Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories/Archive 19

removed Mineta paragraph

 * However, the 9/11 Commission report concluded, based on testimony from the other members who were in the bunker and overhead the conversation, that the young aide was referring to Flight 93, and that the young aide first entered and stated that the aircraft was 80 miles out "at some time between 10:10 and 10:15", after Flight 93 had crashed, but was believed to still be on its way toward Washington, D.C. Mineta did not know at the time what the orders referred to, and he learned only later that 'shoot down orders' had been given that day. However, it has been suggested that the orders spoken of could have been an order not to shoot down the approaching plane.  This theory is based on an interpretation of the young man's question as an expression of his surprise about the order.  Therefore, because shooting down the approaching plane would be the accepted action, the unusual nature of an order not to shoot down the plane would explain the young man's putative disbelief.  Still others believe that the young aide's repeated questioning was due to ethical concerns over shooting down a commercial aircraft with innocent civilians on board. .  Although Mineta later clarified that he believed the order being discussed was indeed a shoot down order, the 9/11 Commission found that "A shootdown authorization was not communicated to the NORAD air defense sector until 28 minutes after United 93 had crashed in Pennsylvania".  Yet, this was due to NORAD military commanders themselves failing to effectively pass the President's and Vice President's shoot-down orders to fighter pilots in the air, and the report goes on to say that, "In short, while leaders in Washington believed that the fighters circling above them had been instructed to "take out" hostile aircraft, the only orders actually conveyed to the pilots were to 'ID type and tail.'"


 * preview

I am removing the above paragraph for the following reasons: My conclusion is that the paragraph has no basis in sources upto now, so it needs fixing before we can put it back. Kaaskop6666 (talk) 19:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) I think the 9/11 report does not say this about the Mineta testimony. If you think it does, please give a page number.
 * 2) wanttoknow.info is not a valid source for the claim made
 * 3) MSNBC does not give a source for its statements; it may be naive reproduction of hearsay. This is not an RS.
 * 4) Mineta restated his testimony in 2006/2007 or so.

update: I am asking the editor who wrote it, for clarification. Kaaskop6666 (talk) 11:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Suggested Historical Precedent
I propose to change Conspiracy theorists sometimes bring up historical examples of where a government is known or alleged to have carried out or planned activities similar to those hypothesized as explanations for the September 11 attacks — often false flag operations. to In some historical examples of false flag operations, a government has carried out or planned activities similar to those hypothesized as explanations for the September 11 attacks. I propose this change for these reasons: Please critique this change if you feel it does not improve the article. Dscotese (talk) 04:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Who brings up these examples is not important to the subject.
 * "...examples of where" is poor grammar.
 * Other important classes of historical examples that are not false flag operations should be mentioned explicitly, just as "events that inspired conspiracy theories" are.
 * The statement is currently unreferenced, but later on the article cites as a reference for a similar claim. Since this is an unreliable source it can only be used as a reference for the views of the conspiracy theorists, hence who brings the claim is important. I suggest we remove the sentence entirely, since it's redundant to "Conspiracy theorists, such as those associated with the 9/11 Truth Movement, argue that the similarities between the motives..." in the same paragraph. Hut 8.5 06:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with you.  Enigma  message 16:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If source is reliable only as CT viewpoint then change wording to something similar to "Conspiracy theorists cite examples of where they allege that governments planned or carried out activities similar to those that they hypothesize governments carried out in relation to the attacks". Edkollin (talk) 18:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The only reason I see to keep the sentence is the Wikilink to False Flag, which is helpful. Perhaps it is best to remove the sentence and rewrite this sentence to maintain that link:

Conspiracy theorists, such as those associated with the 9/11 Truth Movement, argue that the similarities between the motives between the attacks and the examples they cite, indicate that they are both plausible and operate with a long-term, hidden, agenda. I propose the following, which eliminates "motives between the attacks" (which doesn't make sense to me) and states Hoffman's argument more clearly, and attributes it to him. (If we want to attribute it to "conspiracy theorists" we should provide references - the only one we have points directly to Hoffman's page.): Jim Hoffman argues that the similarities between authorities' actions surrounding the attacks and their actions surrounding the false flag operations he cites, indicate that they are both plausible and may operate with a long-term, hidden, agenda.Dscotese (talk) 03:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * We already have eight sentences along the lines of "Jim Hoffman says X" and we really don't need another. We could just add "false flag operations" or something like it to the list of examples. Hut 8.5 09:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That still leaves "...similarities between the motives between the attacks and the examples..." which doesn't make a whole lot of sense. If you can fix it better than I just did, please go ahead. If you can see your way clear to avoiding the use of "conspiracy theorists" as a label, that would be nice too. I left it in since it seems important to you. Dscotese (talk) 05:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Flight 93 Important Omission
The Passenger who saw "white smoke" in the toilet - whose telephone call was pulled from most mainstream media almost immediately. The "White Smoke" is a classic case of what you would expect to see if an Aircraft depressurizes - such as when the structure breaks open - due to a missile perhaps. This really is the most important piece of evidence and their is no mention of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.41.88.201 (talk) 19:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC) Quote: At 9.58am a 911 call - the last mobile phone contact from Flight 93 - was made from one of the airliner's toilets by passenger Edward Felt. Glenn Cramer, the emergency supervisor who answered it, said on the day: "He was very distraught. He said he believed the plane was going down. "He did hear some sort of an explosion and saw white smoke coming from the plane, but he didn't know where. And then we lost contact with him." Glenn Cramer has now been gagged by the FBI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.41.88.201 (talk) 19:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * References? Hut 8.5 21:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

No such hypothesis was rejected
"Published reports by the US National Institute of Standards and Technology REJECTED the controlled demolition hypothesis.[4][5] The community of civil engineers generally accepts the mainstream account that the impacts of jets at high speeds in combination with subsequent fires, rather than controlled demolition, led to the collapse of the Twin Towers.[6]"

