Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories/Archive 23

Balance between conspiracy theorists
I was looking over this and our CDCT article and one of the things I've noticed is that there seems to be a bias between the conspiracy theorists themselves. There are a lot of references to Gage, Griffin and S Jones, but relatively little mention of Alex Jones, Dylan Avery, and James Fetzer. Alex Jones is a rock star within the movement, Avery's Loose Change is the most famous 9/11 conspiracy movie of all and Fetzer is the founder for Scholars for 9/11 Truth. I think it would be appropriate to replace one or two mentions of the former with the latter. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

9/11 Wargames Scrubbed
It seems that all mention of the NORAD, USAF, FEMA and NRO wargames that took place on the morning of 9/11, including Vigilant Guardian, Global Guardian, and drills involving planes flying into buildings, has been removed from this article. For several years, this important, relevant information was addressed in its own section. See [] and []. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.81.74 (talk) 09:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Opinions & Objections

 * I also have grave reservations with the neutrality of this article, I will just mention one from the opening paragraph- "Civil engineers state that the impacts of jet aircraft at high speeds in combination with subsequent fires, rather than controlled demolition, led to the collapse of the Twin Towers and WTC 7.[10]"

That source refers to two civil engineers, one of whom happens to have been deeply involved in all of the NIST collapse theories. The article itself may be interesting, but it does not constitute scientific consensus.

Additionally, I have read that article (I have it in front of me) and this sentence does not describe it accurately. The article strives to proves that a progressive crush up-crush down collapse can account for the observed events on that day only after the collapse has been initiated, given certain assumptions. Whether his conclusion is correct or not, that specific article in no way shape or form supports the above sentence, and certainly cannot be used to support a consensus opinion on that aspect of the collapse.

Also, referring to Popular mechanics and main stream media reports as "published" material is hardly appropriate, given the connotation of scientific legitimacy. A more correct phrasing of that paragraph would then be-

"Media reports [this includes Popular mechanics, it is no more scientific than Readers Digest and should not have a separate mention], an article published by Bazant and Verdure and the officially sponsored report issued by the National Institute of Science and Technology argue[assume,assert] that the impacts of jet aircraft at high speeds in combination with subsequent fires, rather than controlled demolition, led to the collapse of the Twin Towers and WTC 7.[10][8][176][177]"


 * This article could not possibly be considered neutral. While I am disinclined to accept these 9/11 conspiracy theories as fact, I am likewise disinclined to accept editorializing in an encyclopedia.

To see evidence of bias, one need not look further than the opening sentence. Firstly it uses the word claim. If you really don't see why this is inappropriate, please read []. Next, it refers to 9/11 as "Al-Qaeda's September 11 attacks". This may not be an inherently wrong label to use in other articles, despite it not being a widely adopted phrase, but it's use here is clearly problematic. Perhaps I can best illustrate why with the following example. Let's say I'm writing an article concerning the "theory" that Lee Harvey Oswald shot John Kennedy. Using the above mentioned as a model I could then write, "The Oswald/JFK theorist claim that the CIA's assassination of John F. Kennedy was carried out by a lone gunman named Lee Harvey Oswald. Additionally, one individual who subscribes to this theory also believes in shape shifting lizard people."

