Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories/Archive 21

Other theories
Other theories concerning 9/11 devolve from a series of remarkable coincidences.
 * Larry Silverstein acquired an interest in the property six weeks before 9/11
 * Tenants were moved around creating two vacant floors
 * The twin towers were slated for demolition, but a permit for controlled demolition was rejected because of the asbestos contents of the towers.
 * Silverstein had special insurance in the event of a terrorist attack.
 * The official WTC photographer was fired and forbidden to take any more pictures of the WTC for any reason whatsoever.
 * Patrols by bomb-sniffing dogs were eliminated.
 * Loud noises were heard coming from the two emptied floors.
 * Dust was everywhere
 * One of the elevators was labeled "out of order" and remained in that status for weeks.
 * Over the weekend of September 8th and 9th, tenants were informed that electricity would be turned off. This made security cameras and other security equipment inoperable, although electricity was available for certain other purposes. People identified as "engineers" were crawling all over the buildings this weekend.
 * Dan Rather described the collapses, as they occurred, as resembling controlled demolition.
 * The metal from the building was shipped out of the country hurriedly, with only selected "engineers" permitted to examine it.
 * This metal was transported under tight security.

All of the above led to the theory that Larry Silverstein had something to do with the collapse of the buildings, and that someone else took it down for him.

The strong minded would, of course, still reject both theories in favor of the recognition that "we do not know," but hundreds of people marched on Larry Silverstein's office, demanding the he turn himself in, and thence to the police department, demanding the he be arrested for murder. Those who accepted this theory were now involved in a somewhat larger conspiracy theory. Airplanes were hijacked as a cover for the controlled demolition. However, the addition of more coincidences led to another larger theory:


 * Some of the alleged hijackers were given visas over the objections of State Department employees in Saudi Arabia on orders from on high.
 * Aluminothermic residue was found in the WTC dust.
 * Money wired to Mohammed Atta was traced to the Pakistani ISI.
 * The head of the ISI was having breakfast with members of the House and Sentate Intelligence Committees on the morning of 9/11.
 * A congressional investigation revealed that more than one foreign government was involved in funding 9/11. The Bush White House redacted dozens of pages from their report, despite a request by Saudi Arabia that the names of the foreign governments be revealed to the American public.

Up to this point, the difference between believers in the OCT and the other available theories is that:
 * The skeptics are noticeably more intelligent, more objective, less dogmatic and more resistant to authoritarianism than the average American.


 * I see no signature for the above long comment. And this section does not seem to be about improving the article.  --Ihaveabutt (talk) 21:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Still more theories
There are other theories in this vein, but there comes into play a third category of theories: IMHO, nobody in his right mind believes any of these four theories, although people who are in their right mind appear to be promoting theories 2,3 and 4. I met a man who was promoting theory (1), however, and IMHO he was seriously emotionally disturbed.
 * (1) The towers were destroyed by mini-nukes
 * (2) Shape-shifting reptilians were behind the evil men who did this
 * (3) There were no airplanes at the WTC
 * (4) The towers were destroyed by beam weapons from outer space

That brings us back to closure. Something truly abhorrent happened on 9/11 -- so abhorrent that many people will grasp at the OCT. However, the OCT is full of omissions, distortions and contradictions among the reports of various federal agencies, and a lot of people have rejected it. Some of these people, however, still have a relatively low tolerance for ambiguity, so that, rather than accepting the simple fact that we don't know exactly what happened on 9/11, they will latch onto the theory that shape shifting lizards from another dimension were responsible.


 * First, you're confusing conspiracy (which is an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act) with conspiracy theory (which is narrative genre similar to folklore or urban legends that argues for the existence of grand conspiracies riddled with factual errors and methodological flaws).


 * Second, and most important, article talk pages are for discussing how to improve the article, not for discussing the topic itself. This is an encyclopedia.  It is not a soap box to push an agenda nor is it a place to spread 9/11 truth spam. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 16:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * We shouldn't be covering absolutely every conspiracy theory that has ever been thought of relating to 9/11. If any of these theories has been covered in any reliable sources (rather than just on conspiracy websites, blogs, forums etc) then they might be suitable for inclusion. Hut 8.5 20:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think someone else established the doctrine that "conspiracy websites" are reliable sources for what "conspiracy theorists" believe, just not for what is actually true. Wowest (talk) 16:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * There are some very strict restrictions on that, see WP:SELFQUEST. If we're trying to decide whether a particular theory is significant enough to be included then it's best to use independent sources. If I make up some theory and put it on a self-published website I shouldn't be able to add it to Wikipedia - it clearly won't be significant enough. Hut 8.5 20:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Excellent point, Hut 8.5. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * In many domains of society, it is regarded as fun to demean people we call kooky. I recall in middle school, a few students were called "retards", by way of example, and the practice continues.  This article needs to decide if it is going to be a freak show of strange websites created by senile government bureacrats, or if it is going to be a discussion of scholarly evidence of problems in government claims about 911.  The other problem is editors that seem as excited to know about the former as they are devotedly ignorant of the latter.  --Ihaveabutt (talk) 21:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

New World Order
This whole section deserves to be removed due to lack of references or coherence in general. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.153.29.23 (talk) 23:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

