Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories/Archive 17

Pakistan issue
This quote needs to be reworded and built upon: "There are allegations that individuals within the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence may have played an important role in financing the attacks." The so called 'allegations' are actually documented in many mainstream publications as being facts of public record, such as this quote from the Guardian of UK: "Why then is Omar Sheikh not being dealt with when he is already under sentence of death? Astonishingly his appeal to a higher court against the sentence was adjourned in July for the 32nd time and has since been adjourned indefinitely. This is all the more remarkable when this is the same Omar Sheikh who, at the behest of General Mahmood Ahmed, head of the ISI, wired $100,000 to Mohammed Atta, the leading 9/11 hijacker, before the New York attacks, as confirmed by Dennis Lormel, director of FBI's financial crimes unit. Yet neither Ahmed nor Omar appears to have been sought for questioning by the US about 9/11. Indeed, the official 9/11 Commission Report of July 2004 sought to downplay the role of Pakistan with the comment: "To date, the US government has not been able to determine the origin of the money used for the 9/11 attacks. Ultimately the question is of little practical significance" - a statement of breathtaking disingenuousness." This whole article needs to be cleaned up in general, spending too much time on the less valid points of the 'conspiracy' and often completely overlooking the better documented and proven aspects, such as the aforementioned. I just signed up to wikipedia though and don't want to start altering everyones hard work and what not so I thought I'd put up a discussion first to get a brief consensus from those who have spent more time with it than I. Thanks for any input, it is appreciated. --Cdubg (talk) 20:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * First since you are a newbie usually new discussion topics goes to the bottom of the page. Otherwise if you feel you have a reliable source and The Guardian would qualify as such then add it to the article. Also note as you read the article this article has many sub articles. Link to them One I believe Responsibility for 9/11 attacks" goes into detail about alleged foreign involvement. Edkollin (talk) 01:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If that matter is going to be raised then it should be pointed out that the only original source for the Pakistan-sends-money-to-Atta story is from the Indian media. India and Pakistan have never been friends and any stories of this type which originate from the Indian media deserve to be treated with intense caution.  A useful discussion of the Pakistan-sends-money-to-Atta story appears here at this page:


 * http://911myths.com/html/india_and_isi-sponsored_terror.html


 * http://911myths.com/html/isi_first_reports.html


 * Go through it and check all the sources and then come back and modify the comments on this matter.

Request for sources
After reading the media and ciriticism sections, one could be forgiven for concluding that the US government is the greatest beneficiary of the popularity of 9/11 conspiracy theories. The willingness to entertain fanciful notions and to question anything, no matter how trivial, serve to distract from the more sober questions of incompetence and responsibility that might otherwise be levelled at the administration. Does anyone know of any sources that make such claims? Sheffield Steel talkstalk 19:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Considering the content, I doubt few reliable] sources could be found for such claims. --[[User:Clpo13|clpo13(talk) 20:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, I believe Michael Albert of Z Magazine has been outspoken in making this point, and has given other notable commentators a platform to do the same. I will go looking for some sources. (Yeah, I know Z isn't at the pinnacle of our reliable source pyramid, but WP:PARITY has to apply when we're dealing with an article about the 9/11 Truthers.) &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 01:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * How can a source be reliable if it makes the claim that the US government was negligent or actively attacking its own citizens? Simply making the claim is enough to become an unreliable source.  I may be wrong.  Does anyone have a counterexample?  In any case, it doesn't seem useful to find reliable sources that make the claim because the evidence leads each person to their own claims and beliefs anyway.  The article should be based on evidence rather than claims. Dscotese (talk) 00:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please provide a source for "US government intelligence sources identified the hijackers and linked them to the terrorist organization al-Qaeda, headed by Osama Bin Laden, which later claimed sole responsibility for the attacks." Specifically: "...which later claimed sole responsibility for the attacks." 71.59.20.84 (talk) 03:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)fancyface 11 September 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.20.84 (talk) 03:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Dancing Mossad agents
There's various sites that claim five Mossad agents were seen dancing in after the collapse, before leaving in a white van. The van was stopped, and found to contain explosives. They were then deported in minor visa charges. The most reliable source I could find is this: http://www.todayscatholicworld.com/mossad-agents-911.htm. A quick look shows that it isn't reliable at all.

Has this come up before, and is there any proof that this is bunk (other than a lack of proof) —Preceding unsigned comment added by GeneralStan (talk • contribs) 23:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This incident definitely did happen. There used to be quite a bit of material on it in this article, however it has all been moved to the article "9/11 advance-knowledge debate". A number of reliable sources are referenced. The whole thing is very suspicious, and unfortunately many people dismiss it as a bogus story. Logicman1966 (talk) 00:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Related question: do we have the "Dancing Palestinian children hoax" in any of our articles? It appears that cameramen were handing out sweets to Palestinian children in order to obtain footage of "Palestinians who were extatic about the attacks". &mdash; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 20:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * They celebrated an attack on their enemy (America funds the Israeli military). Hardly out of the ordinary. FunkMonk (talk) 15:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This is what is more commonly known as "arab propaganda". The celebrations were real, and a major embarassment to the Palestinians, who felt (rightly) that by celebrating the west would see them as a bunch of terrorists. Titanium Dragon (talk) 19:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The Mossad incident is real. There were no explosives though; this is yet more arab propaganda. There were box cutters, which aroused suspicion. To be entirely fair, though, it wasn't as if the US government, Mossad, and many intelligence agencies worldwide didn't know that something bad was planned. Titanium Dragon (talk) 19:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a problem here under Jewish involvement, it quotes the ADL and looks like that section was written by the ADL. That is a clear conflict of interest. If you search on Youtube Dancing+Israelis+9/11, you will find interviews with one of the many persons that saw them and called the police and the New Jersey officer that arrested them. Later they go on Israeli TV and state "Our Purpose was to document the event". This information was in the 9/11 conspiracy theories page, but I guess the ADL got to it and took that out. All these things did happen and should be stated under Jewish involvement. Heres a source for information countering the ADL piece. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guardian4truth (talk • contribs) 00:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Two words: reliable sources  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 02:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * If you actually looked at the link you would see the information sourced by: The New York Times, NBC News, Fox news, ABC news, New York Post, Jerusalem Post and Israeli National News.