As a rational skeptic, I share the editor's disdain for conspiracy theories, especially those concerning tragic events. However, the point of an encyclopedia is to distribute information not opinion. --JOS3þH (talk) 22:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * But what you’re railing against is exactly that you’re saying should be done here – to make a sort of alternate-reality bubble for a conspiracy theory article where the conspiracy theory is actually presented as fact and the facts are presented as a sort of ‘mainstream theory’. You’re absolutely right – the point of an encyclopedia is to disseminate information, not opinion. You just need to learn to better distinguish between information and opinion. — NRen2k5 (TALK), 22:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should learn to better distinguish between fact and general consensus. While most of us are in agreement that these theories are idiotic, they still have yet to be conclusively proven incorrect by a reputable body. Until such time as they are, I believe it is not appropriate to give the reader an impression to the contrary. Instead of presenting them as fact or falsehood, the article should maintain a neutral tone and present them for what they are, theories. I happen to believe the theory that humans descended from australopithecines without the aid of an invisible man in the sky. The majority do not. Should they be able to edit the article on atheism so that it gives the impression that it's a fallacy? If you honestly believe that the general consensus towards an unproven theory is justification for bias in an encyclopedia then perhaps you would feel more at home here. I believe you would approve of that encyclopedia's take on 9/11 conspiracy theories. --JOS3þH (talk) 00:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You have that backwards. Why do the existing reports not meet your definition of “conclusive proof” from a “reputable source”? Why do you insist on conclusive proof that these conspiracy hypotheses are false when they don’t even have the least bit of evidence that they’re true? — NRen2k5 (TALK), 02:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There's plenty of evidence for these government-condemned theories. You obviously choose to reject that evidence, but your opinion on the matter should not color the encyclopedic description of the controversy. You don't get to elevate your strongly held opinions or perceived consensus to the level of fact. But, undeniably, this article drips with condescension for any deviation from the official U.S. government narrative, so the biases and opinions you share do seem to have the run of the place. Just don't mistake your ideological ascendancy for factual accuracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.81.74 (talk) 08:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

After reading the article page I think this article is entirely written with an implicit condescension towards any theories regarding 9-11 which question the official version of events. In a word, this article makes for shitty wiki reading. There is no open-mindedness on display here, only a caustic dismissal of all who dare question the 9-11 Commission official story or "Popular Mechanics" as kooks. What a shitty article, was hoping for more objective analysis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.65.24 (talk) 00:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

This article does not have a NPOV. The most glaring example of this is that it neglects to mention the fact that the official explanation of 9/11 is also a conspiracy theory. It is impossible to explain the events that day without invoking at least one conspiracy, whether it be a conspiracy by Al Qaeda, the government, or both. ---Rational Thinker

David Icke/Reptilian Shape-Shifting Aliens
I have an objection to the part about David Icke/Reptilians, it is irrelevant. A) because it is not actually sourced, all sources are from within wikipedia. B) because it loosely applies to the subject. And C) the only reason I see for the inclusion of this material is to associate "9/11 Truthers" with the UFO/Alien conspiracy theories, which is undeniably a different subject, regardless of whether or not David Icke thinks aliens are in control of the world and thus some how responsible for 9/11. It is included here unedited (minus header) as found on the page:

Reptilian shape-shifting aliens

David Icke argues that reptilian, shape-shifting extraterrestrial humanoids are responsible for the 9/11 attacks. According to Icke, a reptilian global elite is behind all things that occur in the world. Those who Icke accuses of being reptilian shape-shifters include such notables as George W. Bush. Icke has also called the Anti-Defamation League "an Illuminati front." According to Stephen Lemons of the Phoenix New Times, "Icke is part of a virulent strain of anti-Semitism that runs throughout the 9/11 conspiracy crowd." Icke's theories are rejected by 911blogger.com and other conspiracy theory sites.

Yes, I agree. Jimbo Wales writes


 * If your viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then
 * it should be easy to name prominent adherents, and the article should
 * certainly address the controversy without taking sides.

There are no prominent adherents to the reptilian 9/11 theory aside from Icke.


 * WP:Fringe-"Coverage on Wikipedia should not make a fringe theory appear more notable than it actually is."
 * WP:NOTABILITY-Notability requires significant coverage-
 * "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material."

The Times Online reference doesn't mention 9/11! The fact that it was left up so long demonstrates a clear bias on the part of wikipedia editors.

The Time reference only mentions 9/11 once in passing


 * They are our leaders, our corporate executives, our beloved Oscar-winning actors and Grammy-winning singers, and they're responsible for the Holocaust, the Oklahoma City bombings and the 9/11 attacks ... at least according to former BBC sports reporter David Icke.

The only significant coverage is from the Phoenix New Times. WP:REDFLAG- Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources. The "Phoenix New Times" is not a high-quality source.