"9/11 Truth Movement" is a neologism
I just want to draw everyone's attention to WP:NEO. If I understand this correctly, we shouldn't be using the terms "9/11 truth movement" or "9/11 deniers". 9/11 conspiracy theorists is probably the best phrase we can use. I don't even know what we should do about 9/11 Truth movement since it's an article on a neologism. According to WP:NEO, we're supposed to delete it. For now, I put up a {neologism} tag. Rather than post this on all the articles about 9/11 conspiracy theories, I'm posting it here. But WP:NEO applies to all of them. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

9/11 Truth movement

 * 1) • the movement known as "9/11 Truth," [...] • The controlled-demolition theory is the sine qua non of the 9/11 movement
 * 2) (See also: MSNBC) • The loose agglomeration known as the "9/11 Truth Movement" • Author unknown, but often quoted by the 9/11 truth movement • Some days the 9/11 truth movement resembles an Italian coalition government
 * 3) • the 9/11 Truth Movement, as many conspiracy believers refer to their passion
 * 4) • a new twist on the 9/11 Truth Movement
 * 5) • a group known as the 9/11 Truth Movement
 * 6) • the 9/11 Truth Movement in Australia • those in the 9/11 Truth Movement • groups such as the 9/11 Truth Movement
 * 7) • George Bush is hiding something, says the 9/11 truth movement
 * 8) • an army of sceptics, collectively described as the 9/11 Truth movement • British MP Michael Meacher, became a touchstone in the 9/11 Truth movement • the 9/11 truth movement is fighting a kind of asymmetric war • the likes of the 9/11 Truth movement • Fenster thinks that the 9/11 Truth movement • Perhaps the 9/11 Truth movement is • by the 9/11 Truth movement
 * 9) • In fact it seems to me that the purpose of the "9/11 truth movement" is to be powerless.
 * 10) • Juliette Binoche has allied herself with the 9/11 'truth movement'
 * 11) • Lance has actually done the 9/11 truth movement a distinct service
 * 12) • A large group of people - collectively called the 9/11 Truth Movement
 * 13) • The "9/11 Truth Movement," as it is now commonly called
 * 14) • The so-called 9/11 Truth Movement
 * 15) • The film has made Avery, who was twice rejected from film school, the toast of the 9/11 Truth movement
 * 16) (See also: CBS News) • the so-called 9/11 Truth Movement
 * 17) • members of the 9/11 "truth" movement
 * 18) • experiences with members of the 9/11 Truth Movement • a convention for the 9/11 Truth Movement • equating Christians with members of the 9/11 Truth Movement
 * 19) • usually associated with 9/11 Truth Movement conspiracy theorists
 * 20) • the "9/11 truth movement," as the conspiracy theorists call themselves, to date. • arguments coming out of the 9/11 Truth movement
 * 21) • what adherents like to call the "9/11 Truth Movement"
 * 22) • I have two basic gripes with the 9/11 Truth movement. • What is the theory of the crime, according to the 9/11 Truth movement?
 * 23) • The 9/11 truth movement might believe
 * 24) • Jones is a physics professor involved in what's called the "9-11 Truth Movement."
 * 25) • Jones is closely linked to the 9/11 Truth Movement
 * 26) • the so-called "9/11 truth movement" • Jones and his high-profile role in the 9/11 truth movement
 * 27) • Some of Gadsby's theories, and those of the 9/11 Truth Movement
 * 28) • outright lies of the 9/11 truth movement

Both terms

 * 1) • Leftwing causes converge with the 9/11 denial movement. • the loosely affiliated conspiracy theorists that comprise the 9/11 Truth Movement • not everyone involved in the 9/11 Truth Movement was so crazy • these 9/11 deniers

9/11 deniers

 * 1) • converts to the "9/11 truth movement," the loose affiliation of skeptics who doubt the official story
 * 2) • Where on this spectrum do the 9/11 deniers fall? • The 9/11 deniers have another explanation.
 * 3) • Refers to an individual, not to a movement or a set of organizations.
 * 4) • Refers to an individual, not to a movement or a set of organizations.
 * 5) • Refers to an individual, not to a movement or a set of organizations.
 * 6) • Refers to an individual, not to a movement or a set of organizations.
 * 1) • Refers to an individual, not to a movement or a set of organizations.
 * 2) • Refers to an individual, not to a movement or a set of organizations.
 * 1) • Refers to an individual, not to a movement or a set of organizations.
 * 1) • Refers to an individual, not to a movement or a set of organizations.


