in dispute" unless their are explicit denials. Also in a somewhat related matter as I asked about earlier there are conflicting claims as to whether Shafig Bin Ladin is Osama's brother or half brother Edkollin 04:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The current text reads "Critics often argue that the difficulty of preparing the building for demolition without being noticed makes controlled demolition implausible. Proponents sometimes point out that between 1993 and 2000, Marvin Bush (President Bush's brother) was a principal in a company that provided security for the World Trade Center (as well as United Airlines) and that from 1999 to January 2002 their cousin Wirt Walker III was the CEO.[69]". Perhaps you could re-write the original text to reflect that it's just something David Griffin claims.

The text as it is today doesn't even reflect the role Stratesec/Securacom had at WTC (e.g it was involed in developing the security-description plan, the layout of the electronic security system). The current description is at best sketchy. The main reason why CT'ers pull the alleged Walker-Bush connection, is to claim that the Bush family "was in charge of security at the WTC", and thus had an opportunity to pre-rig the towers with explosives, thermite or whatever. By stopping at just stating "a company that provided security for the WTC", that theory, imho, is fueled.

And what is a "principal"? As I understand it Marvin Bush was a board member, which could mean just about anything. If he was indeed a "principal" his role in the company needs to be elaborated.

In its present incarnation, I also think that the mentioning of United Airlines within brackets should either be removed, or clarified (Why stop at mentioning United Airlines, why not all of Stratesec/Securacom operations?). Right now its just plain insinuation.

I think it would suffice to write something along with:

"Critics often argue that the difficulty of preparing the building for demolition without being noticed makes controlled demolition implausible. Proponents sometimes point out that between 1993 and 2000, Marvin Bush (President Bush's brother) was a board member of Stratesec/Securacom, a company that for two years was involved in developing an electronic security system for the World Trade Center. Some also claims that the CEO from 1999 to 2002, Wirt Walker III, is a distant cousin of the Bush Family, however the family connection has not been proven. Stratesec/Securacom lost their contract in 1998 to another company." --SLOB1 22:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

"Critics often argue that the difficulty of preparing the building for demolition without being noticed makes controlled demolition implausible. Proponents sometimes point out that a company Stratesec that had a role in developing security systems for the World Trade Center had high officers in the company that had Bush family relations. Marvin Bush Presidents Bush's brother was a member of the firms board of directors from 1993 through 2000. While on the board, Marvin Bush served on the company's Audit Committee and Compensation Committee. He acquired 53,000 shares of stock in the company at 52 cents a share, partly through his private company, Andrews-Bush, located in northern Virginia. Company stock became worthless after the company was de-listed on the American Stock Exchange in the fall of 2002. Securities and Exchange Commission filings ceased showing Marvin Bush as a shareholder after 2000  but there are no filings indicating when his stock was sold. Wirt Walker III who according to a former colleague and member of the Kuwaiti ruling family Mishal Yousef Saud Al Sabah is a distant relative "in the Walker branch of the Bush family" was at various times CEO and chairman of the board at Stratesec.

The company received a $8.3 million World Trade Center security contract in October 1996 and received about $9.2 million from the WTC job from 1996 (a quarter of its revenues that year) to 1998. But in 1998 the company was "excused from the project" because it could not fulfill the work according to former manager Al Weinstein and the electronic security work at the WTC was taken over by EJ Electric a larger contractor. Since that time the company has gone bankrupt and as of 2005 investors were suing the company's partners including Walker in federal court in Washington.

Marvin Bush also served on the board of directors of HCC Insurance one of the main insurance carriers for the World Trade Center. HCC lost $29 million at 9/11 largely from World Trade Center property losses, medical payouts in New York City, and workers' compensation and reinsurance losses. Bush's directorship at Stratesec was not included on the proxy statement for HCC in 1999 and his connections with HCC were not included on the proxy statement for Stratesec. SEC regulations require directors and officers of public companies to list their other directorships and business connections.

The White House has not responded to repeated questions and requests for comment about Marvin Bush's relationship with Securacom" TRIMMING THE BUSHES Family Business at the Watergate By Margie Burns Washington Spectator February 15, 2005

The cite is a bi weekly published since 1974. You have name of the person that claims Walker is a distant relative and a name of a person who claims the company was fired from the WTC job. I want to thank SLOB1 who pointed out that the company was fired from the WTC job which in my POV is a vital piece of information that I had not seen before and which prompted me to inquire about it leading me find this cite that had a lot of detail and provided me with a new perspective on this. This is at best a rough draft. It does not at describe how Stratesec became Securacom and has information that is not directly related to 9/11 conspiracy theories. In short this needs to be reedited by an editor has has a working knowledge of how corporations are structured which this editor does not posses  Edkollin 06:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually I dont think that Mishal Yousef Saud Al Sabah has claimed that Wirt Walker was a distant relative of the Bush family. If you read the passage carefully it claims that Stratesec and Aviation General shared top execs, among them Wirt Walker and Mishal Yousef. NOT that Yousef claimed that Wirt was a relative of the Bush family. The "former collegue" still remains unknown, and imho that should be clarified.