Actually the controlled demolition hypothesis was never mentioned in the original reports. There is only a brief mention that they will be analyzed in the article 4 summary?? Also citation 5 is a dead link.
 * That isn't true. See NIST NCSTAR 1, p. 146, where the report explicitly states that the investigators found no evidence that the Twin Towers were brought down with explosives. I will fix the reference. Hut 8.5 19:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Correct, Hut. They didn't find evidence. However, the word "rejected" gives the impression that they investigated the hypothesis, which actually didn't happen. A hypothesis is an if-then statement, so a "hypothesis" without a test is NOT a hypothesis. That test is the investigation (IF it were a controlled demolition, THEN we should find X, so we look for X). You look for it during the investigation, THEN you can reject the hypothesis once that evidence is not found. It is more accurate to say that they "ignored the demolition hypothesis, precluding it as unworthy of investigation". If you read that page that you quoted (p. 146), you will find that nowhere does it say what was done, what was looked for, or offer any details of an investigation. It simply makes a claim that the "squibs" were windows blown out by compressed air, and the structure below it "provided little resistance" leading to free fall, and because this conclusion was reached a priori, the demolition hypothesis was not investigated, as shown by the single paragraph in the entire report that mentions it, right next to some absurd idea that the building was hit by a missile.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.168.92.105 (talk) 18:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "Rejected" does not imply that they investigated the hypothesis, merely that they refused to accept it. They clearly did decline to accept it, since they explicitly noted in their report that they found no evidence to support it and they have said that they found "conclusive evidence" that a different factor was responsible for the collapse. It is not true that they ignored the hypothesis, since they did mention it in the report on the collapse of the Twin Towers and created an FAQ to answer the claims made by it. It is also not true that they thought it was unworthy of investigation, since in the investigation into the collapse of building 7 they did investigate the idea and concluded it didn't happen. (If you want to add claims like "precluding it as unworthy of investigation" to the article then you need to find a reliable source to back it up.) Hut 8.5 21:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Other Theories
A few quick questons. Why is President Bush's behavior listed in the Other Theories section? How is that an alternative conspiracy theory? Also, why not include the Micro Nuke Theory, Judy Wood's Space Laser Theory or David Icke's Reptilian Shapeshifting Aliens Theory? They aren't any crazier than the No Plane Theory or the Jewish Involvment Theories and seem about as popular. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.55.240 (talk) 07:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Jewish Involment theories are believed by large if not majorities of people in the Muslem World and elsewhere. These theories have been given extensive media coverage in the Muslem world. The other theories even controlled explosion are not nearly as close in "popularity" Edkollin (talk) 06:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The directed energy weapon theories have received some coverage (e.g. the Financial Times articles). We could certainly give them a mention. Hut 8.5 06:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * While they were given coverage they have few adherents and are rejected by the truther community. 911 conspiracies are those held by that "community" and we should exclude more than a sentence or so mention of other theories that are not significant. To do otherwise we would need to add every theory held by more than 2 people. Wayne (talk) 09:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not our place to distinguish between theories rejected by the mainstream, if they're covered in the mainstream media. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 14:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not here just to mimic the mainstream media(whatever that is in 2008). While the mainstream media and 9/11 truth movement should have an important say on this article for obvious reasons their opinions about what happened on 9/11 or what defines a 9/11 conspiracy theory they should not be the only word on article worthiness. Popularity based on polling by respectable polling organizations should be one factor in determining article worthiness. Edkollin (talk) 16:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * We determine what we cover primarily by coverage in reliable sources, not by polls of how many people believe them. Yes, this is a fringe view, even by fringe theory standards, and so it shouldn't get much coverage even in an article like this - a short paragraph at most. Hut 8.5 18:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I am still at a loss as to how President Bush's behavior is considered an "alternative theory". That is more of a clue as to his alleged involvement or foreknowledge of the attack. Also why not include a section on alternative demolition methods? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.78.2.181 (talk) 22:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting issue
Because of the "9/11" start to the title, the link at the top sends you back to Talk:9.  Enigma  message 06:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There are a quite a few pages (and more redirect pages) like this one, with the slash  I believe subpages are disabled the article namespace, so the "9/11 conspiracy theories" article is not a subpage.  But, we need subpages for talk pages for archiving and other purposes.  Thus, the situation with this talk page being a subpage of the number 9 talk page. --Aude (talk) 06:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Fabled Enemies
There seems to be a “no way no how” philosophy towards putting this particular 9/11 conspiracy video in the external links section of the article. I just do not understand why that would be. Although having a somewhat different topical emphasis I just don’t see any  basic differences in tone or accuracy with the other video’s that have been allowed to remain in the external links. Edkollin (talk) 06:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think this article has too many external links. Dinosaur is a featured article and there is a huge amount of information available on the internet about it, yet the page has only 15 links, compared to 30 here. --<b style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</b> 19:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This article has and should have many external links because there are many different conspiracy theories. I’m not overly knowledgeable about dinosaurs t so I will use an article closer to this topic the 9/11 commission article. There are only so many ways to say what that  report said so limiting external links for that article  is a good idea.  Trying to limit external links in this article to a certain number is trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. All it does limit the variety of information available to readers to confirm to a Wikipedia article guideline. A guideline is not the same thing as a hard and fast rule a point unfortunately forgotten by many Wikipedia editors. As for Fabled Enemies  I have known about that video for awhile and my initial inclination was the same as yours. But I came the review I linked above took time to watched the video and concluded that although this video  although  similar to others video’s of its ilk  to the has somewhat of a different emphasis at points and thus may provide additional information for the reader who is so inclined to watch. Edkollin (talk) 08:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia's policy on external links can be found here. Regarding the number of external links, it says that "links in the External links section should be kept to a minimum". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Missing important information
In the "Jewish involvment" section of this article there is NO mention whatsoever that (over one hundred?) Israelis students and "artists" have been rounded up by the FBI after 9/11 and many of them with alleged links to the Mossad. As far as I can remember it is "mainstream" knowledge and well documented. Why has this important information been completely ommited? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SSZ (talk • contribs)
 * See this archived discussion. Proof of Mossad activity is not proof of a conspiracy, or even of a conspiracy theory. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 14:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Please watch this report from Foxnews: It says literally that "they (The Israeli mossad) might have had advance knowledge of the events" and ends up by saying "how could they not have known" since they were spying on Arabs in the United States prior to the acttacks of 9/11.
 * Reports of this have been dismissed by officials from several law-enforcement agencies, and the Justice Department have labelled it an "urban myth". --<b style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</b> 19:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not my impression by watching the above 4 videos from Foxnews TV. May be you have different sources.
 * I cited my source above, in case you didn't notice, and the reports in the link above seem to be the same ones denied by officials in the link I cited. In addition, we can't use YouTube as a source (it fails WP:RS and the video violates copyright law). <b style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</b> 07:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I can easily say that I have seen occurences when a US Government spokesperson/representative has provided missleading or plain erroneous info to the press. In some cases with the White House admiting to the fact. I can mention the case of US CIA agent who was outed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SSZ (talk • contribs)

Here's what the FOX News report says on the subject...