 * Did you bother to read WP:NEO because you just posted a bunch of irrelevent links? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * BTW, can you put your post in collapsable box since they're not germane to this discussion? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The bigger problem is probably WP:words to avoid with respect to "conspiracy theorist" since the phrase is frequently embedded in articles that use emotionalized attack words. Conspiracy theorist is a neologism and an unclear word with multiple and non neutral meanings.  And the effort to coin "deniers" is far more grotesquely a violation along these terms.  --Ihaveabutt (talk) 01:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion about claims made by proponents of 9/11 conspiracy theories
Per reliable sources, most 9/11 conspiracy theorists believe that the 9/11 was carried out by the US government. The article white-washes this by claiming that 9/11 conspiracy theorists only "question" what really happened. The reality (and I can list out plenty of reliable sources if need be) is that they actually claim that the US government is responsible. Let's stop white-washing 9/11 conspiracy theories and actually follow WP:NPOV and WP:RS, shall we? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The 9/11 truth movement consists of people that 1. Feel there are holes in the Al Queda did it alone explanation but are not yet convinced there was a conspiracy. 2. Feel there was a conspiracy of some sort but are not sure exactly who was involved. 3. Have a specific conspiracy theory usually involving elements of the U.S. and/or Israeli governments. As this is a 9/11 conspiracy theory article we should briefly explain the variations in The 9/11 Truth movement and concentrate on those people that have specific 9/11 conspiracy theories. Edkollin (talk) 06:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Although there is plenty of overlap, distinction needs to be made between conspiracy theorists and 9/11 Truth; they both do not always fit under the same definition (if they did, the 9/11 Truth movement article and this article should be merged.) Definition 5 (which may be a partial match or an elaboration on definition 1 above): Some (many?) in the 9/11 Truth movement feel that there are too many deficiencies, inconsistencies, and unanswered questions in the official investigation, and are calling for a new investigation to resolve the unresolved issues.  Some, but not all, who hold this position refuse to speculate on who, what, why, or how was involved in the 9/11 matter.  For example, see NYC CAN, as documented in this article.  "In a sense, although NYC CAN takes no position regarding the facts of the case, calling only for a new inquiry, it appears to represent the global “9/11 Truth Movement” come home."  Many members of the 9/11 Truth movement understand the difference between truth and conspiracy theory:  "Truth" refers to undisputed facts, while "conspiracy theory" typically refers to weakly founded conjecture.  The 9/11 Truth movement doesn't claim to know the facts of 9/11; and that is the issue: it wishes to find out, via a new investigation. Wildbear (talk) 17:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Line 1 -57: The mass deletion reduces the number of different theories that exist to just two by implication and one of those is not even a widely held view in the truther movement. Adding the word "conspiracy" at every opportunity ignores that some of the theories are not actually conspiracies. Only a very small minority "dispute the fact that Islamic extremists were responsible" yet your edits have made it the sole belief of the movement which is particularly dishonest. Line 57 - 73: Again you have used "conspiracy theorists" at every opportunity in place of "Truth movement". Not all "members" are conspiracy theorists. You added "Popular Mechanics and mainstream media" to the published reports. They are not scientific organisations nor do they even have expertise in the subject so their views should not be given equal scientific status with NIST. You replaced "challenging the mainstream account" with "rejecting the mainstream account". Very few "members" "reject" the account, most primarily question parts of it. In the sentence "alleged anomalies in the official account and publicly available evidence" you deleted "official account" leaving the sentence to imply the official account is either entirely supported by evidence, which it is not, or that it is only the evidence questioned. If either was the case, there would be few conspiracy theories if any. Line 73 - 204: You have misquoted a source by changing "popular support" to "movement". The source is very clear it is talking about a substantial number of people (36% of Americans) who are largely not part of the movement. Line 263 - end: Stating that all conspiracy theories involving Jews and Israel are "anti-Semitic" is offensive. Questioning involvement IS NOT anti-Semitic unless the claim is used for that purpose or it is behind the claim in the first place. For example, some Jewish nationals were arrested on 911 and the Jewish art students were news prior to 911. It is not anti-Semitic for people to question if they were involved whether they were or not. The same paragraph already states that the theories are used by certain groups for anti-Semitism reasons. Wayne (talk) 20:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have problems with the apparent POV pushing nature of the edits and the manipulation of the text to lead the reader in a particular direction rather than the information being presented in a neutral encyclopaedic manner. Lets start at the top.
 * Quoting Wayne: "The mass deletion reduces the number of different theories that exist to just two by implication and one of those is not even a widely held view in the truther movement" Presenting just a small number of theories (two?) as though representative of the whole may be misleading, but I don't understand the objection that "one of those is not even a widely held view in the truther movement". This is the conspiracy theory article, not the 9/11 Truth movement article, so I don't see a problem if it's not a widely held view by the truther movement.  Quoting again: "Adding the word "conspiracy" at every opportunity ignores that some of the theories are not actually conspiracies".  If they're not actually conspiracies, then they don't belong in this article, yes/no? Wildbear (talk) 21:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've done some work on the most egregious alterations. For some issues, we need a more systematic approach to sourcing, however. Cs32en  23:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * A few comments:
 * The summary is a summary. You cannot list every single theory, sub-theory or variation.  I'll simplify it to just the main theme.
 * "Popular Mechanics and mainstream media" do not need to be scientific organisations in order to be WP:RS. If you dispute this, please take it up at WP:RSN.  Let's see how well you do.
 * It does not state that all conspiracy theories are anti-Semitic. Are you reading the right article? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

You have oversimplified the summary which misrepresents what they are. I never said "Popular Mechanics and mainstream media" were not RS. I said you have given them equal scientific status with NIST. Put so you can perhaps understand what that means, you have given them WP:UNDUE by giving them equal weight with NIST. Your terminolgy does in effect state that by implication. Wayne (talk) 17:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A few replies:


 * Quest. Researchers like Gage and Jones use more nuanced and subtle language to characterize their view of what happened.  Such researchers don't all make definitive conclusions about guilt, as noted earlier at CD.  Many of them even make a point of saying Bush was likely *not involved.  Your sources regarding the truth researchers might be mistaken, like Judy Miller (WMD) and Jason Blair (Jessica Lynch) of the hallowed NYT were mistaken.   --Ihaveabutt (talk) 20:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Since Gage and Jones are more evidence-based than are ordinary citizens spouting theories, your question raises the problem that their evidence is not best so hastily categorized as "conspiracy theories". That question was not met with consensus. Evidence-based 911 research of Gage and Jones are associated with the subject, showing that some writing on this topic is permeated with POV. They don't present their evidence the way your sources may claim.  WP should not shoot from the hip so quickly that it risks becoming a mouthpiece for disinformative media sources.  --Ihaveabutt (talk) 20:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Jones? Evidence-based?  You've got to be kidding.  Perhaps disinformation, but not evidence-based.  I haven't read much of Gage, but Jones has some obvious errors (including in so-called peer-reviewed papers) which make it clear he doesn't understand simple mechanics.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * My friend Rubin. You respond as if I stated his views are metaphysically perfect.  Again you are changing the topic to replace it with a convenient straw man argument, and it borders on disruptive.  And your emotional or rhetorical "You've got to be kidding", without information or rationale, looks only superior and smug, not dialogue driven.  Please save that for your personal talk page.  --Ihaveabutt (talk) 01:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

NIST yes | FEMA no |
> Inconsistent? ==

Does the NIST government report cited in opening deal with the FEMA government report's referring to temperatures much different (liquefied steel) than NIST seems to purport?

1. FEMA Appendix

Search PDF: liquefied, liquid, steel Pg c1 c2 c5 c13; sect. c2, c3 c6

2. FEMA WTC Study

Why ask? Consensus building, pov, good faith. Each editor implicitly relies on sometimes different sources of information, awareness of which can make a difference. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 01:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

[Correction] says: Reverse-worked bullshit report
The hasty innuendo is coming out faster than there is time to deal with it in each specific section. Nren, (strike that, somebody) above says:

'''“Reverse-worked bullshit report with no physical evidence”? Oh come on, now you’re just getting ridiculous.'''

Nren, (strike that, somebody) it sounds like you are accusing the scholars of scientific fraud. Do you wish to have an opportunity to clarify or substantiate your view? This is relevant to consensus, good faith, and pov. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 02:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC) CORRECTION BELOW ---> IHAVE


 * Yes, the mainstream scientific and engineering consensus is that most of the "articles" consist of nonsense or scientfic fraud. I think we actually have a few references for that, don't we?  "Reverse scientific method"?  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 06:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

You might be right, but I mentioned this so that one question can be addressed at a time, without having to deal with new additional hard to understand claims also given without the explanation, grounding or substantiation needed for discussion. --Ihaveabutt (talk) 15:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Correction (I think): the comment I initially read was not signed (directly) under its paragraph, and I don't assume the commenter was Nren. My mistake, I think.  And, another note, I can't now assume the "reverse worked" statement is attempting to refer to this: ((Niels H. Harrit, active thermitic, etc)).  Now I'm not sure what paper the editor saying "bullshit" refers to, but it might refer to changing "metrics" and "assumptions" until a certain outcome was achieved (reverse, right?). --Ihaveabutt (talk) 04:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think an editor above is defending the "reverse-worked bullshit" criticism, and it might be why Sir R above refers to "reverse scientific method". Rubin, others, anyone, is welcome to help me figure out which study you refer to (reverse worked bullshit)?   --Ihaveabutt (talk) 04:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it unlikely that any reference we can use said "reverse-worked bullshit" (even if accurate); the "reverse scientific method" (whether or not it's currently in the article) seemed credible. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 06:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

It's actually quite common to start with a hypothesis and then to try to see if there is a proof or further evidence for the hypothesis. One such hypothesis is: "The towers looked like they exploded rather than simply collapsed. So there might be traces of explosives in the rubble." Then you look whether there is such stuff there. If there are explosive particles in the dust, the result is not invalidated by the fact that it corresponds to the initial hypothesis. The following questions then should rather be: Can we exclude other sources for the particles? Could the particles have been added after the collapse of the buildings? Did the towers contain explosive paint, and if so, are there any explosive paints that are generally being used in construction? Tweaking computer models until they can be presented as corresponding to the reality of the collapses, as NIST does, and then saying "We did not look for explosives. You are wasting your time if you are looking for something that isn't there." is an actual example of the application of the reverse scientific method, because it reaches a conclusion ("it is not there") without looking for any evidence that would support (or falsify) the hypothesis. Btw, a Norwegian professor has recently engaged in a debate that actually addresses some scientifically valid questions related to the article, in a more constructive way. Cs32en 11:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * NRen was actually talking to me (Autonova) about NIST's report, which, as I've heard, altered the initial conditions of its models in order to produce a collapse. And even then, the collapse they produce is slow and asymmetric. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.203.23.1 (talk) 12:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't know exactly about the towers (although they had to make their computer simulation data public recently - several terabyte), but for 7 WTC, this image from NIST's final report shows that there is indeed a problem: Cs32en 14:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View on Articles on Fringe Topics (A Reminder)
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 present all sides of an issue per reliable sources. If reliable sources reflect a particular viewpoint, then we're supposed to present that viewpoint as well. In a case such as this article, there are few (if any) reliable sources that claim 9/11 was a conspiracy by the US government, Israeli government, etc. Even if there are any, weight should be roughly proportional to the preponderance of reliable sources backing that perspective.

