Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories/Archive 18

Notable/Popular CT theory sourcing
The type of sourcing I am referring to is the Alex Jones, Loose Change, prison planets of the world. I am not referring to some conspiracy theorist sitting in his or her basement and creating a website. I do not want to get involved in an argument here over whether a particular source fits a category or not.

1. Should this type of sourcing be used in the article?.

2. Should this type of sourcing used as an external link?

3. If a “reliable source” quotes a source like this should it be used?

I have made my point above but if these sources are not to be used then we should not use them in all circumstances. I understand number 3 is correct by Wikipedia rules but I would find doing that hypocritical and not seeing the forest from the trees Edkollin (talk) 04:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The answer is clear &mdash; reliable sources. We should include prominent views reported on by reliable sources.  We can also attribute details of these views to primary sources.  Beyond that, there isn't a lot to say &mdash; policy is policy, and if you can only write a stubby article about a subject because of it, then that's the appropriate length of the article.  --Haemo (talk) 21:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The Parity of sources section of the Fringe Theories rules specifically allows for this type of sourcing for this type of article. Edkollin (talk) 08:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't. Read it carefully. --Haemo (talk) 21:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * In particular, the fact that this article is about fringe beliefs doesn't allow us to ignore WP:BLP and post poorly-sourced, contentious, defamatory material. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 21:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Zeitgeist movie
There's a great movie that has all kinds of great points about 9/11 and the federal reserve and stuff like that. I'm not much of an editor but I think it shoould be added in the movies section. It's a free movie available to download at the main website. --InsayneWrapper (talk) 21:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It covers multiple conspiracy theories, not just 9/11. I really don't think it should be in this article.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 21:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The movie used to have its own article page, but was deleted because it is not notable. I would say WP:NNC excludes its inclusion as a factual supplement, because the movie is simply a well crafted and entertaining opinion. By the way, the movie's most credible material has to do with well documented Christian history, not 9/11, rich bankers, Amero advocates, or RFID chips. —Kanodin 10:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That's actually the least credible material. As for whether the movie should be included, it's been firmly established that it should not. The credible material (everything Kanodin mentioned minus the Christianity stuff) isn't anything that you couldn't find in more reliable sources. --Pwnage8 (talk) 17:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually it is the most credible material. Kanodin is right Vexorg (talk) 10:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The claims made are not even accurate. For example, the supposed virgin birth similarities (many of the so-called Christs were not born of virgins ex: Krishna). The religion stuff is the only thing that brings the credibility of the film into question. Although, it's also what attracts all the atheists to jump on the anti-christian bandwagon. The NWO, RFID, 9/11, etc stuff is easily verifiable. But this is not the place to be having a debate. --Pwnage8 (talk) 17:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Pwnage8 is right, the Christianity segment is the most easily debunked of the 3 segments in the movie.--E tac (talk) 20:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Minor edit
This citation: cite web|url=http://www.stage6.com/911Revolution/video/2163757/911taboo-v1-1|title=Watch 911 Taboo now on Stage6, a movie by Genghis6199 of 911taboo.com is a dead link, can someone with access please remove it? Sadmep (talk) 13:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

RE: This citation: I cited the particular link that has since been killed. Please replace the link to its previous link: http://www.livevideo.com/socialservice —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.243.87 (talk) 04:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Rebuttals?
Where's the nice rebuttals to the various proposed conspiracy theories? I read an older version of this article years ago and it was organized so you could read the theory then the rebuttal, very nice and easy to find the information. Now I don't see any rebuttals in the article anymore. What happened to them? JettaMann (talk) 15:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It was felt that this made the article to long and unreadable. The article was split off into sub articles. If a section had a sub article that section was made into summary. I liked it the old way also but was in the minority. Edkollin (talk)
 * It's also not really the job of the article to provide "rebuttals" to conspiracy theories. Rather, it should discuss them, and criticisms of them together.  --Haemo (talk) 05:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Then where are the criticisms of them? It's too hard to find them anymore.JettaMann (talk) 18:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Some of the "rebuttals", such as one from Popular Mechanics, do not stand up to scrutiny. They show complete lack of respect by only assigning one or two paragraphs to each theory.Autonova (talk) 14:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a laugh. I read the Popular Mechanics article and it was pretty much right on the money. You see, they are familiar with this crazy thing called "science". JettaMann (talk) 18:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you read this article by Jim Hoffman? It discussed the tactics PM uses to make it's readers think that the theories are being debunked, when they're really not.  I fell for PM's dirty tricks too until I read this.  Hunter and Gatherer (talk) 17:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Initial wording of official account
The following is part of the first paragraph of the article as of this Talk Page entry: A variety of conspiracy theories question the mainstream account of the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States. At the very least, these theories posit that the official report on the events is not sufficiently forthcoming, thorough or truthful. I was told to get a consensus on the talk page about this edit, which was erroneously described as "absolutely wrong" by one editor, before I put it in the page: A variety of conspiracy theories question the government account of the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States. At the very least, these theories posit that the official report on the events is not sufficiently forthcoming, thorough or truthful. My only point is that at it's most basic form, the mainstream account is the US Government's account. I was accused of trying to "cutely" insert a "fringe POV" edit, when all I am doing is clarifying in only the initial wording of the issue at hand what exactly the mainstream account is at its most basic form. It is the government account that is considered mainstream, not that the mainstream account is inherently given by the government, and that is an important point to make in this article. If I were attempting to insert a biased point of view in the article, then I'd have gone throughout the entire thing and replaced "mainstream account" with "government account" every time it occurred in the article, which I clearly have not done here. So, if my point is sufficiently explained for the condescending editors who insist on seeing me as some sort of opinionated cook, one of whom having begun to stalk my own edits on other articles and accuse me of inserting "vandalism" in "many" of my other edits, then I guess we can begin getting a consensus on this one way or the other. Thank you. Fifty7 (talk) 15:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the US government is by no means the only (or even main) source of the reliable sources used to base that sentence (and the general account) on. Media, academic sources, foreign governments and people involved in the attack itself all make up what's considered the mainstream account. Claiming that the mainstream account is solely made up of US government sourcing would be wrong. RxS (talk) 16:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * RsX is right. The governments account of events would not be the mainstream account of events if media and scientific sources did not accept the governments conclusions. In most cases the government and mainstream sources come to the same basic conclusions but this is not always true. For example until recently scientific and mainstream media sources were much more likely to attribute global warming to humans then the Bush administration Edkollin (talk) 05:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * But no one knows what the "mainstream" account is. In fact, I would venture to say that there is no "mainstream" account (note all the CTs).  However, the account provided by the government is well documented, and the very next sentence explains where.  If the first sentence is not an unnecessary tautology, then what is it trying to say?  That a variety of conspiracy theories express a minority view?  That most people believe something other than (some) of the conspiracy theories?  The sentence is much more useful if it addresses the largest subset of conspiracy theories that question a particular well-defined account by describing precisely what they question, and that would be the government account, wouldn't it? Dscotese (talk) 00:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Al Qaeda blame Iran and Hezbollah for the conspiracy
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7361414.stm I believe it should be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oren.tal (talk • contribs) 16:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC).