 * I think it is sourced sufficiently. But this section about Jewish involvement is sourced by the ADL? And looks like the whole section was written by the ADL. Now talking about bad sources I don't think there could be a more biased sources for this section than the ADL. Anyone with half a brain knows this section horribly skewed.--Guardian4truth (talk) 04:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not good enough to just wave your hands and say, "look, reliable sources" - you have to provide links to reliable sources that actually verify the material you want to include. Looking through the first fifteen or so links in the article you cited, that doesn't seem to be the case here. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 20:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * We seem to get a neverending flow of "Truthers" registering new accounts to post junk here. I find the latest iteration to be especially suspicious.  Enigma  message 06:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello Enigmaman, instead of just erasing sources I gathered why don't you explain which ones are junk and why. It is more fair that way instead of just deleting good sources I gathered. Please elaborate.


 * Haaretz: FBI had arrested the five for "puzzling behavior." They are said to have had been caught videotaping the disaster and shouting in what was interpreted as cries of joy and mockery.


 * Fox news: More than 60 Israelis arrested or detained in regards to 9/11, some failed polygraph tests in regards to spying on the US. Also penetrated military bases, DEA, FBI, Secret Service and dozens of other government organizations. Deleted from archives but video found here.


 * Haaretz: Odigo, the instant messaging service, says that two of its workers received messages two hours before the Twin Towers attack on September 11 predicting the attack would happen.


 * Youtube documentary interviews people that saw the alleged Israeli operatives, the officer that pulled them over and arrested them, and the alleged operatives interview on Israeli TV were they state " they were there to document the event". --Guardian4truth (talk) 01:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Other editors should not have to apply the principles in Reliable sources to your sources. You can and should read that guideline for yourself. You should also read Verifiability - it is one of the essential cornerstones of Wikipedia. What we can reliably infer from the links provided is that:-
 * Several Israelis were arrested after filming the burning buildings while in a highly emotional state (I recall being in a similar condition myself on that day, but I avoided arrest through a lucky combination of not having a video camera, having reassuringly pale skin, and not being on a rooftop in NYC.)
 * Israel conducts espionage operations within and against the US; their agents were questioned after the attacks.
 * People say all kinds of things on YouTube and that's why it is not accepted as a reliable source.
 * None of the above justifies using anything remotely resembling the phrase "Dancing Mossad agents" in the article. There is no link shown between the arrested men and Israeli intelligence, no credible source describing their actions as celebratory (rather than "puzzling"), and most importantly, no reliable source documenting a notable conspiracy theory centred on these events as an indication of Israeli foreknowledge of the attacks. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 13:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand you have a point of view on this issue and it is emotional to you as it is to me, but that aside I think the evidence speaks for itself. If I'm not mistaken this the 9/11 conspiracy theories page, I think maybe your mistaken when you say Fox news and Haaretz are not reliable sources or maybe you just meant the Youtube video. I can concede the Youtube clip even though it is from a reliable documentary.


 * So we have Odigo the Israeli instant messaging service that says two of its workers received messages two hours before the attacks predicting the attack would happen; you didn't address this. The FBI arresting five Israelis for "puzzling behavior." They are said to have had been caught videotaping the disaster and shouting in what was interpreted as cries of joy and mockery. Later to go on Israeli TV saying "they were there to document the event" Both sources are from Haartez.


 * Then we have the Fox news investigation where it confirms that more than 60 Israelis arrested or detained in regards to 9/11, some failed polygraph tests in regards to spying on the US. Also confirmed they penetrated military bases, DEA, FBI, Secret Service and dozens of other government organizations.


 * Maybe this should be under something different than "dancing Mossad agents" all agree with you on that. But the evidence I have presented at the very least conspiratorially hints at Israeli or Jewish involvement or foreknowledge, if not outright proves it. This has been the subject of several documentaries and is all over the internet. If this is not a provable 9/11 conspiracy theory I don't know what is.--Guardian4truth (talk) 21:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

(reduce indent) As I have already said, the sources listed above do not verify the claims made by this WP:SPA. It seems that further discussion is unlikely to result in improving the article. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 20:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * To recap the sources (again):
 * Five Israelis were arrested for behaving suspiciously, possibly dancing, possibly happy.
 * Sixty Israelis have been questioned about spying. No information has been released that indicates they knew anything about 9/11 beforehand.
 * Is it just me? I can't see how the above pieces of information can be added to the article, because they don't seem to be more than tangentially related to conspiracy theories. Anyone who'd like to propose an addition is welcome to do so...   S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 21:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This is the third time I'm going to ask you to respond to this, and tell me how this doesn't fit into a conspiracy.


 * Odigo the Israeli instant messaging service says that two of its workers received messages two hours before the attacks predicting the attack would happen.--Guardian4truth (talk) 22:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The Odigo claim has not be sourced to a reliable source, even among conspiracy theorists. Perhaps there's at least a conspiracy theory about it, but no evidence has yet been presented.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 23:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I know I haven't commented on this talk page for a while, but I have been following this debate. I haven't seen anything new presented on this topic, but I have seen large amounts of time wasting and WP:IDHT.  user:Guardian4truth, I'm going to suggest that unless you drop this debate, you're going to find yourself on the receiving end of a topic ban in line with Requests_for_arbitration/September_11_conspiracy_theories.  //   Chris  (complaints) • (contribs) 23:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * To Chris, yes there is a debate and I know there are rules but this is a open source format not a oligarchy, so for you to come out of nowhere and threaten me in some way I feel is out of line. They bring up or address issues and I'm responding.


 * The Odigo claim is from Haaretz.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guardian4truth (talk • contribs) 23:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The "Odigo claim" is a joke. Some guys got some text messages - according to one website - and in seven years nothing more was heard on the subject, according to reliable sources.