Since September 11, more than 60 Israelis have been arrested or detained [...] some of the detainees also failed polygraph questions when asked about alleged surveillance activities against and in the United States.

''There is no indication that the Israelis were involved in the 9-11 attacks, but investigators suspect that the Israelis may have gathered intelligence about the attacks in advance, and not shared it. A highly placed investigator said there are "tie-ins." But when asked for details, he flatly refused to describe them, saying, "evidence linking these Israelis to 9-11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It's classified information." ''

[...] 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.

What shall we add to the section, then? That the Mossad are active in the US? That they are good at their jobs? That they are not, in fact, suspected of being involved in the attacks? The nearest thing to a conspiracy theory that this report offers is the suspicion that they had information that they didn't share. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 15:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This does belong here because while it hints investigators believed in LIHOP it is not directly stated. It belongs in the subarticle 9/11 advanced-knowledge debate Edkollin (talk) 00:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Invalid citation
The 52 citation is no longer valid. That is a bais statement as is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.53.8 (talk • contribs)
 * Added a different reference for that statement. <b style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</b> 19:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Bob Pugh YouTube video
I know that using YouTube videos is forbidden, but some die-hard 9/11 conspiracy freak posted a YouTube video by a man named Bob Pugh, who claims to be a freelance videographer who works for various news agenices and is used to bolster the "alternate theories." Where would something like this fit into the article? DanTD (talk) 13:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't see this in the this article even if it was not youtube. The man is not an expert on plane crashes and while he is pointing out that what he saw is unusual compared to other plane crash sites he has been at he is not questioning the official story or espousing a conspiracy theory. The size of the hole issue is mentioned in the article so this would be nothing new. That being said this is interesting footage so if you can find a non You Tube version of this (his website?/reliable news organizations that ran his footage?) this could be an extenal link to the Pentagon attack article or better yet if you could contact him this footage would be valuable for some sort of collection Edkollin (talk) 08:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Psychology/IQ of adherents varies with the particular theory
Given the history of media reporting on 9/11, there is no way to have a firmly held opinion on the topic without accepting one conspiracy theory or another. Some of these theories are mutually contradictory, of course.

First, we must consider the observable events.

Buildings were shown with black smoke billowing out of their middles. News footage showed people who had apparently jumped to their deaths rather than endure a less certainly deadly but more certainly painful experience. This kind of horror would naturally bring up all kinds of personal belief conflicts. Would jumping to a relatively painless death to avoid continuing pain of possibly burning to death be a mortal sin? And then, to everyone's amazement, the two buildings we were shown suddenly collapsed in a manner Dan Rather spontaneously compared to "controlled demolition." Eye witnesses said that the first tower was hit by a small commuter plane and the second was hit by a white aircraft with a circular, blue logo near the nose. Then, the news began to come from the networks rather than the local stations.

We were quickly given a "complete" explanation -- the Official Conspiracy Theory, or OCT. Twenty-one Arabs, with the help of other fellow conspirators, had hijacked four airplanes and had flown them into three targets while one had been diverted by brave passengers whose motto was "let's roll." When one of the Arabs turned out to have been dead for a year and another turned out to be alive in Florida, the number was ramped down to nineteen, all of whom had similar photographs available. Two Muslims, clearly pictured, whose passports had previously been stolen in the United States and Israel, protested their innocence, but their claims were disregarded. Several other accused terrorists came forward, but their claims of innocence were officially ignored with an explanation that the culprits were other Muslims with similar names who coincidentally all looked alike.

Everybody I know immediately accepted the OCT, with the exception of Teresa, a university librarian, who immediately thought "so THAT's why the Republicans stole the Florida election," and began collecting and distributing printed material and, later, DVD's.

The psychological phenomenon here is called "closure." If an event is traumatizing enough, people with a low tolerance for ambiguity or vagueness with latch onto the first explanation they are given. Another psychological phenomenon at work is "cognitive dissonance." If the most logical explanation for an event contradicts cherished values, it will be rejected in favor of a more convenient explanation which does not produce such conflict.

In China, during WWII, the Japanese committed the intentional mass murder of hundreds of thousands of civilians, women, children and all. The motion picture "The Last Emperor" was not permitted to be shown in Japan until newsreel footage documenting one of these atrocities was deleted from the Japanese version. Governments do things like that.

During the second half of the twentieth century, the newly-formed CIA repeatedly overthrew democracies in Latin America and other parts of the world, replacing them with military dictators for the benefit of American corporations. David Horowitz's "Free World Colossus" documents several of these events, most particularly during the 1950's.

In any event, the introduction of alternative theories of what may or may not have happened on 9/11 leads to a skepticism concerning the OCT.

Some historical events cause susceptible people to continue to believe in the OCT, however. For one thing, CS Lewis's "Narnia" books for children, vilify all religions other than Christianity and lump them all together into one competing religion followed by anyone with a rag on his head. For another thing, Arayan hate groups vilify all other races, including the Semites (Arabs, Jews and all that).

The most intelligent and objective position possible concerning the holes in the OCT is that "we do not know." That's the simple truth.


 * Just because we don’t know what Oswald had for breakfast doesn’t mean we don’t know who killed Kennedy.… — NRen2k5 (TALK), 08:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems unfair to lable Theorists as Schizoids. Most of them are unlikely to fit into that bracket anyway. The problem they seem to have is that they only read works that agree with their beliefs. That it is not unreasonable to believe that hijackers of two planes with even crude flying abilities could 'guide' (not fly) those planes into two of the worlds tallest buildings, which would then collapse after the resultant impact, is somthing they cannot accept. Why? Dozens of credible witnesses saw a plane hit the Pentagon, not so! say the Theorists, why?. The reason seems to be simple statistics, there will allways be a minority of people who not accept evidence of any kind. Sad but true.Johnwrd (talk) 03:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

out of date link?
This link: ^ "The Top September 11 Conspiracy Theories". Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State (28 August 2006) (footnote 10) seems to refer to a page taht no longer contains the material cited.
 * Fixed. The link (and possibly the article) was apparently revised on 19 September 2006.  That page looks outdated and like a pretty lame defense for the "official theory" to someone who has studied the 9/11 issues in depth.  But whatever, the link works now.  The Original Wildbear (talk) 09:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Israeli Involvement
Israeli Involvement in 9/11:

(Carl Cameron's reports for Fox News on Israeli involvement are no longer available on Fox's websites which denies they ever existed, but I did see them a while ago and they were along the same lines.)