 * Stratesec and Aviation General shared top executives, including Wirt D. Walker III, a distant relative "in the Walker branch of the Bush family," according to a former colleague, and Mishal Yousef Saud Al Sabah of the Kuwaiti ruling family.
 * To me this is saying that both are claiming he is a distant relative. You are right in saying that  my writing misidentifies Sabah as a former colleague  and that who this former colleague is vague and should not be used.  I would rewrite it "Wirt Walker III was at various times CEO and chairman of the board at Stratesec. According to Mishal Yousef Saud Al Sabah a member of the Kuwaiti ruling family the former Stratesec executive is a distant relative 'in the Walker branch of the Bush family'".  Our problem is with the author of this article who left this important point vague. Based on the whole tone of the article which is to expose the Saudi/Kuwait/Bush family relations the my guess is that the author meant to say that 1.Sabah is a former colleague 2. Walker is a distant relative. But to me the two important points raised by the article are. 1. The company was fired from the WTC in 1998 making it much more unlikely they could have been pre planting explosives (unless EJ Electric was somehow related) 2. HHC holdings lost $29 mil because the attack. What needs to be clarified (by somebody else's OR) is if Marvin Bush personally gained or lost money or had no changes to his bottom line based on this Edkollin 16:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I do know that a quote floats around the net negating the claim that Walker was an ever so distant "cousin":

"Walker is the great-grandnephew of his namesake Wirt D. Walker (1860-1899), a successful railroad entrepreneur and philanthropist from Chicago who became blind and helped found the Art Institute of Chicago. They are descended from James M. Walker of New Hampshire. Although frequently cited as a cousin of Marvin Bush, who is a descendant of George Herbert Walker of St. Louis, there is no connection between the families."

I however haven't been able to find the source for that text, other than an apparently deleted Wikipedia article about Wirt.

--SLOB1 15:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I read that the other day and it actually continues by saying that the proof is that these Walkers lived in Chicago so any relationship is unlikely. I tried to trace the Walkers and found that Chicago was only where their main business interests and main residences were. They spent half the year (since the mid 1800's) living in Massachusetts and they all attended Yale so that sort of negates the proof given for no connection. There are numerous mentions on the internet to Wirt being a distant cousin and they all postdate that original source but there is nothing disputing it. Wayne 09:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Im not exactly sure what you are saying here. First of all do you have a source from which your (new?) information came? Secondly what does "their main residence was in Chicago" mean, and what does it have to do with anything? What other "residences" did Wirt Walkers ancestor have that makes it believable that he was also the ancestor of George Bush? Who were "they" that all attended Yale, and when, and what source claims this? Third, "There are numerous mentions on the internet to Wirt being a distant cousin" is a fallacy ("In other cases its repetition may be cited as evidence of its truth,). It doesn't matter if ten or a hundred internet pages posts the same claim, the important thing is what they base it on. And so far I have yet to see any page that base it on any other thing than the original text by Margie Burns. And fourth, the fact that "nothing is disputing it" is again a argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy . To clarify, during the brief discussion here, nothing at all has surfaced that in any way shows that Wirt Walker and George Bush are even distant relatives. What is clear, is that they are definately not "cousins", as the text now reads.

--SLOB1 19:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The source was Yale University. They publish small bios of former students. The ONLY claim I've seen that they were not related (the one above SLOB1 posted) was based on the fact that the two Walker families lived too far apart to be related. The Yale bio said they lived in Chicago but also lived in Massachusetts (at least from the time of Wirt the 1st). That means the two families were almost walking distance which negates living too far apart as proof. I would have normally discounted the relationship as tenuous but it was a widespread claim used as proof for corruption by the Bush family yet they never denied it. Wayne 05:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Could you please provide a link to the Yale bios, and/or give me an email whom to reach at Yale to get access to these bios? For the record my quote does not claim that distance was the reason for them not being relatives (which would make absolutely no sense at all, one might live in New York, and one in San Franscico and they could still be related). It is just a small bio showing that they are different persons, different Walkers. One from Chicago and one from S:t Louis. And yet again, the burden of proof is on the party making the claim, not the other way around. If someone claims two persons are cousins, that person is the one to prove it.

Another point could be made that very, very distant relations is a moot point, if you look back in time anyone is related. The claim in question asserts that they are in fact _cousins_. If no such evidence exist, again I move to have the claim removed, or have it clarified that no evidence exists that proves, or even suggests, that Walker and Bush are indeed cousins (as in sharing grand-parents).