 * I'll say this again: no reliable source mentions a conspiracy theory. I am not going to "join the dots" and deduce the existence of CTs where there are none. That would be original research, and not allowed. The burden of proof is on the editor wishing to include information - that's Guardian4truth. I have yet to see a proposed improvement to the article. All there's been so far is a bit of soapboxing and a bit of handwaving. I'll say this again too:- under our talk page guidelines it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Put up or shut up.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 02:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * So Haaretz information is not valid enough for a conspiracy theory, well not according to millions of people world wide who believe that there was Israeli involvement and sites all over the internet claiming the same. Do I agree with these people? for the most part no, but it is still a fact that this is a belief by a large number of people based on this information. This is the 9/11 conspiracy theory page and the ADL thinks there is enough of conspiracy to write about it.


 * Ok we have a large group of individuals who believe Israel was someway involved in 9/11 through information from Haaretz and Fox news and the ADL confirms there is large conspiracy. What is not there for a conspiracy? I think it is clear that this exists and it is based on something and it should have a place here.--Guardian4truth (talk) 21:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

(reduce indent)The ADL does not confirm there is a conspiracy, large or small. Please re-read WP:V and WP:NPOV until you understand them. Then, come back here and propose an edit to the article which is supported by a reliable source. Or don't come back - you can learn a lot about Wikipedia, with a lot less drama (and risk of sanctions), by editing less controversial articles. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 21:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't understand this contention, did you read the ADLs claim? The title is "9/11 Anti-Semitic Conspiracy Theories Still Abound". It is a fairly large article and talks only about 9/11 conspiracy's involving Jews and Israel.


 * If you Google 9/11+Israel you will find a wealth of sites employing the information I have supplied. So I'm not fully sure where your contention lies, and what more would be needed for a conspiracy? It seems that this meets all criteria for a real conspiracy.--Guardian4truth (talk) 23:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * At this point I am more of less obliged by policy to assume that Guardian4truth cannot tell the difference (or is too lazy to make the distinction) between a "conspiracy" and a "conspiracy theory". If the former is the case, constructive improvements to the article are extremely unlikely. If the latter, please try harder to be clear about what you are talking about.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 16:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Alright the sourced information I provided lays out pretty clearly what is implied; the Odigo claim states that there was foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks. I think it takes a leap of faith to believe that someone using a Israeli instant messaging service happened to guess correctly that the 9/11 attacks would happen two hours before they occurred.


 * The FBI arresting and detaining five Israelis for allegedly celebrating when the first plane hit. The Fox News investigation confirming more than 200 Israelis arrested in regards to 9/11 and having some fail polygraphs in regards to spying on the US, and confirmation that they penetrated dozens of government organizations. A highly placed investigator said there are "tie-ins"(to the attacks).


 * The Israelis may have gathered intelligence about the attacks in advance, and not shared it. Fox News has learned that one group of Israelis, spotted in North Carolina recently, is suspected of keeping an apartment in California to spy on a group of Arabs who the United States is also investigating for links to terrorism. Numerous classified documents obtained by Fox News indicate that even prior to September 11, as many as 140 other Israelis had been detained or arrested in a secretive and sprawling investigation into suspected espionage by Israelis in the United States. A general accounting office investigation referred to Israel as country A and said, "According to a U.S. intelligence agency, the government of country A conducts the most aggressive espionage operations against the U.S. of any U.S. ally."


 * So conformation of a large Israeli inelegance network working in the US and likely having foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks and not sharing that information. Let me use a analogy; if you know a murder is going to occur and you know who the murder is and where the murder is going to take place and you supposedly have very close ties with the soon to be victim, yet you do nothing. Shouldn't you be looked at suspiciously? I think that is a fair analogy of why it is important that this side of the story be known, and I'm not alone in this view.--Guardian4truth (talk) 05:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Please read Tendentious editing and in particular I didn't hear that. You are again making claims that are not verified by the sources you've cited, and combining sources to reach a conclusion that those sources do not reach.
 * This must stop.
 * Further disruption of this type will result in you being banned from 9/11 related pages, per the terms of the September 11 arbcom remedy (which you've already been warned about more than once).  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 13:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's a link to a news story about the incident, which could be used as a reference: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0622-05.htm118.4.190.177 (talk) 07:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Passports
The article fails to mention the conspiracies fuelled by the passports of the hijackers and the fact that some were found in the rubble by firefighters. We need some facts: who found them? when? where are they now? were any other passports recovered? what are the sources of this passport story? 70.165.168.225 (talk) 08:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you have reliable sources discussing these? --Haemo (talk) 04:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That could be seen as a bit unfair, Haemo, we have had a three month discussion on Talk:9/11 about this, which is now in archives 37-39 I reckon... &mdash; Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 20:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I was referring to some connection to conspiracy theories, which has never been produced. --Haemo (talk) 21:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * " 'Conspiracy sites' are ... reliable sources for what 'conspiracists' think," which is that the passports were planted. That should be obvious. Not that it proves that they were planted, but it is hard to believe that they got to where they were 'found,' in pristine condition, by any other means. Wowest (talk) 08:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the passport of one of the hijackers from Flight 11 remarkably shot out through all the fiery explosion upon the plane impacting the building and landed, conveniently to be found in spankingly clean condition as 'evidence'.. z0mfg, please, stop, you're killing me^^.Si lapu lapu (talk) 00:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)Si Lapu Lapu