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7545.htm

http://www.giwersworld.org/911/is-spies.phtml http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=4577 http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/govknow.html http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/9_11_facts.html http://www.infowars.net/articles/december2006/071206Haas.htm http://www.911review.com/articles/usamah/khilafah.html http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2007/02/16/counterpunch_on_israel_and_911.php

--Wool Bridge (talk) 09:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Israeli foreknowledge is already covered in 9/11 advance-knowledge debate. <b style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</b> 20:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Mental health of conspiracy theorists
ABC News has just published an article about the mental health of conspiracy theorists:

http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=6443988

We should try to work this into the article. 67.184.14.87 (talk) 17:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Not really relevant here - it only mentions 9/11 briefly. <b style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</b> 20:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps in conspiracy theories? — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 21:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

appeal
''Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's our commitment.''

I have been doing a little research on this subject, and for me there are many strange questions. I do not see them addressed in this article. I would like to contribute, but do not know how to start. Things that come to mind are: Are these bits of information welcome in this article? How should I begin? Thanks for your help. Kaaskop6666 (talk) 20:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * news reports of a FAA official destroying a tape;
 * pres. Bush's explanation in december 2001 of his behaviour;
 * the story which D.Rumsfeld told of his experience that day, and his being untraceable till 10.30 that morning?
 * the story which D.Cheney told, and the testimony Mr. Norman Minita gave about his whereabouts;


 * The place to start is to find reliable sources for these claims. Who says these things? Where are they coming from? What sorts of evidence do they have to offer? When you are claiming to offer testimony from particular individuals, it would be maximally useful to have either a reputable source (e.g. a newspaper) quoting them, or an official transcript of courtroom or legislative proceedings, or whatever other reputable source is available for those words or claims. --FOo (talk) 07:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

And then use Citation templates. This may seem obvious but bear with me: Rephrase the material cited if you're not using it in quotes. Using the language directly is tempting, as it seems safely verified that way, but of course then you're in plagiarism country; no one's going to bust you for it, but it can be deleted or would have to be changed. Don't be afraid to use quotes if they really capture the information more succinctly than a paraphrase would. Or clarify the cite with a quote, inserted just before the second (and last) tag that says ' ' Anarchangel (talk) 07:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Kennedy assassination: "alternative theories"
Since that is a featured article, why has this one been labelled as a conspiracy theory? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.68.239 (talk) 11:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Assuming you're talking about Robert F. Kennedy assassination (and not JFK, where the article is at Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories) the section discusses two theories, one of which is definitely a conspiracy theory and the other arguably isn't, and the sources cited don't use the term "conspiracy theory" whereas there are plenty of references describing 9/11 theories as "conspiracy theories" (indeed few describing them as anything else). <b style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</b> 18:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Boarding passes
RE:BOARDING PASSES I have read that none of the 19 terrorists had boarding passes. Any info on this. What was the name/s of the agents at the airport gates - where is their testimony available? I believe I have/would never be allowed on a plane without a pass( and I have flown decades before 911 or airport security was even dreamt of. 159.105.80.141 (talk) 12:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not a forum. If you have a suggested edit to the article, say what it is, and back it up with references to sources. <b style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</b> 14:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Flight manifests
Should there be a section of analysis of the flight manifests? Seeing as evidence of a a suspects presence at the scene of the crime is generally considered important. http://www.911hardfacts.com/report_17.htmAutonova (talk) 03:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

NIST analysis a response to conspiracy theories?
From the article:

"Later, as media exposure of conspiracy theories of the events of 9/11 increased, US government agencies and the Bush Administration issued responses to the theories, including a formal analysis by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) about the collapse of the World Trade Center..."

I think it would be more correct to say that NIST's factsheet-- the item cited in the footnote following this text-- was NIST's response to these theories. The NIST failure analysis itself was the result of a much broader demand for a technical analysis of the WTC collapses. The report would have been written even without the conspiracy theories.

There may have been other NIST publications that were specifically in response to the conspiracy theories; if so, perhaps one of them would be even better to mention here. 67.164.125.7 (talk) 04:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The NIST report was mainly in response to the conspiracy theories and it WAS NOT a technical analysis of the WTC collapses. It was an analysis of the events leading up to the collapse only. Without the conspiracy theories it is likely the FEMA report would have stood. Wayne (talk) 23:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Israelies who died in attacks
I was reading over this section and noticed the following: "Five Israeli citizens died in the attack, including one who was killed fighting his airplane's hiijackers. [172][citation needed]"

I would like to mention two things, one hijackers is spelled incorrectly, and 2 there is no evidence provided about the fighting. The news story linked says that the Israeli's who were on the planes were on flight UA 175 and AA 11. There is no conclusive evidence of anyone fighting back on these flights, much less the Israeli citizens on the flights. The flight that did fight back was flight 93. I think this needs to be stripped from the article, or cleaned up a bit to make it more vague. TWilliams9 (talk) 16:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've removed this claim, it had been flagged as needing a reference for more than a month. I'm not sure the figure of 5 dead is accurate either, since the source cited merely says that five Israeli victims were remembered in a service, not that they were the only 5 victims and says "The Israeli consulate later confirmed that 7 Israelis died in the 9/11 attacks" and  says four died. <b style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</b> 19:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View on Articles on Fringe Topics
In articles on fringe topics, we are not supposed represent the fringe theory as if it is a legitimate viewpoint or on some kind of equal footing. Instead, we're supposed to fairly represent all sides of an issue per reliable sources. If reliable sources reflect a particular viewpoint, then we're supposed to represent that viewpoint as well. In a case such as this article, I doubt if there are many (if any) reliable sources that claim 9/11 was a conspiracy by the US government. Even if there are any, weight should be roughly proportional to the preponderance of reliable sources backing that perspective.