The Icke section violates WP:UNDUE, WP:Fringe, WP:Red Flag and Wales' criteria (easily listable adherants) and should therefore be removed.ArXivist (talk) 07:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

This is obviously put there to discredit the article. Is ok if I take it out? Raffethefirst (talk) 12:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

How gets a wrong passage deleted? Is there a voting mechanism or what? I see only reasons for deletion here but some people are reverting my deletion giving some arguments. Should t they put those arguments here and we should get to some conclusion? As I see here only pro deletion arguments I will keep deleting that passage.Raffethefirst (talk) 18:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This was discussed below (more recently), and there was no reason at all given for deletion there.
 * As for your specifics; it's fringe, but so is the entire article. Perhaps the details don't need to be mentioned, but the theory does.  Perhaps it could be combined with the "pod people" and other fringe-of-the-fringe theories, but it should not be removed.  And, although I don't like the Phoenix New Times, it is a reliable source, as is Time.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

9/11 Conspiracy Theory Information/Sources
I feel that this topic (9/11 Conspiracy Theories) could include much more information. As editors, shouldn't we take the time to do some research of our own so we can objectively portray at least a realistic account of the popular 9/11 Conspiracy Theories, and not include the theories which are not widely supported?

Further, shouldn't we take the time to find and include as much evidence as possible to this page? This IS an Encyclopedia after all. I don't know about you, but when I open an Encyclopedia to a specific topic, I expect loads of information on that topic. In fact, I expect it to include all information available at the time of printing. Since that isn't a problem here, shouldn't we try to keep this page as up-to-date as possible, with as much info as possible?

Just some thoughts...

--TheRanter (talk) 13:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You really want to read our policy on editorial research. Put simply, the only reason anyone can trust a thing written here is because we have secondary sources to back it up. Readers should never have to take anything on our word. This strictly prohibits editors from doing their own research. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Your post is confusing: In order to get secondary sources, doesn't one have to research said secondary sources? I am not suggesting setting up a lab and performing experiments, I'm talking about researching sources to provide the highest level of information available. This page cannot possible remain accurate without researching the topic to a degree to know what all of the possible 9/11 conspiracy theories there are, and what evidence there is to support them.

I think you may have misunderstood me, maybe I miscommunicated, I am calling for adding more sourced information to this page, because it should be added to properly represent popular 9/11 conspiracy theories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRanter (talk • contribs) 13:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, that's certainly permitted. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, maybe you can help me with something: I am unclear about the reliable sources page, are Alternative News Websites acceptable (so long as it is sourced material) as Reliable Sources?

One of the things I want to add to the page is Dr. Steven Jones' research about evidence of Thermite Residue in WTC steel, and in the dust which resulted from the Collapse of the Twin Towers and WTC Building 7. Would sourcing his peer-reviewed paper titled "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?" which he released in 2006(?) be an acceptable source?


 * Actually, the article is a bit too long and probably needs to be trimmed down a bit. Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources is here: WP:RS.  Since there are few, if any, reliable sources which claim that 9/11 was anything other than a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists, adding additional content in support of fringe theories would be a violation of WP:UNDUE.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with you.

Firstly, I think this page doesn't contain enough information to accurately portray popular 9/11 Conspiracy theories, and that the last thing it needs is to be trimmed down.

Secondly, I completely disagree with your assertion that "Since there are few, if any, reliable sources which claim that 9/11 was anything other than a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists, adding additional content in support of fringe theories would be a violation of WP:UNDUE." considering that the topic is in fact about 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and not the Official Account released by the 9/11 Commission. Also due to the fact that what you said is your viewpoint, and not necessarily true.

I believe that for this page to meet Wikipedia standards it actually needs MORE information, as per WP:UNDUE states: "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each" and as such, I seek to add content to this page to meet that requirement. Removing content from this page, in my opinion, is contrary to that requirement, as this page in it's current form does not "fairly represent all viewpoints...".

Still seeking a clarification on whether a Peer-Reviewed Scientific Paper is a valid source? Any takers?