So where is the source for the passport recoveries, and which section should it go in? The "Coverup Allegations" section? Dscotese (talk) 00:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Foreknowledge
It seems during a speech on Thursday, Attorney General Michael Mukasey admitted that the Echelon spy network had provided warnings of the 911 attack 6 months before it happened. Another RS reported that the CIA was tracking the hijackers and were fully aware of their movements right up to 911. As a result of this information Keith Olbermann stated on MSNBC yesterday that the U.S. government was responsible for "malfeasant complicity in the 9/11 attacks." Feel free to track down reliable sources we can use for the article as I suspect we'll need a lot to get this added. Wayne (talk) 07:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * San Francisco Chronicle: Someone from Afghanistan called the USA; we don't really know who from where called whom and said what. Maybe something like 9/11 could be prevented if we could follow calls like that. Please give more money for wiretapping. (Unvoiced hint hint nudge nudge: the call we don't know about could have been related to 9/11! Think of the children!).
 * How conspiracy theorists read that: Hey, someone knew someone made a telephone call! They did it on purpose! Admission! Smoking gun!www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2008/040108_government_knew.htm].
 * Well duh. Weregerbil (talk) 08:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You got it wrong.. you should have said "how conspiracy debunkers spin it"....an American newspaper selectively reported it.... What are the chances? Mukasey said the call was from an Al Qaeda safe house in Afghanistan to the US. "Maybe something like 9/11 could be prevented if we could follow calls like that". The government did not need a warrant as FISA laws already allowed interception of such calls. In fact the government admitted in 1999 that such calls were routinely intercepted and copied under FISA and in September 2001 German Intelligence stated that calls intercepted by (what they believe was) Echelon were given to them in June 2001 indicating "Middle Eastern terrorists were planning to hijack commercial aircraft to use as weapons to attack important symbols of American and Israeli culture" (it was unknown what symbols or where) and that they acted on them by increasing surveilance of terrorist suspects. The key is "multiple sources" not the one that best fits. Wayne (talk) 07:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Except that Echelon doesn't really exist. It's a myth purpetrated by the CIA in an attempt to demonstrate they're doing something. &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 07:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Echelon may not exist (which is why it said "believed") but something similar does exist. The national newspaper here had an article on it as Australia does the interceptions for the US. According to Aussie officials "we" have the ability to intercept and record every phone call on the planet and do interecept all from suspected terrorists that use "key" words. Is that not similar to Echelon? Wayne (talk) 07:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So do you know any reliable sources that discuss Mukasey's "admission"? So far we have him asking for money (not warrants) to make a closer investigation of suspected terrorist chatter.
 * In a newspaper here a Muslim gentleman of 15 years of age was quoted discussing Fitna: do they want a terrorist attack in Amsterdam or something?. Probably just talking out of his arse, but if something happens you heard it here first: I had foreknowledge! I am teh 1337 Illuminati!
 * It is not practical to direct unlimited manpower to follow up on every phone call with non-specific threats from half a world away. So we would need a WP:RS which carefully considers foreknowledge vs. vague hints of something that might or might not happen somewhere at some time. Weregerbil (talk) 08:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The difference is that there is a RS (unfortunately citing anon sources within German Intelligence) that claims the call was passed on to them months before 911 as a serious threat. Wayne (talk) 16:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I can give you guys some reliable sources if you want &mdash; but they discuss it like this:
 * Either Mukasey is lying about the 9/11 attacks in order to manipulate Americans into believing that FISA's warrant requirements are what prevented discovery of the 9/11 attacks and caused 3,000 American deaths -- a completely disgusting act by the Attorney General which obviously cannot be ignored. Or, Mukasey has just revealed the most damning fact yet about the Bush's administration's ability and failure to have prevented the attacks -- facts that, until now, were apparently concealed from the 9/11 Commission and the public.
 * The article then continues, citing the apparent falsity of the comment given replies to it from other governmental source:
 * That's polite Beltway talk for saying that nothing like what Mukasey described actually happened. Does anyone on TV other than Keith Olbermann care that the Attorney General of the United States just invented a critical episode about 9/11 that never actually happened -- tearing up as he did it -- in order to scare Americans into supporting the administration's desired elimination of spying restrictions and blame FISA supporters for the 9/11 attacks?
 * Scandalous, yes. Connected to 9/11 conspiracy theories?  Well, we'll have to wait and see.  Right now, it looks like this is just an opportunistic fear-mongering lie from the Attorney General to try and rally support for a failing initiative.  --Haemo (talk) 18:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Echelon doesn't exist? Note the admission from this former NSA officer, turned whistleblower, Russell Tice. Echelon is just the start of a huge surveillance infrastructure, with no accountability and abilities the average person thinks are impossible. The article explains how practical it is to turn their perving devices on anyone they want. - Shiftchange (talk) 14:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Société Générale
A recent article in the London Times (January 23, 2009) states that Jérôme Kerviel, Société Générale rogue trader made large sums of money on the day of the 7/7 "attack", more interestingly he was quoted as saying:

“The best trading day in the history of Société Générale was September 11, 2001,” he said. “At least, that’s what one of my managers told me. It seems that profits were colossal that day.“I had a similar experience during the London attacks in July 2005.”

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/banking_and_finance/article5568518.ece

"It was a day of carnage that left 56 people dead and a dark shadow for ever cast over the history of London. But for Jérôme Kerviel, the French rogue trader, 7/7 was the jackpot." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.212.49 (talk) 04:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit Comment
I reverted an edit Haemo made and in the comment i said he had made a dishonest edit. The reasons for my assumption were that he changed "mathematician" to "biologist", the source to the study was replaced with one giving Dewdney's conspiracy beliefs which are irrelevant considering the study is not disputed and a quote from the report by Dewdney was replaced with another from a magazine that made him sound like a crackpot. These changes appeared to me to be an attempt to discredit his study. The edit comment I made is out of character for me and has bothered me all day. I apologise for not assuming good faith and having had time to think I now assume he was not thinking clearly for some reason or was mistaken. Thx Wayne (talk) 16:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * But it looks like a mistake. The source that was previously used never states that he was a mathematician &mdash; whereas the source I added in this revision is a reliable source which states he is a "biology professor".  Also, the quote I added as the same, but continued to give context for his beliefs &mdash; previously, it stated that the chance of successful connections "can only be described as infinitesimal".  My revision put it in the correct context, which is "cellphone calls made by passengers were highly unlikely to impossible. Flight UA93 was not in the air when most of the alleged calls were made. The calls themselves were all faked."  This section is directly about "claims relating to the cell phone calls" and Dewdney's argument is not just that it would have been impossible to make the calls &mdash; he further argues that this indicates that the calls were faked.  If you think his views make him a "crackpot", then so be it, but that's no reason to remove them from the article &mdash; if his opinion about the possibility of calls is important enough to mention, that surely his conclusion drawn from opinion is just as important.  You can't have it both ways here. --Haemo (talk) 18:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * PS thanks for the apology :) --Haemo (talk) 18:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * OooH. We just had TWO edit conflicts.
 * I meant to comment on that. Haemo could have been honestly reporting a dishonest article while assuming that only reporters who agree with his POV are honest. On the other hand, supporters of the Official Conspiracy Theory seem to have a morbid fear of any other possible explanations. The footage of the Twin Towers in the aftermath of the attacks was traumatizing, regardless of the exact chain of events, and a lot of people did a lot of things to vent their anger, such as clipping American flags (made in China) to their bumpers and speeding up and down various main drags. That could give rise to a lot of cognitive dissonance. I picked up a few flags that had been run over and saved them for a formal flag retirement event at the American Legion.Wowest (talk) 18:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Haemo is, of course correct that having a "reliable source" is more important than getting the fact right, according to wikipolicy. Still, BLP rules should apply, if we can find a reliable source that says that A.K. Dewdney is whatever he actually is. Wowest (talk) 18:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, AD is (or was) a mathematics columnist for Scientific American. If he's a biology professor, that may explain the (to me) obvious errors in some of his columns.  Again, although I think his views are nonsense, we must include them if reported by a WP:RS in the conspiracy movement. &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So, is he a mathematician or not? He's definitely a biology professor.  Also, what of including more complete views of his?  It seems contrary to policy to selectively quote what someone believes about the phone calls because we think it "makes him sound like a crackpot". If no one objects, I'm going to restore that revision, leaving in mathematician with a "fact" tag. --Haemo (talk) 19:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Upon some study, he shows up in the Mathematics Genealogy Database. I think we can include both then?  --Haemo (talk) 19:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