As a result, there seems to be a WP:NPOV issue with this article. This article should treat this topic in the same manner as reliable sources do. Thus, if Popular Mechanics, the BBC, ABC News, Time Magazine, Rolling Stone Magazine, etc. regard 9/11 conspiracy theory as outlandish speculation completely unsupported by factual evidence, that that's how this article should be written. To do otherwise, is against WP:NPOV.

In other words, the viewpoints of reliable sources are the standard by which we write our articles and judge its neutrality.

We can and should have detailed debunking of 9/11 conspiracy theories as that's what reliable sources have done and it is in accordance with Wikipedia policies. The Popular Mechanics article and book are probably good starts. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What article are you reading?. We have three sections devoted to disagreements with the conspiracy theorists. “Mainstream Account”, “Criticism” and  ”Media Reaction”. The majority of the Media Reaction section consists of scathing criticism of not only the theories but the motivations and mental health of the theorists. In addition at several points in the article it is noted that a majority of scientists and other reliable sources disagree with the truth movement Edkollin (talk) 06:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, this is just my initial impression. First, there seems to be too many qualifications within the article.  To use Hut 8.5's example below, we do not say that the majority of scientists believe that the electron is smaller than the atom.  We simply state that the electron is smaller.  We are not supposed to leave doubt where there is none.  Second, we are not supposed to use the terminology of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists.  Instead, we use the terminology of reliable sources.  There is no such thing as the "mainstream account of the atom".  There is simply the atom.  Terminology such as "mainstream account" and "9/11 truth" probably need to be ripped from the article except for an explanation of what these terms mean within 9/11 conspiracy theory community.  Third, three sections on debunking 9/11 conspiracy theory are probably not enough.  Weight should be roughly proportional to the preponderance of reliable sources backing that perspective.  I raised this issue on the Neutral Point of View Notice Board and I was told that if 90% of reliable sources disagree with a fringe theory, then it is perfectly acceptable for a fringe theory article to contain 90% debunking (roughly speaking).  See the Apollo Landing Hoax article for comparison.  As I said, that's just my initial impression.  I have not made any changes to the article so far.  I'm trying to keep an open mind on this subject and reserve judgment until later.  My current plan is to read up on what reliable sources have to say on the subject before making any changes to the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Just because you could does not mean you should. This is an article dedicated to conspiracy theories so in my view a majority of space should go to explaining them. Also in my view a sentence that says a large majority of reliable sources/scientists  think the 9/11 conspiracy theories are shit is a stronger statement then a blanket statement saying that 9/11 conspiracy theories are shit. Also we are dealing with different topics, There are a limited amount of Moon Landing hoax theories and a plethora of 9/11 conspiracy theories. The Apollo Landing article goes into detailed point by point debunking (not all sourced). This is somewhat similar to how this article read 2 years ago but it was changed because it was felt that the article was to long and unreadable. Of course in the intervening two years more theories and issues have emerged. Maybe the solution lies in writing a Debunking 9/11 CT’s sub article Edkollin (talk) 07:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sympathetic with the view that terms like "official" or "mainstream" should be dropped. State the overwhelmingly supported claims as if they are facts rather than alternative viewpoints.  Phiwum (talk)
 * I do not see how terms like "mainstream" or " a vast majority of" convey that a statement is an "alternative" viewpoint."Official" might convey a point of view is part of a conspiracy Edkollin (talk) 07:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "Just because you could does not mean you should". Well, I had previously raised this issue on the NPOV Notice Board and I was clearly told that "not only is it perfectly acceptable to do so, it is imperative to do so. WP:NPOV is a fundamental policy of the project." (emphasis mine).
 * "9/11 conspiracy theories are shit." Well, I would not use the word "shit".  But certainly, we can come up with a sentence that follows WP:NPOV and is still encyclopedic.
 * "There are a limited amount of Moon Landing hoax theories and a plethora of 9/11 conspiracy theories." Have they all been covered by reliable sources?  If not, they don't get mentioned here.  Anyone can create a web site.  Tomorrow, I can create a web site saying that 9/11 was carried out by Darth Vader from the planet Vulcon.  That doesn't mean my theory should be included in the article.  We have to wait until reliable sources start covering it.
 * "Of course in the intervening two years more theories and issues have emerged". I'm not sure I understand what you mean.  If you mean that new conspiracy theories emerged that have been covered by reliable sources then yes we could consider them in the article.  If you mean new conspiracy theories emerged but have not been covered by reliable sources, then they don't belong in the article.
 * "Maybe the solution lies in writing a Debunking 9/11 CT’s sub article". It's funny you mention this because I made the exact same suggestion on NPOV Notice Board and I was told no, it violates WP:POVFORK.  We seem to have a policy on everything! :)
 * Just to let everyone know, this is what I've done so far. I've gone through the entire article and compiled a complete list of all the links within the article.  We have about 900 of them.  I'm now going through them one at a time and attempting to determine which ones are reliable per Wikipedia's policy on reliability.  Then I'm going to read them or as much as I can.  Then, I'll be able to make more specific suggestions on how to proceed.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes there is a policy on everything and sometimes they contradict and sometimes they paralyze editors creating poor articles.. These policies are not holy grail just generally ways of doing things that will make for good articles most of the time. But yep Wikipedia has a policies for that to WP:COMMONSENSE,WP:Ignore all rules. All I know is that 9/11 related articles have multiple levels of sub articles because of the large amount of material. And as far as 9/11 conspiracy while there has been some recent reliable source developments involving the theories most of the developments have been in the debunking realm. At the end of the day it up to us to write articles that best serve our readers.
 * "Maybe the solution lies in writing a Debunking 9/11 CT’s sub article". It's funny you mention this because I made the exact same suggestion on NPOV Notice Board and I was told no, it violates WP:POVFORK.  We seem to have a policy on everything! :)
 * Just to let everyone know, this is what I've done so far. I've gone through the entire article and compiled a complete list of all the links within the article.  We have about 900 of them.  I'm now going through them one at a time and attempting to determine which ones are reliable per Wikipedia's policy on reliability.  Then I'm going to read them or as much as I can.  Then, I'll be able to make more specific suggestions on how to proceed.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes there is a policy on everything and sometimes they contradict and sometimes they paralyze editors creating poor articles.. These policies are not holy grail just generally ways of doing things that will make for good articles most of the time. But yep Wikipedia has a policies for that to WP:COMMONSENSE,WP:Ignore all rules. All I know is that 9/11 related articles have multiple levels of sub articles because of the large amount of material. And as far as 9/11 conspiracy while there has been some recent reliable source developments involving the theories most of the developments have been in the debunking realm. At the end of the day it up to us to write articles that best serve our readers.
 * Just to let everyone know, this is what I've done so far. I've gone through the entire article and compiled a complete list of all the links within the article.  We have about 900 of them.  I'm now going through them one at a time and attempting to determine which ones are reliable per Wikipedia's policy on reliability.  Then I'm going to read them or as much as I can.  Then, I'll be able to make more specific suggestions on how to proceed.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes there is a policy on everything and sometimes they contradict and sometimes they paralyze editors creating poor articles.. These policies are not holy grail just generally ways of doing things that will make for good articles most of the time. But yep Wikipedia has a policies for that to WP:COMMONSENSE,WP:Ignore all rules. All I know is that 9/11 related articles have multiple levels of sub articles because of the large amount of material. And as far as 9/11 conspiracy while there has been some recent reliable source developments involving the theories most of the developments have been in the debunking realm. At the end of the day it up to us to write articles that best serve our readers.
 * Yes there is a policy on everything and sometimes they contradict and sometimes they paralyze editors creating poor articles.. These policies are not holy grail just generally ways of doing things that will make for good articles most of the time. But yep Wikipedia has a policies for that to WP:COMMONSENSE,WP:Ignore all rules. All I know is that 9/11 related articles have multiple levels of sub articles because of the large amount of material. And as far as 9/11 conspiracy while there has been some recent reliable source developments involving the theories most of the developments have been in the debunking realm. At the end of the day it up to us to write articles that best serve our readers.