As a result, there is a major 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. So far, some of the best, most detailed and most reliable sources I've found include Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report, The Top September 11 Conspiracy Theories, 9/11 Conspiracy Theories, 9/11 conspiracy theories: The truth is out there...just not on the internet and BBC News Conspiracy Files. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * While I agree with the arguement you present, one problem with it is that you have accorded all the conspiracy theories the same level of legitimacy. An extreme example is the theory that the government is not being completely truthful about 911 while held by 80% of Americans is treated by the article as roughly equivalent to the Lizard theory which is supported by 0.00000006% of Americans. The most common conspiracy theory, a cover up by the government, is held by more than 40% which is not as fringe as the article implies to the reader. Another problem is that we can't present this article in the same way as the Moon Landing conspiracy theories because many 911 conspiracy theories have not yet been thoroughly debunked if at all. This means that treating them the same is POV. Each theory should be treated with a weight based on it's own merits. Wayne (talk) 04:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * AQFK, you write "In other words, the viewpoints of reliable sources are the standard by which we write our articles and judge its neutrality." We are supposed to present viewpoints, not to follow any viewpoints, per WP:NPOV. At the same time, we should describe who holds the respective viewpoints, and how prevalent they are in relevant communities (scientific community, general public, etc.). We use evidence (not opinions) from reliable source to determine this. In non-fringe article, viewpoints held by a minority get less coverage, if any; this, however, is an article explicitly about the minority viewpoint. When WP:FRINGE says: "Ideas that have been rejected ... should be documented as such", this means that we do not write "On September 11, 2001, the WTC collapsed as a result of controlled demolition.", but "Group X claims to have found evidence that it says indicates that WTC has been destroyed by controlled demolition. It's main arguments are X,Y, and Z. Scientists and engineers generally reject this claim. They say the following about X,Y, and Z: ..." Which is exactly what we are doing. Cs32en  07:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If that's what your edits were doing, I would tend to agree with you. But your long history of edits suggest a propensity to promote 9/11 conspiracy theories, often in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. As editors, we are all supposed to be here to improve this encyclopedia.  That's why I'm here.  Tell me, Cs32en, are you here to improve this encyclopedia or to promote 9/11 conspiracy theories? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * AQFK, your edit history reveals you are guilty of the reverse motive. Since we are all not commiting vandalism, it's safe to say we all want to improve the encyclopedia. 194.203.23.1 (talk) 12:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Debunking Websites
How reliable are sites such as Debunk999myths.org and www.skeptic.com now used in the article? We use websites as sources to describe 9/11 CT theories reluctantly. As the 9/11 CT movement is mostly an internet phenomenon, many times better sourcing does not exist. As the “mainstream” explanation is the common view held by reliable sources are there not more reliable sourcing for descriptions of debunking arguments? Edkollin (talk) 07:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * We can often use them, per Parity of sources. However, they are not independent sources. Unlike newspapers, they have connected their reputation to the outcome of the controversy. So, for any given information, a media report or a scientific paper would be the preferred source, and statements from debunking websites must be attributed to the respective source. Cs32en  08:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Psychology/IQ of 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists
First of all, this is a serious question. If you are a 9/11 conspiracy theorist, you may wish to stop reading at this point. The rest of this is a serious question. Has there been any type of scientific study on the psychology or intelligence level of 9/11 conspiracy theorists? This article seems to go to great lengths to explain the conspiracy theories themselves. But these theories are obviously ridiculous and therefore mostly irrelevant. What I would like to know is why they believe in such things. Is it a question of intelligence? Are they suffering from some psychological disorder? Or some combination of the two? What I want to know is to understand why they believe in such things. As a counter-example, if you go to the article on Anorexia, there are entire sections devoted to the "psychological factors that suggests how biases in thinking and perception help maintain or contribute to the risk of developing anorexia". But there are no such similar sections to 9/11 conspiracy theories. I don't know if there's been any serious scientific research into this question, but if there is, I would love to see this included in the article. I think that understanding why they believe such things is far more important than the beliefs themselves. 67.184.14.87 (talk) 15:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Valid question. Any sensible person will ask this. (Can't actually stop laughing, pardon me)Shovon (talk) 18:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know of any scientific studies on 9/11 conspiracy theorists specifically but the article in the criticism section links to the conspiracy theory article which should have that type of expert sourcing. In addition in the Media section we do have quotes from columnists theorizing (LOL) why 9/11 conspiracy theorists believe as they do. Most accounts that I have read from people who have interviewed 9/11 conspiracy theorists describe them as seemingly intelligent and normal (In some cases to the bafflement of the interviewer) and have described those attending 9/11 CT gatherings as having successful careers Edkollin (talk) 08:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Amazingly here is a a extremely well sourced article that has been