"Biology professor and writer on mathematics" seems to sum him up, based on the info presented. Sheffield Steel talkstalk 20:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Er, no. He seems to be a professor of computer science at the University of Western Ontario. -- But he has other interests. Look here:
 * http://www.csd.uwo.ca/faculty/akd/akd.html
 * Wowest (talk) 23:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I am so confused. Is he a biology professor or not?  Maybe he once was, and now isn't?  Let's just say "professor and mathematician" and be done with it? --Haemo (talk) 00:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

As for having it "both ways" the paragraph should concentrate on the study not on his own irrelevant views as the study stands by itself. The source for the cell phone calls origin is the 911 commision report and the only part that had no reference was flight 77 having no airphones which I checked and found that not only do the airlines literature of the day state they had none, but they were asked and confirmed the fact. The new sentences that have been added are misleading as a.) the source predates the study and b.) no one (not even Dewdney) disputes that there is a chance (1.8% above 6000 feet and "physically impossible" above 8000 feet) but the source implies ALL cell calls have a HIGH chance of connecting which is incorrect in light of actual studies and this implication makes the addition POV and it needs to be deleted. Wayne (talk) 13:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Did anyone look at his WP entry which is wikilinked in the paragraph? "Alexander Keewatin Dewdney (born August 5, 1941 in London, Ontario) is a Canadian mathematician, computer scientist and philosopher who has written a number of books on the future and implications of modern computing."
 * The assertion that cell phone connection is unlikely is not in or quoted by the 911 Commission report. &mdash; Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The sources don't say they have a high chance, they say they can work or they have varying degrees of success, neither of which implies a high success rate. RxS (talk) 14:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * And why should we just focus on his study? Why aren't his other views about the phone calls important?  It seems that his opinion that the cellphone calls were faked is not in any way irrelevant to a section entitled "Claims relating to the cell phone calls".  Would you mind explaining why you think that claim is irrelevant, while his claim that the phone calls were unlikely to impossible is relevant?  --Haemo (talk) 18:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, you are mistaken that the source predates the study. The study was published between January 23rd and April 19th 2003.  The MacLeans article was published on Aug 30, 2006.  I do not believe the sentences are in any way misleading &mdash; they are a direct quote of what he believes about the cellphone calls.  If you believe he was misquoted, or that the context is wrong, then please provide a source at odds with this quote. --Haemo (talk) 19:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Dewdney's study is relevant because it is a study and backed by other sources, but his own views are not notable (I didn't even know he had any until you found that 911 conspiracy website) as they are not widely known and were not stated until after the study (they were possibly formed based on the studies results) and to mention both (especially mixing them together as you did) can cause confusion for a reader in differentiating between what is the study and what are his personal views. The Macleans source you quote is a hit piece that has factual errors that even cursory fact checking would have fixed (ie:it's not a RS). The other source you used that says cell calls are possible is dated 1989 at which time there had been no studies and is thus OR on the part of the people interviewed. Your version is clearly cherry picking in an attempt to debunk what is probably the only 911 fact that is undisputably true which is that cell calls are next to impossible. Asserting those calls were faked is another kettle of fish and as such needs to be separated from the study. I also noticed you put your version back without consensus and with the comment "No response after 2 days -- readding reliable sourcing with quote". No response was due to a belief we would keep the original until such time as you could prove your case. I remind you of the Arbcom findings, they apply to you as much as anyone. Wayne (talk) 06:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Dude, I spent two days sitting here with no reply to very clear and pointed arguments in favor of including it. How long should I wait?  A week? Your argument is here does not make sense &mdash; how is Dewdney's study "backed by other sources"?  The only source that's ever been presented in this discussion has been the Macleans article, and the study itself.  How is the Macleans article a "hit piece" &mdash; how does it have "factual errors"?  How on earth do you conclude that Macleans, the most respected newsmagazine in Canada, is not a reliable source.  At no point have you demonstrated that this study has any notability &mdash; the only reliable source which discusses it so far discusses it in the context of his views about 9/11.  Do you seriously think that his views about the cell phone calls have no relevance to "claims regarding the cell phone calls"?  Why do his views embodied in the study become relevant, while his views in terms of his statements become irrelevant &mdash; is Mr Dewdney a notable conspiracy theorist?  How could his study be notable and not him?  Could you provide some sources that back this up &mdash; because, so far, I'm the only one providing sourcing which portrays his study, or his views, as in any way relevant and you have decided that you don't want to include part of his views because you think they're "kooky" and debunk the "correct" version.  That's not how this works.  Either provide sourcing showing that Mr Dewdney's views about the calls being faked are viewed as unimportant, while the study is important, or please stop trying to selectively include views you think are "indisputably true" while distancing them from the other views of their proponents.  Because that's exactly what you're doing. --Haemo (talk) 07:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You seem to have gotten your dates wrong again. The second source used is dated 2001 not 1989 &mdash; I'm not sure if that changes your argument but I didn't include that other source, but how does the fact that you believe it was "OR on the part of the people interviewed" in any way invalidate it.  Mr Dewdney's study is OR &mdash; why is that valid, but not this?  OR applies to Wikipedians &mdash; not to people off-Wiki.  Indeed, "OR" reported in third-party reliable sources is what we're supposed to be basing this article on. --Haemo (talk) 07:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Dewdney is not a notable conspiracy theorist. I doubt most readers of conspiracy websites would have even heard of him. To include his views would appear to many people as an attempt to discredit the study which should stand on it's own merits. I point out that similar quoting of supporters of the official theory that possibly discredits them have been reverted in the past for the same reason. Have you read all the Macleans article? It gets Dewdney's occupation wrong, it makes fun of all Canadians, it makes fun of conspiracy theorists, it deliberately lies/exaggerates to make it's point, it extensively promotes a debunking book, it uses disparaging language etc etc. I've never heard of the magazine but if this typical of it's journalism it is no better than some of the conspiracy websites. Wayne (talk) 18:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 2001 still predates the study, so it commenting on how easy it is to make calls without any scientific backing is OR. Dewdney's study is no more OR than NISTs report is, both investigated a theory and published conclusions which a generally accepted.