 * Unless President Obama or The New York Times etc literally say that 9/11 conspiracy theories are shit I don’t advocate using that language in the article. I used that phrase to emphasize a point Edkollin (talk) 08:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think that anyone is advocating that the article should say 9/11 conspiracy theories are "shit". It appears as if we're getting a bit side tracked on a position that no one is taking.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I think A Quest For Knowledge needs to eat more sugar.

 * "But if 5 editors say the same thing, I think it carries more weight. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)" -- That one's from
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard


 * So, let's see. If four people agree with you, you must be right?


 * Eat sugar! 191,010,000,000,000,000,000 houseflies per year per mating couple can NOT be wrong!
 * http://entomology.ifas.ufl.edu/creatures/urban/flies/house_fly.HTM
 * O.K. dude. You are not talking about any kind of "fringe" movement, here.
 * As US News points out, we're talking about one third of the US population:
 * http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060903/11conspiracy.htm?s_cid=related-links:TOP


 * You are talking about, roughly, one hundred million Americans, out of 303,824,640 (July 2008 CIA estimate.)
 * https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html#People


 * Time magazine says:
 * "Thirty-six percent adds up to a lot of people. This is not a fringe phenomenon. It is a mainstream political reality."
 * http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1531304-1,00.html


 * The Washington Post points out that this highly significant movement is even more popular in New York City, where the WTC was located.
 * http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/07/AR2006090701669_pf.html


 * You might, then, ask why something YOU don't believe in should have been so wildly popular then, and, of course, increasingly popular now. It has been widely documented, in reliable sources as far away as Australia, that top officials of the Bush administration told 935 lies following 9/11, not counting any related to the 9/11 Truth movement, which these reliable sources were ignoring.
 * http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23098129-401,00.html


 * So, as Time continues:
 * "The Administration is certainly playing its part in the drama with admirable zeal. If we went to war to root out fictional weapons of mass destruction, is staging a fictional terrorist attack such a stretch?"


 * Of course, the movement has also been covered by the New York Times:
 * http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/05/us/05conspiracy.html?_r=2&pagewanted=print
 * The Guardian:
 * http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/oct/23/september112001.usnews


 * And, of course, Rolling Stone provides some evidence that we're talking about a third of the U.S. population (even though they disagree with it):
 * http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/11818067/the_low_post_the_hopeless_stupidity_of_911_conspiracies
 * There you go, kid. Where are your "Reliable Sources?"
 * Wowest (talk) 01:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * We are not interested in the prevalence of the viewpoint amongst the general public, but on its prevalence in reliable sources. (If we weren't, we'd have to rewrite atom to reflect the widely-held view that atoms are smaller than electrons. ) Very few, if any reliable sources support the conspiracy theories. The Time piece you cited above goes on to say "But there's a big problem with Loose Change and with most other conspiracy theories. The more you think about them, the more you realize how much they depend on circumstantial evidence, facts without analysis or documentation, quotes taken out of context and the scattered testimony of traumatized eyewitnesses." Both the New York Times and the Guardian have also published pieces attacking the conspiracy theories. The fact that sources report on this movement is an indication that Wikipedia should have an article on it, but it does not mean that we should give it any weight. <b style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</b> 11:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Problem With Second Paragraph
In the second paragraph we have this statement, "Some 9/11 Truth Movement members question the accuracy of the mainstream account of the attacks, and they are committed to further investigation." which is followed by "Others claim that...." and lists some of the major theories of conspiracy theorists. This seems not the best way to say it because it is not necessarily "others" making these specific claims, but actually many members of the movement members referred to in the first sentence actually making these claims. It seems to me that it would be more accurate to start the sentence with something like, "Some specific theories are that..." or "Some specific claims made by members are...", or any other similar statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.121.211.154 (talk) 12:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Saudi hijackers embarrass Bush administration
This article should note that the hijackers were mostly Saudi nationals, a fact which was of great embarrassment to the Bush administration. Yet the identities could have been easily manipulated to appear as if they were Iraqi agents to justify an attack on Iraq, which, according to sources like Richard Clarke, was the true intention of the Bush Administration upon taking office. The fact that the nine of the 11 hijackers were Saudis, not Iraqis, undermines the credibility of the conspiracy theory considerably, but does explain the administration's stonewalling of the 911 report.