When this story came out I put in in this sub-article Responsibility for the September 11, 2001 attacks under Israel Edkollin (talk) 05:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Minor edit
I just wanted to point out a typo in the following sentence:

'Additionally, a National Reconnaissance Office drill was being conducted on September 11 in which the event a small aircraft crashing into one of the towers of the agency's headquarters, was to be simulated,'

The word 'of' should be inserted after the word 'event.' Joachimboaz (talk) 18:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Changed. Hut 8.5 18:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * For slight grammar changes like this you can just make the change and give a brief description of it or just say fixed typo it the Edit Summary Section Edkollin (talk) 23:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No they can't - the article is semiprotected, which means new and unregistered users can't edit it. Hut 8.5 18:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Very important article
http://www.daily.pk/world/americas/99-americas/3865-usa-military-officers-challenge-official-account-of-september-11.html Autonova (talk) 14:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Implication of Afghan Opium Drug Lords ?
Implication of Aghan Opium Drug Lords ?

With over 80% of the world Opium derived from Afghanistan why is not this part of any conspiracy.

The war on drugs and or a other interference in the trade of some, is putting pressure on the Lords...

--Caesar J. B. Squitti :  Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 13:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Has the American media exposed this ? Canada's Foreign Minister "dating" former biker wife. Biker Girl and Foreign Minister

--Caesar J. B. Squitti :  Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 16:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

It truly is surprising that opium if seldom mentioned, the half-truth that remains hidden. Seems these may be modern opium wars disguised as something else; remember this is all criminal activity.

--Caesar J. B. Squitti :  Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 17:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Opium Links removed?
I had placed three links to site dealing with the Opium trade in AFghanistan.

They appear to have been removed ?

CI

Like this one.

VOA News Afghanistan 90% of worlds Opium and largest Heroin Supplier

Most important was a BBS report saying that agreements were in place since 1989? to buy the opium..?

I am certain that they were posted?

--Caesar J. B. Squitti :  Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 18:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Sometimes 2 plus 2 is twenty two.

"Some experts suspect that bin Laden's al Qaeda network -- and other Afghan- based terrorist organizations such as Egyptian Islamic Jihad, the Army of Mohammed and the Army of the Righteous -- may also be directly involved in the drug trade."

San Francisco Chronicle

Seem the obvious possible "conspiracy" or truth has been missing. Then again, it is suppose to be illegal.

--Caesar J. B. Squitti :  Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 18:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not know what has been deleted or not but I can tell you that this material is not article worthy becaus0e there is not even a suggestion in your cites that the money was used to fund the 9/11 attacks. At most is the suggestion of possible old fashioned drug corruption. If I understand what you are saying is that since the U.S. taxpayers money went to these organizations that suggests that the U.S. had a working relationship with the Taliban therefore had foreknowledge of the attacks or were working with them in planning or carrying out the 9/11 attacks. The problem that this is your theory not the articles theory therefore it is Original Research one of the biggest Wikipedia no no's. You must come up with a reliable source that ties the Taliban,U.S. money and the opium trade to a conspiracy involving the 9/11 attacks. Edkollin (talk) 04:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not suggesting a tie with US money.

The movie, Clear and Present Danger http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_and_Present_Danger contains within the wikiepdia information a useful link.


 * Clear and Present Danger can also be considered an allegory to the Iran-Contra (Afghanistan) scandal, which occurred around the time this novel was being written.

That is that 'some' involvment related to the illegal drug trade in the area is beyond the law. That is like in the days of New York when SOME within the system was corrupt and involved in corrupt affairs, they were at war with the gangsters and the Cosa Nostra who were trying to bring law and order to their community. (history might record it in that matter, as the line between law and order and criminal organizations does not exist or changes in time...)

Newsreports in Canada say that 'corrupt cells' within prisons, within the police forces are part of the problem.

My conclusion: The half-truth logical flaw of the material on 9-11 or conspiracy thought, is the total lack of mention of drugs.

--Caesar J. B. Squitti :  Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 14:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Unless you have a reliable source to back these claims up, this is not going to be included in the article because it violates our policy of no original research. --Hut 8.5 15:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If I had a reliable source then it would not be a conspiracy it would be true.
 * This is not necessarily correct. Although in the minority there are reliable sources touting 9/11 conspiracy theories. An example: The former president of Italy who has been involved in false flag operations claims 9/11 was a joint United States/ Mossad operation. With his background he is an expert on the subject of nefarious conspiracies carried out by governments. While most experts would disagree with his claim we put his claim in one of the sub articles of this article. Another example: Scientists disagree on how aggressively to treat prostrate cancer. In a case like this Wikipedia would print both sides of the dispute citing the disagreeing scientists as reliable sources. The point is for the purposes of editing articles we do not care if it true but whether reliable sources say it is true Edkollin (talk) 06:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

My point was to show you that no where, no where on this site on others related is there a mention of the Drug trade.

I have discussed this with

VegitaU http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:VegitaU


 * "I was born in Colombia and immigrated to America when I was three. Since then, I've lived mostly in Maryland. I served four years in the Air Force and was honorably discharged in 2007. While serving, I spent four months performing non-combat duties in Iraq.*

I cannot understand why he was not aware of this ?

Remember these are all conspiracy theories, not actual thought.