 * But, if no one has heard of Dewdney, then why are we discussing his study? Macleans believes that both have about equal notability, and gives them about equal time. His views are totally relevant to the study &mdash; we would not, say, explain a study found evolution to be impossible or highly unlikely without also mentioning that the studier happened to be a Creationist. Also, the article didn't get his occupation wrong &mdash; it's just out of date.  He used to be involved in both environmental science and conservation.  If you've never heard of Macleans, that's understandable but it is definitely a reliable source.  It has a circulation of over 350,000 copies a week, and is "one of Canada's leading sources of news and information", according to our article on the subject.  You may not like that it disparages theories you think are credible in the article, but you will notice that we don't focus on that at all &mdash; we focus on Mr Dewdney's views. --Haemo (talk) 20:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, it's been more than a week. Do you have a reply?  Because in the absence of any reasonable objection to the points I've made here, I'm inclined to simply make the change. --Haemo (talk) 23:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, why is A.K. Dewdney listed as a "participant" if he isn't mentioned in the article? Dscotese (talk) 00:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Magic passports?
Is this really a notable or important view amount 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists? I can't find any sources that discuss this term in any depth, and it appears that section claiming it is related to the "magic bullet" is completely the opinion of the author. I'm not "up to date" on what the important views are, but I can't find one reliable source discussing these passports in the context of 9/11 conspiracy theories, or ascribing them any importance to these theories at all. --Haemo (talk) 23:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Does This belong anywhere?
TEHRAN, April 9 (UPI) -- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has questioned whether the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks by al-Qaida really took place, an Israeli military Web site said. The man who is famous for denying the Nazi Holocaust told an audience he wonders how U.S. radar could have failed to detect two planes before they struck the Twin Towers in New York, the DEBKAfile reports. Edkollin (talk) 02:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's really odd &mdash; it's a source reporting that another source has reported that someone said something. The source for the story is this site which looks, uh, unreliable on issues of Israel-Iran-Palestine etc.  So, I'm not sure. --Haemo (talk) 02:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, if you go to the source, they not only attack Iran in the article, but the statements they attribute to him are really bizarre &mdash; so I think we should with-hold action until better sourcing arises. --Haemo (talk) 02:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It struck me as odd also that is why I put it up for discussion. I would not cite Debka.com directly as it is an a gossipy (intelligence and security matters not celebrity) source with a agenda but UPI is a a reliable source and they did not write that he has reportedly said but wrote that he did say it. Edkollin (talk)
 * Another cite claiming he said this Edkollin (talk) 04:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If you read the source, they don't say he said it &mdash; they say an Israeli website said he said it &mdash; you can see they're being really careful with how they couch it. Second-hand from an unreliable source, in other words. --Haemo (talk) 20:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * My first source says an Israeli website said it. This one  I added later from an Arab news source does not mention debka at all but quotes him directly.Edkollin (talk) 06:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, I didn't see that. Hmmm &mdash; I'm not sure how we want to deal with this, then &mdash; we really need a section on "Arab and Muslim views".  This article is rather badly US-centric, when the majority of 9/11 conspiracy theorists are from the Muslim world. --Haemo (talk) 19:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The Truth Behind 9/11
It appear, to me at least that the organization The Truth Behind 9/11 is not notable, and their inclusion in this article gives them undue weight. I've already removed it once today, but User:Saint.Pierre.Pro re-added it without comment. Since I've pledged not to revert changes more than once per day, I'm referring this for discussion here. Does anyone agree with me? --Haemo (talk) 20:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In fact, after doing some research, they don't appear to be a registered non-profit &mdash; they appear to be a website using freehosting a la Geocities which is so obscure I had a devil of a time finding them using Google. --Haemo (talk) 20:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