published within the last day that I will add as an external link to the conspiracy theory article Edkollin (talk) 09:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Quote: "What I would like to know is why they believe in such things". Because governments are known to lie. 911 is a bit different to Anorexia so can't be compared. Although you would not know from reading the article or talk page very few would argue that the official account is 100% true just as very few argue for the more extreme conspiracy theories. The answer lies somewhere in between and the only unknown is exactly where on the scale the truth lies. The biggest problem for the theorists is that too many believe that all conspiracy theorists believe the most extreme conspiracies and thus are all tarred with the same brush. If you check what the majority believe they are calling for an investigation because the government is lying not that they believe any single theory. Enough conspiracy theories have proven to be true that it is almost a public service to examine them. That article Edkollin posted mentions Iran/Contra as an example and who doesn't remember some of the conspiracy theories around invading Iraq which proved to be true. I was labled as a left wing nutjob for a paper I wrote debunking most of Colin Powells presentation to the UN yet I was later proved right on every single point. Wayne (talk) 17:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, but there's a huge difference between Iran-Contra and 9/11 conspiracy theories. Perhaps that's what's wrong with them.  They lack the critical ability to tell the difference between what is plausable and what's preposterous.  BTW, I don't know if Iran-Contra counts as a conspiracy theory that proved true.  It's been a long time, but as best I can recall there were no conspiracy theorists alledging Iran-Contra or an Iran-Contra "truth" movement prior to when the scandal broke.  67.184.14.87 (talk) 04:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * In the article it was assumed that because believers in one conspiracy theory tend to believe in other conspiracy theories you should group them together. I agree there are differences. One in the Iran Contra or Kennedy Assassination eras there was there was no publicly available Internet to speak of. The other difference is that the "mainstream media" took them seriously. Tonight 45 years after the event NBC Nightly news ran a story about a Discovery Channel Investigation that supported the "official story" that there was one gunmen that fired from the sixth floor of the Texas book depository. The cable channel spent time and money to do the investigation. Very different from 9/11 theorists which have been treated as a freak show and very different then saying "NIST released a report that debunked conspiracy theories". Since the web 2.0 era is so different then the era these experts grew up they probably should not make assumptions Edkollin (talk) 06:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Another difference between Iran-Contra and 9/11 is that while the Iran-Contra scandal was true, conspiracy theorist have concoted the notion that it was going on even before Ronald Reagan was elected. DanTD (talk) 15:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * In the Iran-Contra case we had a special prosecutor with subpoena power to demonstrate those theories were accurate. In this case "no way no how" will there be an independent investigation with subpoena powers to prove 9/11 conspiracy theories true or false. The Democrats coming into true power mostly believe in the "incompetence" theory but even more importantly with Bush leaving office and the financial crises people just want to move on and forget. That trait has always been much stronger in America then many other places. Edkollin (talk) 20:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the IQ of someone who looks at information in a critical way will be higher than someone who blindly follows it simply because it comes from a federal source. Im just guessing. Autonova (talk) 20:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * One should also probably look at the possibility that some of the on board believers of the conspiracy theories may not actually be "believers" per se. The extremists may be looking for attention and "their moment in the spotlight", or others may be going along with them for similar reasons, perhaps looking for something interesting in an otherwise unfulfilling social life.  Not saying that any of that is true, just brainstorming here, but things like this have been known to happen. -koval- 05:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you're correct about groups, Autonova, but there are big differences within each group. People who have been through Large Group Awareness Trainings (LGAT) tend, as a group, to be more objective in their observations than the general population, regardless of their I.Q. This is more about objectivity than intelligence. Freud says that there is a form of paranoia which sees causal connections which really do not exist, but given all of the information available in our complex world, that abnormality will be more prevalent in more intelligent and better-informed people who have more data to manipulate. Supporters of the Official Conspiracy Theory (OCT) like to simplify their thinking by assuming that all dissenters are paranoid, which is clearly not the case. There was a recent psychological finding that having a minority viewpoint is not pathological if other people agree with you. What takes objectivity and the willingness not to seek "cheap closure" is to recognize that the undeniable data someone gives you is not dependent upon the explanation that comes with it. Fritz Perls defines "bullshit" as "anything that comes after the word 'because.' " Wowest (talk) 15:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Why? Because the official narrative is not plausable, the countless coincidences that occurred, the physical evidence that has been brought forward, eye-witness testimonies and because of the suspicious behavior of related parties. - Shiftchange (talk) 13:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * A pressing imtimately related question, relevant to WP consensus, is why people disagree so much about 911. These links below are suggestive of (a) citizen psychology (b) institutional distortions of research, and (c) citizen reliance on very different information sources.