--Caesar J. B. Squitti :  Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 18:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You don't seem to understand. All content in Wikipedia must be sourced to reliable sources.  If you don't have a source, it's not appropriate for Wikipedia.  Many conspiracy theories (even those which are universally seen to be false) have Wikipedia entries, and are covered by reliable sources.  --Haemo (talk) 01:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The drug theories have no connection with any 9/11 conspiracy theory. The Taliban had effectively ended drug production in Afghanistan so there was no drug financing available for 9/11. There is very likely a drug conspiracy now involving the CIA as there is considerable evidence they are involved but that is post 9/11 so not appropriate here. Wayne (talk) 03:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Opium War Revealed

They missed the link? Opium = Taliban = Bin Ladin Problem with US War on Drugs / Nato / Military / Clear and Present Danger

Would you admit that some of your forces were involved in the drug line, legal or not ?

--Caesar J. B. Squitti :  Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 16:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Canadian Foreign Minister Resigns after "spouse" former biker/drug lady

By the way, how can you have a 'reliable source' about a so called unsupported conspiracy ?

--Caesar J. B. Squitti :  Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 17:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You can have a reliable source that states 'Mediocre unstable people who want to feel important think such-and-such.' If it's properly researched, it will also state 'Such-and-such, is, in fact, completely wrong'. Found anything? John Nevard (talk) 17:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

New Flight 93 article
To save space, I've diverted most of the info in the Flight 93 section into a new article: Flight 93 controversies and discrepancies -- Noah¢s   ( Talk )  13:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree with this move. The new article is 7 KB, and because of the nature of the subject, smacks of content forking.  The 100 KB size is not a hard and fast limit, and I don't see how the topic is enhanced by creating two articles.  //   Chris  (complaints) • (contribs) 23:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * FYI, it's 100 KB of readable text. This article is less than 80. --Haemo (talk) 23:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, there aren't enough reliable sources in the forked article to justify it. The article should be brought up for AfD. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 02:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd be fine with simply bringing it back into this article. //   Chris  (complaints) • (contribs) 02:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's some material that could be added (the article is now locked): Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta testifying before the 9/11 Commission that shoot-down orders were apparently issued: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDfdOwt2v3Y&feature=related. Also, in the documentary "Loose Change: Final Cut" a military spokesman admits that planes were in position to shoot down Flight 93, but that they did not shoot it down. Finally, if Flight 93 was shot down with a missile, the debris released by the explosion could have floated on the prevailing wind. If the wind at that altitude was blowing in a southeasterly direction, the debris released when the missile struck could have floated far beyond the crash site.118.4.190.177 (talk) 08:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * YouTube and Loose Change are not are not considered reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Since YouTube is not considered a reliable source, please see the following extremely relevant video of Rumsfeld to find an original copy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6Xoxaf1Al0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.182.91.135 (talk) 15:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory
"Conspiracy theory", as stated by Wikipedia itself in an undisputed article, has acquired over the years the status of a derogatory term. I suggest that the every time a theory is labeled as "conspiracy", we should say it's a "so-called conspiracy theory". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nashledanou (talk • contribs) 16:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It's more neutral that way. --Pwnage8 (talk) 17:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Please no. Read WP:WEASEL. Hut 8.5 17:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not a weasel word. --Pwnage8 (talk) 18:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes it is. The obvious question that is raised by "so-called conspiracy theorist" is "who calls them conspiracy theorists?" As Ice Cold Beer points out below the term is used by reliable sources. Hut 8.5 15:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Good questions.--caesarjbsquitti


 * Yes "Conspiracy theory" is pejorative, thats why its used. If we really want to have a it NPOV it should be "Alternate Hypotheses" but those editors that want to influence how others think about this topic in a negative way will never allow that.
 * "so-called" is bad grammar and a weasel word. Tony0937 (talk) 22:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * HRrrrhrrmm. Sigh. I don't know how many times I've said this. To everyone: The official and alternate theories are all conspiracy theories. The only difference between the two are the conspirators!Si lapu lapu (talk) 00:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)Si Lapu Lapu


 * We just had an extensive discussion over this which ended with no consensus. There are arguments to be made both in favor of the name, and against it.  Let's not bring this up again, because it's going nowhere. --Haemo (talk) 01:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Please read the archives their have been probably literally millions of words written about this dispute. Edkollin (talk) 06:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

This is getting rather ridiculous. This has been brought up endlessly. There was a case for arbitration in April see: [] Please stop rekindling old flames.Cdynas (talk) 06:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If I'm "pro-conspiracy", then you're "pro-conspiracy theory". If we want to bring neutrality to the page, we need to discuss things like this and reach a consensus for language that doesn't advocate either side. Right now the article is written in a predominantly dismissive nature. HOW is that neutral? --Pwnage8 (talk) 14:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Reliable sources call them conspiracy theories, so that is what we call them. The term is not used pejoratively within the article, so the title stays. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 15:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If we are quoting them then it is acceptable in the context of a quote. That corporate media has been primarily dismissive and even antagonistic toward any questioning of the Official Account is not in question. What I have issue with is we that are a using the pejorative outside a quote. Which is clearly against policy.Tony0937 (talk) 16:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Guys, we're not starting this again. --Haemo (talk) 23:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Pilots for 911 truth revisited
A large article on them has been published in a reliable source and can be found here. "Twenty-five former U.S. military officers have severely criticized the official account of 9/11 and called for a new investigation. They include former commander of U.S. Army Intelligence, Major General Albert Stubblebine, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Col. Ronald D. Ray, two former staff members of the Director of the National Security Agency; Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, PhD, and Major John M. Newman, PhD, and many others.  They are among the rapidly growing number of military and intelligence service veterans, scientists, engineers, and architects challenging the government’s story." One of them may not be credible as he pushes the "no plane" theory but the others have credible concerns so the organisation shouldn't be dismissed. Wayne (talk) 03:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I don’t know how pertinent this really is. Sure 25 former military officer's distrust the official account but I'm sure there are 100,000+ more who don’t. Do you see where I am going? If we begin toting up additional people who do or don’t believe in the conspiracy where does it stop?Cdynas (talk) 05:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

We do have an external link to this organization. As to where this should be going it should go in as replacements for some of the less reliable sources in the article and subarticles claiming the same things. We establish in the summary that most reliable sources do not believe in these theories, we have a section on the mainstream account,criticism and media coverage which for the most part is the same thing. As long as there is consensus that these minority views are worthy of an article at all and this article is not entitled criticism of 9/11 conspiracy theories I see no reason not to use these reliable sources touting 9/11 conspiracy theories because of possible future problems. Edkollin (talk) 06:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This is useful because, as Ed says, we can use it to source some of the claims made by weaker sources. --Haemo (talk) 07:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thats why I suggested the source. Previous attempts to mention them have failed due to no RS for their members or qualifications. I'm not saying give them a section but now we have a source for when it is appropriate for their mention. I can see where you are going Cdynas but you overlook that of those 100,000 who trust the official account maybe only 10 or 20 have actually looked into it to any meaningful extent. If you only count those who have then we have maybe a 50/50 split. Wayne (talk) 16:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Reformat
I thought it'd be more accessible/easier to streamline in this layout. I hope the community appreciates my reformatting. Autonova (talk) 11:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