--SLOB1 06:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I put what I wrote above as a new subsection of the controlled demolition section. I felt with the debate kind of stalled here the need to get the new information out to the many readers who might be looking at this article with the 6th anniversary coming up Tuesday. As for Walker I said if and what the relationship is remains murky. I said David Griffin is claiming that Walker is the presidents cousin and added a cite for that. I mentioned the Kuwaiti ruling family member who claims that Walker is a "distant relative" as per the Washington Spectator article. If a counter claim can be found of course it should immediatly be added to that section Edkollin 06:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I've checked with the author of the Specator article, Maggie Burns, and the Kuwaiti prince did not claim that Bush and Walker were cousins. And the unnamed collegue is, according to Maggie Burns, Al Weinstein, who had been an executive in Securacom/Stratesec.

--SLOB1 22:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * SLOB1 See your talk page discussion Edkollin 04:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Noseoutframe.jpg
Image:Noseoutframe.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

911 in general/organization of pages
I want to comment about 911 content and titles and point of view issues. I didn't know quite where to put this so I'm starting a new page.

First, just because someone is interested in the paranormal, doesn't mean they can't deal logically with facts. Many of the early astronomers were also astrologers, but were still valuable as astronomers, and contributed in humanity's   quest for scientific knowledge. To be interested in 911 AND symbolic ideas, and poetical terms, like giant lizards, karma, faces in clouds, etc, does not necessarily mean people are completely insane. However, I don't think these ideas should have a big place in Wikipedia.

What I do think is germane in the 911 Wikipedia content and discussions are 2 approaches that are more "reality-based':

1. Approach Number One:  911 as history: The "story" of 911. This includes the mainstream approach, the story of the passengers taking over flight 93, the government conspiracy theory of how it was all planned from a cave in a stone age country, (David vs. Goliath) and the idea that this story is pieced together from all kinds of little tidbits including a picture of an "Islamic" bandana in an FBI plastic bag, good-bye phone calls, etc. This is the story of our time and deserves a place in    an encyclopedia. And my heart goes out to everyone involved. This is the emotional approach.

2. Approach Number Two: 911 as a crime:  This is a very different approach from the one above. It involves being skeptical of everything until it can be proved. It involves wanting actual evidence, not good story items. If one is investigating a crime, it is not woo-woo or crazy to be skeptical. One should be skeptical. A murder investigator will want an alibi from most EVERYONE involved with the victim, including the spouse! (You can't just say, "Oh,   someone would NEVER kill their own husband or wife.") The ideal is to find the truth of    what actually happened, whatever it might be. To be skeptical of people's "stories" is    what is required. To be skeptical of the government's story is what is required. And especially in this case, since the stories are often contradictory. And, I have to say that I find this approach enormously interesting. This is the unsolved puzzle of our time. This is the mental/intellectual approach.

I think distinguishing these two approaches might be helpful in organizing and titling pages and sub-pages. I think some people favor Approach #1 and get very emotional about those using Approach #2, and lump anyone using Approach #2 as a questionable source, (because they are hinting at a different story) when it's actually just a difference in approach.

For example, it may be historically true, to the best of our knowledge, that, in one instance, it was an American Airlines jet that crashed, but presenting evidence of this in a trial is an entirely different thing. The same with the phone calls. They add to the story, but would they hold up in court? I, for one, am interested in the evidentiary approach, especially since there has been so much controversy. Let's get down to brass tacks.

Maybe there could be a page called "Investigating 911" or "911 as a Crime" that could be more evidence-based, rather than story-based, that could include: >facts with their sources >conclusions from these facts-quotes from those drawing the conclusions >disputed facts-quotes for and against >contradictory evidence-placing sourced items side-by-side (you decide!) >tentative theories based on the above It could be truly "encyclopediac," as in thorough!

And, just to vent, My understanding is that the legal definition of "conspiracy" is 2 or more people plotting destruction. Unless you think it was a coincidence that 4 planes were hijacked on the same morning, 911 has to be a conspiracy, it's self-evident. Anyway you look at it, it was planned by 2 or more people, and it was destructive. Who all was involved in the conspiracy is what is in dispute, or unsolved. Saying 911 Conspiracy is like saying apple-fruit.

Titling the page "Conspiracy Theories" is like pitting different stories against each other. The connect-the-dots approach is an up in the air type thing, with ideas that can be made to look silly or woo-woo depending on one's point of view. It's just ideas up in the clouds, that could be bantered around endlessly.

But calling it "Investigating 911" or "911 as a Crime" brings it down to earth, with respectful room for sourced physical evidence, anomalies, tentative theories, suspicions, contradictory items, etc. This would be a great service to our country, to catalog all this in Wikipedia's format. This is a much more neutral approach.

It's not a silly subject. I've seen estimates that we've killed up to a million innocent Iraqi civilians over this, and with the median age over there at 19, that figures out to possibly half a million children. It's a serious subject, and it deserves serious treatment, not just emotional scorn for differing opinions.

````