Also, I would like clarification as to whether or not Documentary Films are valid sources. --TheRanter (talk) 15:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Documentary films are hardly ever valid sources, even in non-contraversial matters. "Peer-reviewed" scientific papers would be usable, but whether the papers that the truthers normally want to include in these articles are peer-reviewed is disputed.  Bentham open journals are almost certainly not peer-reviewed, and JSE is not reliable even if it were "peer"-reviewed, as the "pers" are the crazys.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No, "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?" is not a reliable source. As for documentaries, it depends on the film.  Documentaries made by reliable sources such as BBC News, History Channel, etc. are usually acceptable but Loose Change, 9/11 Mysteries, etc. would not.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Why are loose change, etc. not acceptable when they reference widely available news footage to make their point? I argue that when one considers that most TV stations (at least in the U.S.) are owned by Defense Contractors, or by Companies which own Defense Contractors, why is a TV Documentary considered more valid than an Independent Documentary in consideration of the subject matter, being that one popular theory involves the Government as well as Defense Contractors? Wouldn't it be inappropriate and counter to fairness to be able to reference one and not the other?

In order for this page to accurately represent the subject of 9/11 Conspiracy Theories, I say that Independent Documentaries should count as sources. If there is a place to discuss this with people from Wikipedia, could someone direct me there?

Also, why do you say that "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?" is not a reliable source? It is a Peer Reviewed Scientific Paper, and as such should be a valid source. I would like for you to explain your stance.

What about specific clips of Mainstream Media News? Like for example say I wanted to provide videos from the news as sources to support the theory that explosives where used in the WTC? Is that acceptable?

Sorry for all of the questions, I am new to editing wikipedia, and I need help.

--TheRanter (talk) 16:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Loose Change is not acceptable as a reference for facts because it’s a self-published video from a couple of ordinary guys on the Internet, and because it’s known for serious errors and misinformation. It’s acceptable as a reference for the views of its creators though.
 * As for your conspiracy theory about defense contractors and the media, I’m not going to touch that one for now. If you can show me that it has any basis in reality, then maybe.
 * I haven’t bothered to research Why Indeed Did The WTC Buildings Collapse in depth, but from what I’ve found so far, it is not a peer-reviewed paper. And the author is Steven Jones, a dyed-in-the-wool Truther. That doesn’t exactly help. But again, this could be used as a reliable source for Jones’ views, just not necessarily for scientific facts.
 * Using news videos to forward a claim of explosives would not be acceptable because no news videos show explosives, so it would be a matter of you interpreting what you see in these videos as explosives, which is original research. — NRen2k5 (TALK), 17:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Wingdings
This has probably been raised but does everyone know about the little Wingdings trick? -- Scythre Talk Contribs 19:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a page for discussing the article "9/11 conspiracy theories," not a chat room. Please review the talk page guidelines. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 20:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I know that. This is a valid theory. I've got info if you want it. -- Scythre Talk Contribs 20:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe Scythre was referring to this conspiracy theory concerning the Wingdings characters. Hope this clears up confusion. A little insignificant Talk to me! (I have candy!) 15:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thankyou, ALI, but I was also referring to this, as that is the wingdings theory and a lot more, about various other conspiracy theories. -- Scythre Talk Contribs 16:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Mockery
This article seeks only to make a mockery of real science done by http://www.911truth.org/. The Wiki article makes it sound like all credible civil engineers believe the official story but the folks at 911truth.org are far more credible and have actual proof in the form of unburnet thermite. Go read the wiki for the disclosure project - an assertion that NASA is a front for alien and UFO study. It gets more credible tones used in the article than the far more plausible 911 inside job page.