"so-called"
Since the discussion here was prematurely closed, I now have to reply elsewhere. In response to Hut 8.5, the answer to your question of "who calls them conspiracy theories/theorists?" would be the mainstream media, certain experts, and government officials. Tony0937 can back me up on this, and he even pointed out that using the pejorative "conspiracy theory" is against NPOV policy. Now, "so-called" may not be the best approach, but it's better than what's being used now, and is clearly not a weasel word, as I have demonstrated. What I liked about the original comment was the reasoning behind it, not necessarily the use of "so-called". I'd rather see "Alternate Hypotheses" used. --Pwnage8 (talk) 00:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This has been extensively debated in a recent RFA here and although it was admitted that Conspiracy Theory is deliberately used as a perjorative there was no consensus to change the title. Without a clear majority there can be no change so it is pointless to try again so soon. Try again next year as it is counterproductive to bring up the same argument too frequently in the hope of getting a different outcome. Wayne (talk) 03:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I was on a wiki break when this was going on. I fixed your link and a spelling mistake in you post (hope you don't mind). I will read the mediation case before I comment further. Tony0937 (talk) 04:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * NP. Don't forget to read the archived discussion as well as a few comments there show suporters of the current title see it as perjorative but dont feel that is a reason to change it. Wayne (talk) 16:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The US Government's Official Story is, by definition, a "conspiracy theory"
Nineteen religious fanatics who could barely fly single-engine Cessnas, lead by a cave-dwelling Muslim on kidney dialysis, commandeer commercial jumbo-jets with box-cutters and fly them into US targets with pin-point accuracy while the entire US military stands-down for over an hour & 20 minutes. Three concrete and steel buildings are disintegrated and melted, crumbling straight down into the path of most resistance at nearly free-fall speed in perfect symmetrical collapses "due to fire" for the first time in the history of modern architecture, in defiance of fundamental Newtonian laws of physics.

[Dude, you need an education. Badly. Jersey John (talk) 20:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)]

Current use of the phrase "conspiracy theory" or "conspiracy theorist" as a denigrating pejorative label for those who question established ideas is discussed here http://www.newdemocracyworld.org/conspiracy.htm: "Conspiracy theory" is usually used as a pejorative label, meaning paranoid, nutty, marginal, and certainly untrue. The power of this pejorative is that it discounts a theory by attacking the motivations and mental competence of those who advocate the theory. By labeling an explanation of events "conspiracy theory," evidence and argument are dismissed because they come from a mentally or morally deficient personality, not because they have been shown to be incorrect. Calling an explanation of events "conspiracy theory" means, in effect, "We don't like you, and no one should listen to your explanation."

By the way, I did read the previous discussion of this subject. Nothing was changed -- but it must change. Either call everyone's explanation a "conspiracy theory" or don't use that phrase at all. -- MrEguy |  &spades;&hearts;&clubs;&diams; 10:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:NAME requires that articles use a name which is used by reliable sources. The label "conspiracy theorist" is almost universally applied to the theories discussed in this article, whereas it is almost never applied to the mainstream theory. (Note it's not the U.S. Government's story because huge numbers of organisations and individuals endorse it, including many who have no connection at all to the U.S. Government.) Hut 8.5 22:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

demolition
Wouldn't demolition make some loud noise? Any report from ground zero about it?Scmaster (talk) 15:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The noise would be the same regardless of whether the buildings fell or were demolished. However as far as reports go explosives would be heard and in fact most firefighters reported multiple explosions but their testimony was rejected by the 911 commission and not included in their report. In the north tower many survivors from below the impact floor thought there were explosions below them so climbed higher instead of trying to exit the building. Here you can read around 30 pages of survivor interviews catalogued by their building and floor location and quite a few mention the secondary explosions. Here you will find 12,000 pages of firefighter and EMS interviews and a great many mention secondary explosions in lower floors. To find plain text reports of those interviews that do mention explosions you will find it easier to find them on 911 conspiracy websites. Were the explosions CD or events related to the buildings collapse? We'll never know. Wayne (talk) 16:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I never knew steel could explode on its own ;) --Pwnage8 (talk) 20:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There were machine shops on lower floors..fuel exploding due to fires? This is why NIST should have investigated controlled demolition (they rejected it without investigation). Now Conspiracy theorists use the explosions and NISTs refusal to even consider it as proof of CD. If NIST had investigated properly then I doubt this article would even exist lol. Wayne (talk) 07:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I will take a look.Scmaster (talk) 22:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

. Scmaster, in response to your previous question, conventional controlled demolition would have involved a lot of noise, which is one theory as to why such a relatively unreliable method as aluminothermic demolition was used. That was put forward recently, either by Dr. Steven Jones or AIA member Richard Gage, or both of them, during a series of radio interviews. Perhaps because it was relatively unreliable, they used an amazing amount of material, resulting in tons of molten metal underground weeks later and in the very fine black dust which was intermixed with the gray cloud that blanketed lower Manhattan. You can see a discussion of the dust and the microspheres here starting on page 76:  http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf Wowest (talk) 22:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC) .