 * That the majority of hijackers were Saudis is a fact that is easy to prove. Yes, it probably was something of an embarrassment, but we need a reliable source that actually says such a thing.  Was this the reason why the Bush administration tried stonewalling the 9/11 Commission?  That sounds plausible, but again, we'll need a reliable source that explicitly says such a thing.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The Saudi connection or the Bin Ladin family/Bush family business connections have been repeatedly noted by Conspiracy Theorists. These topics are discussed in the Responsibility for the September 11 attacks sub-article. But as noted this is not the place for blanket statements about the topic. If you have a reliable source that discusses your the theory that the Saudi nationality of most of the hijackers hurts the credibility of the conspiracy theories, then put it in the article. Otherwise this is interesting material for a message board,blog or a letter to the editor etc.Edkollin (talk) 08:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Edkollin, I don't think that the OP meant in the way that you took it (i.e. the Saudi connection or Bin Laden/Bush family business connections). I think what the OP meant was that the mere fact that the nationality of the majority of hijackers were Saudi was an embarrassment to the Bush administration in the sense that the Saudis are supposed to be allies.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * OP said this embarrassment hurts reliability of conspiracy theories. I know of no conspiracy theories based only on the Saudi nationality of the hijackers, usually the family connections have a part of them. If OP did not mean the connections only nationality how does this hurt the argument for conspiracy theories and how is it related to this article? Edkollin (talk) 05:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, my interpretation of the OP comments is that it hurts 9/11 conspiracy theories in two ways. First, Saudi Arabia is a US ally.  If 9/11 was an inside job and you can make the hijackers any nationality that you want, it makes more sense to make the hijackers some other nationality.  Second, it hurts the subset of 9/11 conspiracy theories that say that 9/11 was a means to gain public support for invading Iraq.  In such a case, it makes more sense to make the hijackers Iraqis (not Saudis).  Either way, I told the OP that we need a reliable source that actually says such a thing before it can be included in the article.  That said, Rolling Stone's article titled "The Hopeless Stupidity of 9/11 Conspiracy Theories" touches upon this theme, but I'm not sure if it says it explicitly.  Anyway, it's a starting point. . A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Theoretically since Bin Ladin was an alleged CIA agent or on the payroll his crew would be the more convenient to use then from a country that where there were problems with U.S. intelligence. But yes until a reliable source makes the argument the Saudi Nationality of the hijackers hurts the CT case it is not an article worthy topic Edkollin (talk) 07:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Jewish involvement
If you're going to include this as a theory or what have you. How are you going to keep a Nuetral Point Of View and include the ANTI DEFAMATION LEAGUE. They are the most bias source possible.


 * This answer is strictly about whether the source is ok to use not whether the section as currently written is neutral.
 * Sources may be considered reliable and verifiable even though the source is an advocacy source or the source is a party to a dispute.


 * "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication."


 * The way I read it the anti defamation league was used to bring a neutral point of view to the section. It was felt that just stating the claims of Jewish involvement would leave a non neutral section. It was felt that organization meat the criteria laid out above.


 * You can go here Reliable sources/Noticeboard ask about and discuss specific sources Edkollin (talk) 05:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Video Link Fix
editsemiprotected

The video for the BBC Conspiracy Files 9/11 video doesn't work, a fixed video is here: http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=9072062020229593250&ei=mEW9Sfr5IKq6qAOEw9TCAQ&q=BBC+Conspiracy+Files+9%2F11&hl=en
 * Yes check.svg Done Thanks. —Ms2ger (talk) 19:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Prison Planet questions Flight Data recorder edit
As the article states this is not the first time that organization has made accusations against the articlewww.prisonplanet.com/wikipedia-displays-blatant-disinformation-once-again.html]. This is not my area of expertise so do or do not do what you wish.Edkollin (talk) 20:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * prisonplanet.com promotes insane conspiracy nonsense. It is not a reliable source by any stretch of the imagination. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Since the whole paragraph doesn't cite any decent sources (only Google Video, a forum post and photobucket) I suggest we just remove it. <b style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</b> 15:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. If there are no reliable sources to cite, it doesn't belong in the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Misunderstanding here. This never was in the article or a proposal to put it there. Just to inform Wikipedia editors that an an accusation had been made against us. Edkollin (talk) 06:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I'm proposing to remove the paragraph that is the subject of the accusation ("A June 2007 video, attributed to researcher Calum Douglas of Pilots for 9/11 Truth...") <b style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</b> 07:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Removal of new paper
A new paper on thermite in the WTC has been published that has been widely reported in Denmark and in alternative US press, as well as Deseret News. For example, the Danish government-owned television channel TV2 has broadcast an interview and a discussion with the corresponding author of the paper, Niels Harrit. The discussion took place in a breakfast talkshow named "Good morning, Denmark". The interview, with English subtitles, can be found here. This is a significant event in the history of the movement as a search for the exact title of the paper ("Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe") on google returns over 17,900 matches, and it's only been less than 2 weeks. . . Locewtus (talk) 20:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Material relating to controlled demolition belongs in the sub-article on controlled demolition, not here. <b style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</b> 21:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Since the study was conducted at the University of Copenhagen as seems to have been discussed by a mainstream press and some others papers it at first glance seems to meet the standards for  reliability. Probably a sentence or two here with a detailed discussion in the Controlled Demolition article. Before I am totally onboard with this I would like to to see the  Deseret News and alternative press articles you speak of so I can see their take on this. Edkollin (talk) 07:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * "Probably a sentence or two here with a detailed discussion in the Controlled Demolition article."
 * The paper has been continuously removed from the demolition page with arguments that make no sense, like saying that Bentham is not reliable, but leaving up other Bentham articles. You can watch a video of the lead author of the article describing it |here (over 30,000 views on YouTube in just days).  The Deseret News article is |here, and the Raw Story news article is |here.Locewtus (talk) 19:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That's an issue that needs to be discussed on that article, not here. We should not be including anything other than a very brief summary of the main points expressed by the controlled demolition article. And might I suggest that if you have to revert multiple people to make a change to an article you are the one who needs to discuss on the talk page. <b style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</b> 21:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The links do not work Edkollin (talk) 05:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Bentham Open has very strange membership and editorial policies that make the label ‘peer reviewed’ dubious. There’s an ongoing scandal over the publication of the paper in question. The editor of the journal didn’t even know about the paper, let alone have any hand in the peer selection and review processes. — NRen2k5 (TALK), 22:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, I neglected to mention that she considered it a big enough insult to resign over. — NRen2k5 (TALK), 08:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

False assertion
"One of the most popular claims in these theories"