By the way, "conspiracy theories" is offically a "trigger phrase" in our country. You might as well call it the "whackos believe some crazy crap happened" wiki. A better title would avoid such terms that predispose a particular direction. Regardless of whether you belive it or not it is Wiki's charter to report the facts and the facts are that the most credible students of this disaster are the folks from 911truth.org which hardly even get a mantion in the article much less a link to their site where people can go to find out what really happened. How much of this content has to be approved by the CIA before it is allowed to remain? SERIOUSLY! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.193.67.233 (talk) 02:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, http://www.911truth.org does make a mockery of science and of truth. I agree that something needs to be done about the "disclosure project", as well, but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason to create nonsense.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 06:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And I think a an anon which seemed to be from a unnamed government organization was blocked for disruptive editing. I don't know it was the CIA.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 06:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "How much of this content has to be approved by the CIA before it is allowed to remain? SERIOUSLY!" I'm sorry, but my CIA puppet masters won't allow me to answer that question. :)  Seriously, Wikipedia is not the place to promote fringe theories.  We have specific guidelines and policies against it.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * wikipedia is a place where we can do whatever we get a consensus to do, and consensus on the fringe stuff may change in time. 93.86.164.168 (talk) 14:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * We have to abide by policies and guidelines (apart from an occasional special case), and those policies and guidelines tell us how to treat fringe theories. This article's treatment of the subject is only going to change if the policies and guidelines are changed or if the subject stops being a fringe theory. Neither is likely to happen. Hut 8.5 16:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Why is it that the TWA Flight 800 article has an "alternative theories" wiki, and this one is titled "conspiracy theory"? This seems inconsistent. Why not call this one "Alternative Theories On/About Sept. 11, 2001" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.37.244.10 (talk) 22:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Case Study 9/11
"Case Study 9/11" videos anwer this conspiracy theories on youtube.


 * 9/11 Case Study: World Trade Center
 * 9/11 Case Study: Pentagon Flight 77
 * 9/11 Case Study: United 93 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.101.252.252 (talk) 19:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You can not use youtube videos as cites for Wikipedia due to copywrite issues Edkollin (talk) 23:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Related Illustrations
Should illustrations depicting the WTC as a target be included such as...

A similar discussion can be found at 9/11 advance-knowledge debate. Smallman12q (talk) 01:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Reasons for and against inclusion are identical to reasons mentioned on the other talk page. 92.76.129.224 (talk) 13:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Third WTC plane
Does anyone know about the origins of the film of another plane flying past the WTC after the first plane hits? Alex Jones mentioned it in a documentary and there are copies of it on YouTube, but I cannot find anything in mainstream media. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

"Molten Steel"
"This belief that the towers would not have collapsed without external interference (something other than the planes), largely roots from the belief that the burning temperatures of jet fuel (1,000 degrees Celsius) would not melt the steel support structure of the WTC. This would be valid if it weren't for the fact that at 1000 degrees Celsius steel weakens to 10% of its room temperature strength. This alone would be enough for the weight to collapse in on itself, but the damage caused by the plane's impact ensured the collapse.[69]" No mention of whether or not molten steel found on site, or temperatures recorded after the collapse. This would be my (and hopefully others) null hypothesis. If we agree that office supplies and jet fuel burn at most 1,000 degrees Celsius and steel melts at 1370 degrees Celsius. If molten steel or vaporized steel is present then temperatures must have gotten much higher than possible with jet fuel and office supplies.

In general this article's purpose seems to be to dismiss all those that don't believe the official story as nuts believing in aliens. I second the motion to have a third article on just provable facts on 911. Or several articles presenting evidence for and against simple questions like "Was there molten steel at the base of all three buildings?". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.76.41.249 (talk) 16:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * On behalf of User:71.112.30.7, whose response had been placed within another's comment, rather than below it, here is the reply. Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikileaks: pagers
Be on the look out for reliable news sources doing stories on this. There's already one here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2009/nov/25/september-11-wikileaks-pager-messages. They haven't even released up to the planes hitting yet. Autonova (talk) 12:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If the reliable sources actually discuss conspiracy theories born out of the leaked information instead of predicting they will be fueled by the leaked pages then we can put it in the article Edkollin (talk) 15:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I did add a subsection about this with a current events warning in the main September 11 Attacks article. That might be deleted or moved to a sub article. Edkollin (talk) 17:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Interestingly almost every article mentioned that 9/11 truthers would find material and even mentioned what material truthers would find interesting but since there is no mention of an actual response from 9/11 conspiracy theorists so there is not need at this point to enter it into this article Edkollin (talk) 08:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:SNOWBALL Proposal: Mainstream Media and Wikipedia editor consensus is unlikely to change
This is a proposal to invoke the WP:SNOWBALL clause against arguments proposing to change the general emphasis of the article to a more pro “truther” position.