Cell Phones
I deleted Sirbu's opinion for the following reason. Sirbu's expert opinion was made 3 days after the 911 attacks at which time there had been no research into cell phone use in aircraft. Dewdney conducted his research 2 years after Sirbu's comment and although it confirmed the basic opinion of Sirbu that calls were possible it contradicted the details of exactly how possible they were thus making Sirbu's comment irrelevant based as it was on personal opinion. Dewdney's study, which is accepted by the scientific community, must take precedence over an earlier unresearched opinion. If Sirbu has commented since Dewney's publication then that is acceptable as his opinion then is in light of the study and he is free to critisize it and have it in this article. To use Sirbu's earlier opinion no matter how expert it was at the time to debunk later actual research is POV pushing as we have no indication that he has not accepted the study. Wayne (talk) 14:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. American cell phones still primarily had an analog backup, while Canada never installed the analog system, and (primarily) uses a different digital system.  Dewdney's research on Canadian cell phones is irrelevant, even if it were accepted by the "industry".  &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * "Nonsense" is a bit strong when you have not even read the research. Dewdney used both anologue and digital cell phones (plus a cell phone that could be used in both modes) and used the different network types available (CDMA, GSM, IDEN and Analogue). While the digital phones did not perform as well as the analogue the studies conclusions were based on the best performance for an analogue cell phone (not on the digital results) in ideal conditions in a radio transparent aircraft (Success would be lower in an Aluminium skinned aircraft). Also Dewdney makes the point that "the cellphone technological base in Canada is identical to its US counterpart" You need a better argument to justify the revert. Feel free to add a post 2003 source that contradicts the study. Wayne (talk) 07:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Dewdeney is, I'm afraid, a mathematician, rather than an RF professional. (I'm afraid I'm both, now, although I work mostly in RADAR bands and the GPS frequencies, which I don't think is near the cell phone frequencies.)  I can confirm that the digital coding system used in the USA (TDMA) was not on the list you quoted.  This is, of course, not sufficient to suggest removal of Dewdeney from the article, but it's sufficient that the older professional study of cell phone communication shouldn't be eliminated just because it's contradicted by a newer non-professional study.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Your "older professional study" is actually an "older professional opinion" not a study. Nowhere does the source or subject claim it is a study or the result of a study. Also your "newer non-professional study" is actually a "newer Professional study". Who cares what profession Dewdney is? All he did was record the results (which is where his mathmatical expertise comes in)...the actual study was carried out by techs from Wireless Concepts Inc who I suspect have some expertise in.. dare I say it...wireless and who, I believe, are the Canadian partner who helped design and build the Cospas-Sarsat. I'm very dissapointed that you so blatantly twist the English phrasing to back your own opinion. I repeat...justify the revert or as per the ArbCom 911 sanctions it has to go. Wayne (talk) 16:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Non-professional conspiracy theorist carries out study which is not published in any established peer-reviewed journal, and makes a claim. Conspiracy theorist uses said study to make claims that certain flights were shot down, and the calls faked.  Prominent experts in the relevant theory offer their professional opinions that contradict said study.  You (1) deliberately remove any mention that non-professional who commissioned the study is a conspiracy theorist and now (2) want to remove the professional opinion because it contradicts the conspiracy theorist's study.  I think anyone would see the issue with that. --Haemo (talk) 18:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, you still haven't addressed any of these concerns above on this subject, and it's been literally months. You shouldn't just walk away from discussions, come back to revert if someone changes it, and then make further changes without discussing them.  --Haemo (talk) 18:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Of what relevance is it that a non professional (in RF) commissioned the study? Bush was not a professional engineer so does that invalidate the NIST report? Of what relevance is it that Dewdney supports conspiracy theories? It is irrelevant as long as the study was performed as claimed (it was filmed). He can't be too vocal about it anyway as I have never heard any of them apart from what is mentioned on the WP page. Are you accusing Wireless Concepts Inc of faking the results at his request? You overlook that NO prominent experts as far as I know have contradicted the study. It is dishonest to use opinion from before the study was carried out to prove that they have. As I said before, you are free to add any professional opinions contradicting Dewdneys study that were made after the studies publication. If Sirbu's original opinion is correct then there must be many such made since 2003. Wayne (talk) 12:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There's no constraint that professional opinions on this subject have got to be from a certain point in time. The subject is cell phones, not someone's opinion on them. RxS (talk) 13:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I've compromised to leave the Sirbu paragraph in. I've put the section in date order and added another cite for expert opinions so that everything is in context. See what you think. Wayne (talk) 13:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * At first glance, it seems to cover all the relevant studies without bias.
 * There was an earlier informal study showing that cell phones do not interfere with aircraft navigation, and that they do work near the ground. It was informal because the tests were in violation of Federal law.  It might not qualify as a WP:RS, but it might also have been the best possible source at the time.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If it was me I'd add that source to the sentence mentioning Sirbu as I have no problem with sources not normally reliable as long as they are verifiable however no one (not even Dewdney) has disputed that they worked near the ground so it doesn't seem to contradict Dewney's study. Wayne (talk) 00:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal
I am proposing that Flight 93 conspiracy theories be merged back into this article. As it stands now, that article is a poorly sourced POV fork that doesn't have nearly enough information nor reliable sources to stand on its own. Any objections? Ice Cold Beer (talk) 08:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Support strongly, per my arguments in the section above. //   Chris  (complaints) • (contribs) 12:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, then you fix the neutrality, or dispute it if you don't have the time. This article is already too long. --Pwnage8 (talk) 16:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't really have a problem merging the article back into this article, I only did it to save space.  Noah¢s   ( Talk )  21:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I had already disputed the neutrality, and had started to fix it before I proposed the merger. However, article size is never a reason to create a POV fork or to spinout an article that does not have the reliable sources to show notability. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 02:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If you fix the neutrality, then it's not a POV fork. And it's reliably sourced. --Pwnage8 (talk) 02:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It is clearly not reliably sourced. There is not a single RS in that article discussing Flight 93 conspiracy theories in depth. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 02:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There's at least two. --Pwnage8 (talk) 03:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There are more than two. But they don't discuss Flight 93 conspiracy theories extensively. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, so there are more than two. And I don't quite understand what you mean by they "don't discuss them extensively". Most of the sources used are only about Flight 93. If it's an issue about getting better sources, I don't see why the page should be merged. --Pwnage8 (talk) 17:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The subject of the spinout article is Flight 93 conspiracy theories, so we need sources that discuss the conspiracy theories, not just Flight 93. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 17:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I support the merger proposal. {Jazz2006 (talk) 03:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)}


 * Support Same things so should be in the same article. 79.71.196.217 (talk) 20:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Flight 93 conspiracy theories is very thin and would benefit from the high quality of the 9/11_conspiracy_theories article. JGerretse (talk) 00:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I've just completed the merge. Thanks for your input, folks. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 17:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Fictional Film "Able Danger"
A film entitled "Able Danger" "based on true incidents" centering around a 9/11 conspiracy will be playing at the Brooklyn International Film Festival Friday June 6 at 8PM.,. The director will be available for questioning after the film. Of course this is nowhere near article worthy at this point but if any editors plan to be in Brooklyn Friday night this would seem of interest Edkollin (talk) 01:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Aaron Russo interview
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nD7dbkkBIA

Should this be included?