 * 1. Faulty Towers of Belief: Demolishing the Iconic Psychological Barriers to 9/11 Truth scholarly article


 * 2. Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction scholarly article


 * 3. www.naturalnews.com/025298_the_FDA_FDA_scientists_NaturalNews.html FDA Scientists Accuse Own Administration of Corruption, Intimidation and Scientific Censorship] article


 * 4. Undermining Science book


 * 5. So Wrong for So Long: How the Press.. book —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihaveabutt (talk • contribs) 22:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

While I find many aspects of the official 9-11 narrative questionable, the information that has been put out by the so-called "Truth Movement" is at least as tenuous. The level of absolute assurance that many members of this movement exhibit despite their lack of solid evidence does not appeal to me either. The idea of looking for a "mental illness" aspect of a dissenting political opinion is however very troubling to me. Such tactics were used to crush dissent by both Soviet and Western regimes throughout the 20th century. I have met enough victims of such policies- people who have been involuntarily confined to American and Soviet institutions for their politics alone- to find this joke to be in very bad taste. 24.47.154.230 (talk) 02:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * But it's not a joke to some editors who often accuse all truthers of being nutjobs for not believing the official account 100%. Maybe this says something about western society. We may not be so far removed from so called Soviet oppression ourselves. There is actually a good article in Scientific American about conspiracy theories called "I want to believe". It was written by Michael Shermer who has been quoted by the official story crowd for his debunking of 911 conspiracy theories so should carry some weight. The article explains, from the viewpoint of science, what conspiracy theories are and who should bear the burden of proof and how much proof is needed to debunk or prove a theory etc etc (he says enough for a 95-99% certainty is a minimum). It goes on to say that we should be using the "I don't know" and "let's wait and see" approach when discussing theories that have not yet been scientifically disproven instead of ridiculing them. Shermer uses the example of a belief in the existence of God which has a similar amount of proof available as most theories. If God can be real then it follows that CTs can be as well yet as a rule we do not describe believers in God as nutjobs and similarly we do not call non believers nutjobs either although there would be groups from both sides that do think this. Wayne (talk) 13:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Government and Mass Media Consensus instead of Mainstream and official theories?
The AIDS denialism article uses this type of language. "Mainstream" is vague" and "official theory" implies there is another real version of events.  Both 9/11 Truthers and Al Queda did it without waning people generally agree that the  media and government support the Al Quada did it without warning explanation(albeit for very different reasons). There are some reasonable arguments to be made that scientific consensus should also be added to the mix. I would not favor this as based on the past no Wikipedia consensus will evolve as endless debates will occur over the legitimacy of the NIST scientists verses the legitimacy of the 9/11 Architects for Truth scientists. NIST as an agency of the government is part of the government consensus. Edkollin (talk) 07:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Ignoring the fact that (all credible) mainstream scientists agree with the "mainstream" theory is also questionable. It's not only NIST/FEMA.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 08:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sir Rubin. The purpose of this discussion page is to improve the article. If you have a way to know what all (your-definition) scientists believe, I would like to know.  More simply, it would be useful to know why you believe anyone can know what so many scientists believe.  This question was raised earlier, and had little or no response.  Are we passing on scientists' hasty perceptions of media rumors?  --Ihaveabutt (talk) 03:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sir Rubin. I haven't the slightest idea what you mean by "mainstream" theory, as if you think they are just one neat thing.  Which government theory refers to molten steel?  Is it US NIST or US FEMA?  Which goverhment theory acknowledges free fall speeds?  Is it US NIST or US FEMA?  Which one has pancaking?  Which one doesn't?  Perhaps you would like to clarify which one of the conflicting agency reports is your official one.  --Ihaveabutt (talk) 03:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Denying that most of what we call "9/11 conspiracy theories" are rejected by (almost all) mainstream scientists is absurd, regardless of inconsistencies between mainstream reports. Perhaps (going back to Edkollin), "mass media" is incorrect; we'd still need to use "mainstream media".  If you want to avoid referring to it as a mainstream theory, the only credible version I can think of is "consensus of (US) government, mainstream media, and mainstream scientists".  I don't know why that's better than "mainstream theory"?  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 09:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You can’t see the forest for the trees. The “mainstream theory” is that terrorists flew planes into the buildings and that the damage done caused them to collapse. All the “mainstream” investigations and analyses agree on that. They only differ on some details. — NRen2k5 (TALK), 21:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Perspective of the article
AQFK, you stated in a recent edit summary: "per WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, the article should be written from the perspective of the majority viewpoint"

Which policy or guideline are you referring to specifically? Please provide a quote, and remember that WP:NPOV explains that the "neutral point of view is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject".

What is important is to provide sufficient information that identifies the minority viewpoint as such. Wikipedia policy does not advocate or allow tendentious wording or other unencyclopedic means to (mis-)characterize any viewpoint, be it the minority or the majority view. Cs32en 16:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The article, as it stands, does violate Wikipedia's neutrality policy. 9/11 conspiracy theories are fringe theories without much support, so the article should not give them much weight. In fact the article goes into lots of detail discussing numerous claims made by the conspiracy theorists, including lots of evidence they cite to support their claims. By contrast the mainstream view does not receive enough weight, and what coverage it does get is mixed with criticism from conspiracy theorists. The impression left on the reader is not that almost everybody believes that the attacks were carried out by al-Qaeda hijacking and crashing planes.