My Regards
I am very very sorry for confusion or anything I have caused. I wish to apologize and my article "The Truth Behind 9/11 has been removed. I am terribly terribly sorry and I wish to improve my Wikipedia editing skills as soon as possible. I must really apologize to Haemo for the inaccuracy of my article. The only problem is I wish to create articles not to edit others, does anyone have any suggestions? Once again, I apologize. Thank you. Saint.Pierre.Pro (talk) 21:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It is much harder to create new articles, in my opinion, because (with a few exceptions) all the best subjects already have articles. I would recommend spending a little time reading the links on the welcome message I sent to your Talk page; this will help you to work with other editors editing existing wikipedia articles. Sheffield Steel talkstalk 21:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries at all! I replied on my talk page in more detail  &mdash; but, BTW, welcome to Wikipedia :) --Haemo (talk) 01:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I Would Like To Help
Hey everybody, I have had much experience in the area of the September 11th Attacks. After deleting my past article I am left with helping with this one. Would anyone like me to do anything for this article. You can post ideas here or at my [talk page]. Thanks. Saint.Pierre.Pro (talk) 14:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * We need more reliable sources discussing the theories on this page, and less primary sources. If you could find more of these, that would be awesome. --Haemo (talk) 19:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Great! I know what you mean, but do you have any suggestions to make finding more reliable sources easier? Like I've said before, I am new to Wikipedia editing and I am not fluent in all the terms and expressions used. Please explain. Thank you. Saint.Pierre.Pro (talk) 19:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, well, that's the problem :D Reliable sources are "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" &mdash; in general, we're talking about newspapers, magazines, books, academic works, etc. The kind of things you would use to write a report on a subject for class, or what-have-you.  The issue is that we're having trouble finding them for this subject.  So, hit the library or any databases you have access to. --Haemo (talk) 20:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting 911 update
The Society of Civil Engineers has convened a panel to investigate claims against it of conflict of interest, engaging in a cover-up to protect the government and of falsifying conclusions that skyscrapers could not withstand getting hit by airplanes. An investigation funded by the National Science Foundation found that most New York skyscrapers "would survive such an impact and prevent the kind of fires that brought down the twin towers". The claim is made by structural engineers after independent computor simulations couldn't get the WTC to collapse. They are not claiming CD but suspect a major construction/structural flaw. Wayne (talk) 19:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Dang..I'm behind the times, someone has already added it to the page. I would have suggested it not being added yet as the panel will give it's results in a few weeks. Wayne (talk) 20:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This seemed fairly likely to me when they got rid of all the rubble ASAP rather than really examining it; the Bush administration has a lot of friends in business who would have lost billions of dollars had the insurance company not had to pay out because the building design was defective. Titanium Dragon (talk) 19:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Where is it? Dscotese (talk) 00:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Israeli/Jewish victims of the 9/11 attacks?
I came here figuring that I'd be able to find accurate info on the number of Israeli citizens, and persons of Jewish descent who died in the WTC attacks.

A list at the State Dept website (i just added it) lists 76 and says it's a "partial" list; http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Jan/14-260933.html

these are the sources citing higher numbers, from 270-500:

1. "Surveys" are cited without any info about who did them or where they can be found. What a joke.

2. Rosenblatt article says "While no one knows for certain how many Jews were killed on Sept. 11, the most reliable estimates put the number at about 400." Does citing an unsupported claim from a source with conflicts of interest meet Wikipedia standards?

3. same as 2. ""A week later I called him and said 'about 500,' which is 15 to 17 percent of all the victims killed in the World Trade Center. The figure would have been even higher had it not been for the fact that many Orthodox Jews went to work an hour later because of the Selichot prayers recited in the days before the Jewish New Year."

4. "4000 Jews" rumor article; why'd the person who put this here not note that it only lists 76 victims?

Whoever posted these bogus cites should know it really reflects badly on them, and their efforts to discredit the "conspiracy theories"

Note: I don't think "the Jews" or "Israel" were responsible for the attacks- I do believe, like 81% of Americans, that the Bush Administration is "hiding something" or "mostly lying" about what they knew prior to 9/11. http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/13469

I do believe a full criminal investigation, independent of the Bush and Clinton Administrations and anyone connected to them, with public oversight, is needed to determine who all the responsible parties are, for the 9/11 attacks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorkelobb (talk • contribs) 04:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I doubt there is complete and accurate data on this sort of thing anywhere, which is why this article lists so many varied sources. Furthermore, this article isn't intended to discredit the theories. That would violate the neutrality policy of Wikipedia.
 * At any rate, if you're looking for information regarding the attacks, the September 11, 2001 attacks page would be a better choice. --clpo13(talk) 04:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Except for the second sentence in that section and the last sentence of the second paragraph I researched and wrote the entire section. I also wrote note 160 in it's entirety and it explains the discrepancies in the sources. I could have mentioned the sources for that note but they are not disputed and would have made the note far too long (notes tend to be reverted for the most minimal reasons). These sources are easily found in a search. I am seen by most here as being a conspiracy theorist so that section contradicting CT's can be seen as particular reliable lol. Wayne (talk) 03:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Theories and hypotheses
Nothing described in this article rises to the level of a theory. All are merely hypotheses, and the article now so notes. Wowest (talk) 16:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Following Arthur Rubin's tendentious revision, I have restored my additions. Although some conspiracies are not criminal, as Arthur pointed out, all conspiracy theories concerning 9/11 do involve criminal conspiracy. Wowest (talk) 17:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, there are a couple of 9/11 conspiacy theories that I have read about that are not criminal. I haven't seen them in this article but I tend to agree with Arthur's take on this issue. UB65 (talk) 18:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Incompetence, one of the most prominent, and mainstream theories is not necessarily criminal. I also support Arthur here. --Haemo (talk) 05:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * INCOMPETENCE is the mainstream account! "A failure of imagination," according to Bush. Are you now acknowledging that the mainstream account is, itself, a conspiracy theory? I just got warned about "tendentious" editing for adding that statement to an article, so I'm no longer editing 9/11 articles -- only commenting on them. Wowest (talk) 05:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I meant incompetence concealed from the 9/11 Commission. Don't put words into my mouth. --Haemo (talk) 05:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for clarifying that. You've been reading something I haven't read or thought about though. Could you give an example of an accusation of "incompetence concealed from the 9/11 Commission," as a conspiracy theory? I currently believe, personally, that it was MIHOP and that incompetence argument is just excuse-making. Of course, I can't say that in an article, and I don't read much theory in either direction any more. Wowest (talk) 06:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Silverstein