(Dchall1- please do not delete again on the grounds that the interview is conducted by Alex Jones. This is a respected politician, freely and independently speaking about his own experiences. Jones is effectively silent throughout, doesnt put words in Russo's mouth, so the fact the interview is by Alex Jones is irrelevant. How dare you delete my post on this discussion! How is Russo's experience supposed to be taken seriously if people ignore it just because it's on the Alex Jones show? If youre on a jury, you don't not listen to witnesses because they're left, right black or white- you listen to what they actually say. It's mentioned elsewhere on wikipedia, anyway.) Autonova (talk) 17:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Respected politician? I don't have sufficient vocabulary to explain the error of your ways.  Errors of his ways are quite easy to express.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ironic that you had an error to correct. --Pwnage8 (talk) 17:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I was considering stating that "respected politician" is such an obvious oxymoron as to go without saying, but decided to speak to the specifics of the issue. &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If the 'errors of his ways' are easy to express, then express them. If you can logically prove that Rockefeller never said what he's claimed to have said to Russo, then please present that evidence. Autonova (talk) 20:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know to "prove" anything. You need to prove that Rockefeller did say that, noting as has been done many times, that Jones and Russo are not credible sources.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 02:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * One problem with this is you can not use YouTube as a cite due to copywrite issues. That being said he is a mildly notable public figure. This accusation should belong in the "New World Order" motive as an additional cite only with a line or two in the advanced knowledge sub article. Another consideration is External Links. "Terrorstorm" and "Loose Change" are linked and this is in a similar vain Edkollin (talk) 03:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Questions
What steps are being taken to ensure that all viewpoints, no matter how weird, are being allowed in wikipedia in general and to this article. What steps are being taken to notate comments and edits to Wikipedia articles that are originated in the Bush administration, by politicians, corporations, Nations, or by Skeptical organizations. I do not mean block them, but a note that would flow as follows. Example of a message that would notate who edited an article might look like this: " This edit has been traced to (X)corporation, (X) nation, the white house, pentagon or Skeptical Inquirer, (X) politician (Senator Congressman, Governor Etc) or some other organization, church or government agency". I believe such notation would be informative and useful, especially if politicians are trying to change articles to a more favorable view of themselves, or governments are trying to cover up something. (NOTE: I do not understand the warning at the top of the talk page. If this question falls under the warning, please let me know and I will either change the question or remove it) Magnum Serpentine (talk) 21:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * In the above example, (X) stands for the name of the organization or personMagnum Serpentine (talk) 21:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * How in the world do you expect us to determine that information, much less notate it? &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 21:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Two thoughts come to mind. First, this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit.  As long as assertions are supported by reliable sources, it doesn't matter who makes the edits.  Bin Laden could edit the page so long as his edits were verifiable.  Secondly, you may wish to take a look at WP:FRINGE, which covers policies on inclusion of fringe theories.  //   Chris  (complaints) • (contribs) 21:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Financial Times Magazine article
This Sunday the magazine published a lengthy article on the 9/11 Truth movement. I noted it in this articles and the 9/11 truth movement sub articles mainstream media sections. The cite said that the NIST report on building 7 is due out in August. I put that and other information from the cite relating the NIST investigation of the building 7 collapse in the Controlled Demolition Theory sub article. The Financial Times article is broken down into three separate cites and I used these in the articles. thepeoplesvoice.org combined the three parts into one page but I had doubts that would pass reliable source muster. Edkollin (talk) 07:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Results of google search
This statement is made in the article

As of June 2008 a Google search of "9/11 conspiracy" comes up with 615,000 links.

I just did that search and got 619,000 links.

More importantly is the contrast with the search "9/11 truth" which yields 1.3 million links —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.233.52.60 (talk) 17:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * GOOGLE [[User:BQZip01| '— BQZip01'' —

''' ]] talk 23:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I put in because that is what the cite claimed. I did what you did the day I put it in the article and got 616000 something links. But I can not put in the article my or your experiments because that would be original research. I put put in in because it demonstrates internet interest in the subject. "June 2008" might need to be reworded. That was the month the article came out there is no mention of when or if it was the cites author who did a google search. Edkollin (talk) 08:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The BBC is claiming 7.9 million for "9/11 conspiracy" and 22 million for 9/11 truth. I do not know why there figures are so differnt Edkollin (talk) 20:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The quotes. From google.com
 * Results 1 - 10 of about 642,000 for "9/11 conspiracy". (0.28 seconds)
 * Results 1 - 10 of about 7,870,000 for 9/11 conspiracy. (0.09 seconds) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.29.237.240 (talk) 16:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

These results are so different because the use of quotes, narrows the search to when the items occur next to each other. I getroughly the same as B.B.C.'s result when I omit quotes, (thanks to the above user, I figured this out". That aside, both sets of searches seem to indicate that "9/11 truth" or 9/11 truth gets more hits than "9/11 conspiracy" or 9/11 conspiracy.

I haven't checked out the variations for 9-11, 9 11, September 11th, Nineleven, Or Nine Eleven. Which for the purpose of this article would constitute original research, and not be publishable. But I think a reference to the BBC article is in order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.233.52.60 (talk) 17:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Project for a New American Century doesnt exist
footnote 165 linking to newamericancentury.org leads here http://ns1.cpanel.btnaccess.com/suspended.page/