 * For comparison, take a look at Wikipedia's article on Holocaust denial, which is also about a fringe conspiracy theory and which has made it to GA status. This article spends lots of time covering development, supporters and reaction to the theory, and includes quite a bit of description of the mainstream view. By contrast the only coverage of the claims made by the fringe theory is a few bullet points near the beginning outlining the key claims. Hut 8.5 19:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that it would be better to provide context directly in connection with the specific aspects of the theories that the article describes, rather than describing the majority view in a separate section.
 * I disagree with the opinion that the minority view should receive less weight. This is an article that is explicitly, per its title, about the minority view. That also means that the minority view is the main topic of the article, and the majority view is context for the presentation of this view. What Wikipedia policy says is that the minority view should not be presented as if it were the majority view.
 * Very few people actually propagate Holocaust denial. Has TIME ever written about Holocaust denial as a "mainstream reality"? By the way, there is actually much more information about the content of Holocaust denial in that article than the few bulleted points in the first section. I can fully approach this article from the majority viewpoint, and as someone of the majority view, I would like to see more information about how Holocaust denial has evolved, both within the community (or communities) of proponents and within the general public. The article is more focused on each Holocaust denier rather than on Holocaust denial itself. The situation there is also different from this article, because there is an article about the proponents (9/11 Truth movement), so this article naturally focusses more on the substance of the theories.  Cs32en  20:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "I disagree with the opinion that the minority view should receive less weight". You are free to lobby to have WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE changed.  In fact, you can be bold and change them all right now.  Please, let us know how it goes.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you sure we're reading the same WP:NPOV? Cos the version I'm looking at doesn't need changing at all.  The cornerstone policy says quite clearly, "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions." Os Cangaceiros (Yippie!) 03:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, we have explained this to you many, many times on this talk page and on the talk pages many other 9/11 related articles. This is a fringe theory.  Per WP:NPOV, the article needs to be written from the perspective of the majority viewpoint.  This is the way Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written.  If you find yourself unable to do this, I suggest you not edit this article or only make minor changes (fix typos, add wikilinks, etc.).  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * For comparison's sake, take a look at the Apollo Moon Landing hoax conspiracy theories article. It contains thorough debunking which is exactly what WP:NPOV is all about.  I even took this up at the WP:NPOVN and I was told that it is correctly following WP:NPOV. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * AQFK, please provide a direct quote for your allegations. Cs32en  07:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Your request is ambigious. A direct quote for what "allegations"? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If I visit a page about fringe conspiracy theories then I want to read about fringe conspiracy theories and not the mainstream theory. I'll go to the mainstream theory page if I want to know more about the mainstream theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlton Bankz (talk • contribs) 11:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Quote - Cannot Remember
Does anyone remember a quote, perhaps from an undersecretary of Defense, shortly after the attacks, along the lines of, "Were those the guys from the Midwest?" I feel it would be useful in this article. The point of the quote, essentially, was that the DoD was aware of extranationals training in flight schools, possibly for a terrorist attack. I may have read it in the New Yorker (?). Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.21.106.137 (talk) 09:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

"A Quest For Knowledge" Edit
Quest,

Please explain why you deleted my edit. Thanks, ArXivist (talk) 03:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Per WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. Even in articles about fringe theories, the majority viewpoint takes precedence. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This is what you wrote in the edit summary. You are supposed to expand on that in the talk page. Where does it say "the majority view point takes precedence"? How can I revise my edit or what can I improve it so that the edit can be included?ArXivist (talk) 05:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * See WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I've already read them. It's common WP:Etiquette to suggest improvements after a revert.ArXivist (talk) 05:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Me and several other editors have already had an extended discussion about WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE on the America Airlines Flight 77 talk page here and here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Quest, continually citing policies with no explanation or suggestions for improvement is not very helpful. The editorial process is about dialogue. Can you suggest how I can improve the edit so that it is acceptable for inclusion? For example, would the addition of more reliable sources help?ArXivist (talk) 19:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No, weight should be roughly proportional to the preponderance of reliable sources backing that perspective. If you add more content to the fringe theory, you have to add more content to the mainstream perspective to keep it balanced and the article is already too long.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * How many reliable sources are needed for inclusion in the article, in your opinion?ArXivist (talk) 19:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * There's no hard number, but that's not really the issue here. The issue is that you can't give undue weight to a fringe theory.  IOW, you added new content describing the fringe theory without explaining the majority viewpoint.  Even still, the part about the fringe theory may not even be particularly note-worthy as you cited a fringe source.  In any case, the article is already too long.  Adding additional weight to a fringe theory is a step backwards. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You do not have to re-explain the majority viewpoint each time you add minority material. You just have to make sure that the added material is clearly the minority position (and I did because I placed it in the Pentagon conspiracy section). See the Parapsychology article for example. DRG is not a fringe source for 9/11 conspiracy theories. See my noticeboard section where User:Irbisgreif agrees that DRG is a reliable source for 9/11 conspiracy theories. . DRG was not the only source I cited anyway- did you read the OC Weekly article?
 * PS: Do you mind also replying to the Icke section above?ArXivist (talk) 05:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with User:Irbisgreif that Griffin's publications are a reliable source for his 9/11 conspiracy theories. However, this is not a reliability issue, but a weight issue. You should not give WP:Undo weight to fringe theories even in articles about fringe theories. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)