 * The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

There seems to be a minor revert war involving the Silverstein section. I have been looking into it and have found the reliable sources who's absence is apparantly the problem. This a rough draft that I think complies with BLP, and which lays out the relevant facts of the claims: "''It has also been suggested that Larry Silverstein, the owner of the World Trade Center, may have benefited from the insurance payouts. From an economic standpoint, the trade centre, which had been subsidized since it’s opening was outdated and had never made a profit. To comply with building regulations the PA would hneed to spend $800 million rebuilding its electrical, electronic communications, and cooling systems and another $200 million for renovations. Due to this and the prohibitive cost of removing asbestos the Port Authority had been trying to get permits for the demolition of the WTC for several years, however the PA was prohibited from demolishing the buildings and was instead required to dismantle the buildings floor by floor to protect the public. The buildings were left standing until a decision on whether to dismantle or renovate could be made. On July 23, 2001 Larry Silverstein and partners purchased a 99-year lease on the complex. Silverstein and his partners paid the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey $814 million in fees and down payments for the lease plus an agreement to pay $120 million per year while the PA agreed to continue making all tax payments to the city. Following the attacks, Silverstein received a $7.1 billion insurance payout.''" I have plenty of RS that mention Silverstein profiting but the one source I don't have yet is one that discusses the claim as part of a CT as they are all 911 websites. How do i decide which of these are acceptable? Feel free to critisize and make suggestions for the section. Wayne (talk) 14:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It looks like WP:SYN to me, even if all of those statements are from the same reliable source. No, I think you need a marginally reliable source — such as a newspaper editorial page or column — in order to put the thing together.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 14:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The sources are several newspaper editorials but some is from BusinessWeek. Most is actually cut and paste so no problem with SYN. I'm still looking for other sources in case I find better and I want to check how much Silverstein actually made. According to the NYT his total personal investment in the WTC was $14 million (buildings 1 - 6 only as 7 was already his) and after paying all debts was $3 billion in front but I'm sure he couldn't have made even a fraction of that much. I'm in no hurry as we need to make sure the RS are correct. Wayne (talk) 15:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Why do (editorially) we care how the events affected him financially? We'd better be very very careful not to give any hint that he might have been responsible for the attacks. RxS (talk) 15:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to look for this right now, but there was a recent news item that he is now suing the airlines involved for billions more for letting the terrorists onboard their planes. That could put them right out of business.Wowest (talk) 15:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * In fact, never mind...saying he profited from the attacks and saying that they weren't profitable before the attacks on a 9/11 conspiracy page is connecting dots that aren't there. The implication is that he might have been a mass murderer or something. No way. He's not a public figure and there's no way we're going to paint that picture. (and I don't see how a lawsuit he may or may not be bring has anything to do with 9/11 conspiracy.) RxS (talk) 15:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This article is about 911 conspiracy theories and Silverstein profiting has been brought up as an example of foreknowledge which makes it relevant. The claim in no way implies he is a mass murderer and no 911 truth site implies he was involved apart from possible foreknowledge. The section did not imply he was involved. To make that assumption is OR. Wayne (talk) 04:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with the above Edkollin (talk) 04:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * How is Silverstein profiting an example of foreknowledge, and who "brought that up"? We're not going to bring his name into a 911 conspiracy theory page on the basis of a 911 truth site, not now, not ever. RxS (talk) 04:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Who brought it up? When?  Why are there no reliable sources discussing this "theory"?  Wikipedia is not the place for anonymous people who have a website to accuse living people of being involved in mass murder.  Reliably source it, or forget it.  We have higher standards than that when it comes to living people and Wikipedia is not a gossip tabloid where theories without any coverage in reliable sources take precedence over the very real reputations of living people. --Haemo (talk) 05:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP is non-negotiable. I'm closing this section. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Silverstein Again
It belongs because most notable CT cites, videos etc mention him. There is to much emphasis on how much he made in this debate. That is at most to give background for the reader. I fail to see how the this particular allegation of mass murder differs from those mentioned in this article and associated sub articles  against President Bush, Members of the Project for the New American Century and Mossad. They are living people many of the allegations come from “notable” “non reliable” web based sources in many cases they are based on the “connect the dots” approach etc. Again this is an article not about facts but of notable allegations, theories, hypothesis or whatever you decide to call it. Edkollin (talk) 06:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Produce reliable sources documenting these claims or accusation and we'll have a discussion about it. Until then, it's un-encyclopedic gossip-mongering by anonymous speculators and has no place here.  The argument that other stuff exists is not compelling in the slightest. --Haemo (talk) 06:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd just echo what Haemo said, CT sites are not reliable sources. And I think you can tell the difference between Silverstein and Pres. Bush....and if there are other BLP problems in the article, they should be fixed, as opposed to making more problems. We're a long long way from adding material about him in a 9/11 conspiracy article. RxS (talk) 15:12, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This article is here because the CT theories are a political phenomenon. Therefore it is and has been up to now “notable” proponents of theories not necessarily “reliable” proponents of theories that have been cited. Although I would disagree with this course of action because this is not an article about a straight factual subject if we are going to use only traditional reliable sources this article should be only a few paragraphs long another words all cites, external Links using such types of sources as Alex Jones”,”Loose Change” etc need to be wiped out. And no I do not see why allegations against President Bush and Larry Silverstein should be treated differently at all. I guess what I have come to the conclusion is that allegations against Larry Silverstein is not the real issue behind this debate but the unhappiness about of what types sources are used as cites in this article and possibly the general direction and tone of the artical. Edkollin (talk) 05:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * None of this has any bearing at all in terms of BLP and Larry Silverstein. If you don't get that, please read WP:BLP. Any discussion about the type of sources used in the article or the tone of it is a separate issue. In terms of Larry Silverstein there really isn't anything to discuss. RxS (talk) 17:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not a biographical article and this discussion is not about deleting an article or comparing articles so BLP and other stuff exists do not apply. This is not a separate issue in fact it has everything to do with the question should allegations against Larry Silverstein be mentioned in the article. But it is a broader issue and I will deal with it below in that way Edkollin (talk) 04:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter that it isn't a biographical article: This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons on other pages. That's why I asked you to read WP:BLP, it wasn't a rhetorical request. This a very clear, very separate issue, we are not going to add his name to a 9/11 conspiracy page because of some speculation on the Internet. We're just not. There are no reliable sources to point to and no controversy or debate within mainstream media, academic sources or anything else even faintly resembling a reliable source. I don't know how to make it any clearer except to say that insisting on this point will only end with a topic ban or block, and it would be by no means the first time. RxS (talk) 05:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)