The story about "4000 Jews" appeared in Arab media after 911, but I have never seen it promoted by any 911 activists. I've seen actiivists who bring up the allegations about Odigo receiving a warning, as well as the story about the five Israeli men arrested when a woman named Maria called the police. But I have never encountered this "4000 Jews" claim from anyone. This appears to be a biased account coming from the anti-Defamation League. The ADL is not a reliable source for determining how many activists have cited the "4000 Jews" story as something distinct from the other claims I listed above. The ADL makes it a point to tar and feather people with blatantly false stories like the "4000 Jews" hoax. This section should be reworked to remove the claim that "4000 Jews" is one of the most popular stories and in general to eliminate the ADL influence on the segment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.127.187.78 (talk) 01:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The sentence as it written is uncited and original research. It should be replaced by a sentence describing the widespread belief of anti-Jewish/Israel theories in the Middle East  with the appropriate  citing.   The section does note that several 9/11 CT websites are working to debunk these theories. Edkollin (talk) 04:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Vague generalizations
I've added a few more {who} tags to unsupported vague generalizations about "conspiracy theorists." We need documented statements, not derogatory "proof by stereotype." Wowest (talk) 22:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * If a "reliable source" says essentially nothing about the source of the vague generalizations which it is making, does that serve as an example of the issue that you are describing? For example, this ITN article, which is used as a reference in this Wikipedia article, talks about theories but never cites a source, other than mentioning "150 million web pages" devoted to the theories.  If it obtained its information from some of these web pages, there is no indication which web pages it used.  Out of 150 million pages, you could probably find pages which say just about anything you would want.  But that wouldn't necessarily make it a prominent viewpoint for a movement.  Given its vagueness, an article such as this ITN example probably doesn't serve as a good reference.  Wildbear (talk) 03:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

UPS on the 81st floor of WTC2
I would like to report this site: http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/04/english-section.html

where I found these articles:

http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/02/ups-on-81st-floor-of-wtc2.html

and the NIST confirmation about UPS:

http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2008/03/nist-confirms-ups-on-81st-floor-of-wtc2.html

Could You add these links to the correct section of the article, please? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.41.205.37 (talk) 16:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Why? The article has too many unreliable sources cited at the moment, we don't need more. Material concerning controlled demolition should go in the controlled demolition article anyway. <b style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</b> 06:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

"Unreliable sources"? But, excuse me Hut, have you at least read the article? There are all the page numbers from Nist official reports, there is the official answer of the Nist spokeman and you tell us there are unrealiable sources? I think you're wrong. These articles speak about the WTC collapse, they don't speak about controlled demolition! The author never spoke about controlled demolition. I hope you read the articles again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.66.15.95 (talk) 05:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Section "In popular culture" (Merge discussion)
It has been suggested that the section "In popular culture" of the article World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories should be merged into this article. See also Talk:World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories. Cs32en 02:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Miles per hour
As far as I can tell, the Manual of Style doesn’t say how “miles per hour” should be abbreviated, but the miles per hour article says “mph” and “MPH” are the most common ways. — NRen2k5 (TALK), 09:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Believers
"A study of British believers of 9/11 conspiracy theories lead by psychologist Viren Swami of the University of Westminster found several common traits. They tended to have imaginative and inquisitive minds, believed in Democratic ideals, were suspicious of others, and mistrusted authority. They also tended to believe in other conspiracy theories, and liked to talk about the subject frequently with friends who shared their views. An unrelated survey of 1000 British adult 9/11 conspiracy theory believers also found a tendency to believe in other conspiracy theories while finding belivers had a propensity to jump to conclusions. "

This believers subsection was deleted because it was "cherry picking". It would be "cherry picking" if there were numerous studies on the subject and I picked these two out because I liked the conclusions they reached or for some other personal reason. While there have been many scientific studies of conspiracy theorists in general these are the only two I have seen specifically of 9/11 conspiracy theorists. We have devoted a lot of space in this article to columnists and others who have there own theories on why CT believers believe what they do. Maybe it is just me but I absolutely fail to understand why that is ok but actual  scientific studies of CT believers are not article worthy. Unless someone can come up with a valid problems with these studies I hope we can come to a consensus to return the section to the article Edkollin (talk) 04:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * If included, it means the views of opposing psychologists/Psychiatrists must be presented. Some of the most prominent psychologists in the world have said that in regards to 911 the opinions of mental health professionals are only as good as their knowledge. For example, a psychologist in 1640 would have labeled Galileo delusional for saying that the Earth orbits around the Sun. It should also be remembered that the media reported that psychologists labeled those who believed in a conspiracy by White House officials over Watergate were delusional and look how that turned out. Those psychologists who believe the official theory tend to find mental negatives for conspiracy theorists while those psychologists who believe in conspiracy theories find that official theory believers have mental problems. Very few have made their views public and of those who have they appear to be evenly split in regards to 911. As psychological studies are biased to the researchers own beliefs they are not relevant in this article, lik(ing) the conclusions they reached is not a criteria for inclusion. Wayne (talk) 15:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the source per se. The problem was that the edit only included the parts of the article that shed 9/11 conspiracy theorists in a good light while ommitting all the parts that shed 9/11 conspiracy theorists in a bad light. For example, the article states:


 * conspiracy believers displayed a greater propensity than nonbelievers to jump to conclusions based on limited evidence.
 * Goertzel proposed that each of a person’s convictions about secret plots serves as evidence for other conspiracy beliefs, bypassing any need for confirming evidence
 * conspiratorial beliefs serve a similar psychological function to superstitious, paranormal and, more controversially, religious beliefs.
 * etc.

If you want to include this in the article, fine, but make sure it mentions how 9/11 conspiracy theorists jump to conclusions, don't care about confirming evidence, compares conspiracy beliefs to superstitions, etc.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If you add that mention, then you also have to add that just as many if not more psychologists believe people who unreservedly believe the official account tend to jump to conclusions based on limited evidence, don't care about confirming evidence and compare their beliefs to superstitions etc. The views of psychologists tend to be subjective so can't be considered reliable enough for such a controversial subject. Wayne (talk) 07:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

As this is a 9/11 conspiracy theory article there is no reason write in material about believers in conspiracy theories in general only material directly about 9/11 conspiracy theorists. I did propose putting in the jumping to conclusions part. But I am holding off on this until all the other coctroversies settle down. The way things are now with all the rewrites the chances of accidental deletion of this material is to high for my comfort Edkollin (talk) 05:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)