maybe someone can change it to the archive http://web.archive.org/web/*/www.newamericancentury.org/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.29.237.240 (talk) 16:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The Conspiracy Files (BBC documentary series)
I recently posted at Talk:Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center about the upcoming broadcast of The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 - The Third Tower on BBC2 tomorrow (6 July 2008). I thought people here should be aware of that, as it might lead to increased traffic here as well. I've also noted over there that this series has now done two documentaries on 9/11 conspiracy theories. The first, seemingly titled  9/11: The Conspiracy Files (not sure about the placement of the series title in the program title) was broadcast on Sunday 18 February 2007. The second one, as I mentioend above, is being broadcast on Sunday 6 July 2008. I'm posting here to make sure people don't get these two documentaries mixed up. I'm also not sure of the broadcast dates in other countries. Note that our article on The Conspiracy Files is (currently) mainly about the US series of a similar name, with the BBC one only briefly mentioned. Anyway, I came here to see whether the documentary is mentioned here, or whether its mention has been discussed on the talk page or in the talk archives - can anyone help? The links to the earlier documentary, possibly relevant for this article, are: here, here, here and here. Currently (from a cursory readong of the article), this article has the following mentions: I'm also looking at the 9/11 conspiracy theories section, which seems a bit of a hodge-podge or mish-mash at the moment. There seems to be no rhyme or reason over which articles or documentaries get mentioned. The films and books in the template, for instance, are not mentioned at all. Also, Zeitgeist, the Movie is not mentioned. I understand that this article may not be the right place to cover the various documentaries and books, but people will come to Wikipedia looking for information on these topics, so Wikipedia should probably try and organise at least a semi-coherent article or timeline on this. I note we do have Category:Films based on the September 11, 2001 attacks, and Category:Documentaries about the September 11, 2001 attacks, and September 11, 2001 attacks in popular culture and List of audiovisual entertainment affected by the September 11, 2001 attacks (the most clunky title I've seen in a while), but this all seems a bit disorganised at the moment. Would it be an idea to have two articles focusing purely on the films and documentaries about 9/11? Carcharoth (talk) 09:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "Q&A: What really happened. The Conspiracy Files. BBC (16-02-2007). Retrieved on 2008-07-04." (in the references)
 * BBC Two The Conspiracy Files: The Third Tower Airdate July 6, 2008. Retrieved on 2008-06-23. (in the external links)
 * BBC Conspiracy Files 9/11 at Google Video (in the video links - a dead link, was probably a copyvio)
 * I'm pleased to see someone else getting involved with this. The problem at present is that this whole area has become a battleground in the culture wars between those who believe in every conspiracy theory going, and those who wish to block any mention of the controversy, or use content forking, in contravention of our policies, to restrict non-governmental sources to "Controversy" articles such as this one. As the events concerned recede further into history, and as the discredited Bush administration begins to stand down, we may be able to attempt a more balanced coverage of this area, as we effortlessly manage to do in similar areas of controversy from history such as the John F. Kennedy assassination. We should begin with a dispassionate review of our coverage of this whole area, with a view to streamlining it and making it conform with policy. --John (talk) 12:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know why Zeitgeist isn't mentioned in conspiracy theories. 9/11 really isn't a large part of it, at least according to our article.  And the John F. Kennedy assassination still has more credible (as in not violating the laws of physics) alternative explanations than 9/11 (planes are harder to miscount than bullets), and probably more current credible discussion.  Just last month, I recall a news story about performing (something like) spectral analysis on the various audio tapes to determine if all the bullet sounds had the same "signature" and also an attempt at echolocation of the shots.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You may think so, I may think so, but the BBC seems to hold a different opinion. I think my points above still stand. --John (talk) 21:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Forgot to follow this up. I found the BBC documentary interesting. It let people say things in their own words, but in the end, by the implication and the way it ended, it came down fairly squarely on the side of those saying that there was no conspiracy. It covered a fair amount of ground and a fair number of the arguments, and did a good job of presenting the various points. It certainly left me wondering just why consipracy theories are so pervasive in today's society - something about being unable to prove a negative I think, but maybe also something to do with the relationship between some of the American people and their government and the media. I'm sure it will be studied by sociologists for generations to come. Carcharoth (talk) 19:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

video that cover that devloping of the conspiracy about the Jews
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hB5rBmmOaDU

I add this video as it give good back ground about how the issue was developed.Oren.tal (talk) 19:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Youtube videos may not be added to articles, even as external links, unless the source is indicated, and that source is at least credible. &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

World Trade Center Design Investigation
This sections as any section can be rewordeed but it should not have been deleted because it does not voilate the biography clauses. The statement that the wife of the trade center's structural engineer and a representative of the buildings' original design team were members of the society’s investigative team are undisputed. The Associated Press and the teams lead investigator both agree on that point. As for the charge of "moral corruption" which I am going to assume is the basis of your objection I would agreee that just by itself would at best border on slander (they are not bieng accused of actual corruption ie fixing the investigation). But thier actions were givin a robust defense and that for me makes this a non-slandouras piece. Edkollin (talk) 19:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It still needs rigorous sourcing. The only reference cited by that section was a dead link that the Internet Wayback Machine hasn't heard of. There is also the implication that he somehow supports the conspiracy theories, which is unsubstantiated and (from what I have seen) wrong. Hut 8.5 21:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Here is the link . This section is not about specific theories but alleged "pattern of behavior on the part of officials investigating the September 11 attack meant to suppress the emergence of evidence that might contradict the mainstream. So whether that particular scientist believes in the theories is irrelevant to this section that he is discussing a pattern of behavior. meant to suppress the emergence of evidence that might contradict the mainstream is. Goggling the articles title shows Conspiracy theorists of all sorts did seize upon this when it came out. Edkollin (talk) 00:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The source is fine, though these allegations concern the mainstream viewpoint of the construction and design of the World Trade Center, as opposed to the conspiracy theories which concern the mainstream account of the events of 9/11. I think this would be better off in Construction of the World Trade Center or Collapse of the World Trade Center rather than here. Hut 8.5 20:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Editors Note: 9/11 vs Anthrax case
The difference in mainstream reputable source response is striking between the two cases. Almost immediately after the FBI claimed Bruce Ivins did the anthrax attacks a whole of reputable scientists,journalists editorials public officials have doubts about the conclusions. It should be noted that as of this writing the 9/11 like the U.S. government CT's it remains on the edge of the debate. My POV is with this very different climate that if some "evidence" shows up of government involvement it will be taken seriously something I believe is unlikely ever to occur with 9/11 "evidence" Edkollin (talk) 16:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Control of Words
Various antagonistic entities in the media use the control of words to marginalize free speech. "Conspiracy theories" is one of these expressions. As long as one accepts word usages in ways that ones detractors put forth, they fall into the trap and surrender to the label. Note that Wikipedia has an article entitled "conspiracy theories", and it seems to be dominated by those who would dismiss any evidence contrary to the 'official theory'. That gives us two articles then, that support official theories of the World Trade Center Incident. I would suggest that those Wikipedians with evidence to alternative scenarios should establish a Wiki article with a title that is acceptable to their views and research, and for a link to be provided on the World Trade Center Attacks page, and that their article should be moderated by qualified representatives of that research.

--APDEF (talk) 14:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That would be a WP:POVFORK, which is prohibited by Wikipedia guidelines. Furthermore, WP:FRINGE (a guideline) strongly suggests that mainstream analysis of fringe theories, such as 9/11 conspiracy theories, should be included in this article.  May I suggest you read the edit history of this talk page before making proposals which have been considered and rejected previously?  &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And...we already have "alternative viewpoint" articles...such as this one.--MONGO 15:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * that will be like losing control. But who control Wikipedia ? I dont think. But you may think to to know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.245.39 (talk) 09:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Protected edit request
Suggested external link addition to:

VIDEOS

Title: Who Killed John O'Neil

URL: http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=-3857917663523144457

Thanks!

Mokeyboy
 * Google Video doesn't make for a brilliant external link. The videos already listed are from recognised sources (eg BBC, CBC) or have become notable in themselves (eg Loose Change). This video doesn't appear to be either. We have too many external links here anyway. <b style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</b> 18:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Origins
The origins of these theories are not sourced and they seem to be misrepresented stating that "websites, books, and films have been put forward" with no mention of what prompted their creation. The article continues "Although mainstream media report that al-Qaeda agents conspired to carry out the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks, members within the 9/11 Truth Movement say..."

The Jersey Girls page by itself would be a much clearer explanation of how the theories originated. However, there is more to the origins than just the Jersey Girls: this article and the William Rodriguez article should be referenced too. Here's my proposed text:

Immediately after the collapses of the Towers and Building 7, eyewitness testimony referring to explosions, along with features of the collapses caught on film that resembled footage of controlled demolitions, led many people, including some news anchors and engineers, to suspect that explosives had been pre-planted within the buildings.

Shortly after the attacks, William Rodriguez told CNN: We heard a loud rumble, then all of a sudden we heard another rumble like someone moving a whole lot of furniture. And then the elevator opened and a man came into our office and all of his skin was off.

In 2005, he recalled the locations of the two rumbles, the first from below, and the second from above.

Rodriguez and the Jersey Girls, four widows of WTC victims, were instrumental in the creation of the 9/11 Commission. The Jersey Girls pressured the U.S. government for months to have National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice testify in front of the Commission; when the White House did not send her to hearings in March 2004, "they walked out in silent protest." The White House gave in and Rice testified, although she refused to testify under oath.

Even before the commission formed, a minority of people took the view that the only reasonable explanation for the supposed anomalies in the official account, and the perceived cover-up, was that (a faction of) the government either deliberately allowed the attacks to take place, or were actively involved in the planning and carrying out of the attacks. Many of the questions the Family Steering Committee submitted to the 9/11 Commission seemed to the committee to have been left unanswered.

On March 25, 2002, on KPFA's Flashpoints with Dennis Bernstein, Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) said "We know there were numerous warnings of the events to come on September 11. ... What did this administration know and when did it know it, about the events of September 11? Who else knew, and why did they not warn the innocent people of New York who were needlessly murdered? What do they have to hide?".

After that, it can continue with "Members within the 9/11 Truth Movement..." as it does now.

Please comment if you have a better improvement for the Origins section. Dscotese (talk) 04:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think this should be added. There's a difference between suggesting the attacks could have been prevented or that officials were incompetent and suggesting the attacks were deliberately organised or permitted by the government (which is the view that this article covers). Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center has a good section on the development of that particular theory. <b style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</b> 20:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is a difference. It's like the difference between a chicken laying and then sitting on a fertilized egg and the bursting forth of a baby chick.  Or the difference between the origins of a theory and the descriptions of the theory that subsequently appear.  Don't you think the "put[ting] forward" of the "websites, books, and films" is not a sufficient description of origins?  If you think it is, I'm open to conversion.  Perhaps the section should be called "Background and Reception"? Or perhaps you feel that the path from 9/11 attacks to conspiracy theories should not be presented? Dscotese (talk) 23:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You haven't got any references that these events were the origins of the theories though, so this is WP:OR. The origins section isn't very good, but as it's well covered at Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center (and 9/11 Truth Movement) and this article is too long already it might be better to add links to those articles. <b style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</b> 19:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There are no sources that anything mentioned in the section was an origin or a reception of the theories. Really, since any selection of information to be included constitutes research, I think you are perverting the intent of WP:OR, but since the article is too long, I will work on shortening it and providing links to the other articles that cover the subject well, as you suggest. Dscotese (talk) 02:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Since from your comments above you are trying to add information that these events were connected to the origins of the theories you need references. If you had a reference which said something on the lines of "the conspiracy theories grew out of the same initial skepticism that produced the Jersey Girls and the Family Steering Committee" then your section could be included, otherwise you are interpreting the information to conclude that it has something to do with 9/11 conspiracy theories (hence the original research). <b style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</b> 06:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If you check out September 11 attacks, you'll see that President Bush's speech, the contingency plans that were formed, and the hate crimes discussed are all part of the "Domestic Response" - even though there is no RS that calls them part of the domestic response. These activities in the government and the country that followed the events can be represented as "Domestic Response" without a reliable source because you don't need an RS to state the obvious.  In the same way, the problems people had with the mainstream account can be represented as the origins of conspiracy theories.  As I suggested, we can call this "background" instead.  This is why I call your use of WP:OR here a perversion. Dscotese (talk) 14:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The information quoted there is clearly part of the topic of 9/11 and clearly falls within the subject of the domestic response (a header which is only there for organisational reasons). It is less clear that criticism of the competence of officials or of inquiries into 9/11 has something to do with the origin of the conspiracy theories. Information shouldn't be included in this article if it has no relevance to the article's subject. <b style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</b> 17:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's suppose that the conspiracy theories really did NOT originate in the criticisms you mentioned. It's pretty obvious that such criticism has been worked into the theories by now, and those claims are obviously founded in part on the experiences of the Jersey Girls and William Rodriguez.  This is why I suggested using Background in the section title and changed it to Initial Reception.  Background and Initial Reception would be much more helpful to those researching the topic, and it allows the introduction of the articles about the Jersey Girls and Rodriguez.  Also, the use of "Origins" is unwarranted since there are no reliable sources that point to the origins of the conspiracy theories.  Anyway, is there some Wiki Policy that suggests that we should suppress the introduction of the Jersey Girls and/or William Rodriguez for some reason? Dscotese (talk) 04:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * We already have background information in the "Mainstream account" section. Given that this article is too long already and that the background is covered in other articles I don't think we can justify adding more. I would be surprised if there aren't any reliable sources at least mentioning the origins of the theories. <b style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</b> 20:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)