Hopes that the US Mainstream Media will engage in investigate reporting on the 9/11 or any other issue is misplaced. And it is not because they are being “told to back off”. They are too close to the Republican and Democratic Parties. Because of increased competition and other issues the era of Watergate style of investigative reporting are over. So basically reporters are stuck with the major parties. The Republicans are not going to agree with truther theories for obvious reasons. The Democratic party will not do so either for two main reasons. The Party that controls the executive and legislative branches of government today is a scared and very cautious party for too many reasons to list here. Most members believe the Bush administration were to stupid to speak correctly never mind carry out a conspiracy. Reporters have a “why I am even doing this” tone of voice and facial expression when they are commenting or reporting on the 9/11 conspiracy story. They look as enthusiastic as a person on hot date on a Saturday Night being called into work. You can tell if they talk about the about the issues at all, only a cursory effort has been made to study the issue. Most comments tend to emphasize the why conspiracy theorists believe as they do. Even if it was 1973 again, with that attitude how would real investigative reporting happen?. On a related note notice how the almighty biography of living persons issues disappear when discussing conspiracy theorists mental health.

The Wikipedia verifiable but not necessarily truth policy have caused the article to reflect these attitudes. In general the reliable sources policy, flawed as it is, is going to bring out the truth than more often other policies. There are great websites out there, but how does one make that judgment without OR? So Wikipedia policy sticks with the sinking MSM ship.

Based on the occasional sarcasm and other comments it clear that substantial majority of long time committed editors sharply disagree with theories they are writing about. Not quite sure why that is, but whatever the reason individual newbie “truther” editors are likely to lose talk page arguments to veterans who know the rules.

Other factors are conspiracy theory fatigue, the inclination to  lump together unrelated “loony” conspiracy theories. First impressions are a powerful way in which we form impressions. Four years ago conspiracy theorists were individuals with websites and professors whose discipline was not related to science. Things have clearly changed although to what degree (pun intended) is debatable. The “nearly all reliable sources agree” argument is still thrown out there,  while incorrect it  is the clear consensuses of the long time regular editors.

For 4 or 5 years attempts have made to change the general emphasis of the article and despite the endless edit wars and talk page discussions at the end of the day they have all failed. So I propose WP:SNOWBALL  on general article emphasis  and lets work on improving/ limiting the damage   as best as we can while staying within the rules. Edkollin (talk) 03:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:SNOWBALL does not apply here, as it's about the appropriate way a discussion would be re-started - i.e. not by presenting old arguments from previous discussion, but by focusing on new arguments or new evidence. I think I understand your point though. Actually, there is enough WP:RS material out there that allows us to present the subject in a neutral way (although more would be helpful to cover important details of the subject). A main problem is that some editors think that Wikipedia should try to engage in some kind of pedagogical exercise and explain to readers why one viewpoint would be correct. WP tells readers about what the prevalent viewpoint is, with respect to the general public as well as with respect to experts in the relevant scientific field. It presents viewpoints according to their due weight (note that this article is specifically about the non-official theories), but does not take sides. (That's the way it should be, of course.) Cs32en  04:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

"Reptilian shape-shifting aliens"
The 9/11 conspiracy theory page should be deleted. There is no credible evidence whatsoever that 9/11 was a conspiracy and volumes of evidence that the conspiracy theory crowd are nut jobs. If Wiki devoted one page to every lame unsupported theory, there would be no capacity left for legitimate articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Afenic (talk • contribs) 05:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

If we keep this title I recommend changing "Flight 93" to "Solid Mammal Flight 93", you know, just so we can differentiate it from the reptilian flights and the shape-shifting flights. Seriously, change the title to "Extraterrestrials" and let's try and show some respect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.226.67 (talk) 10:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This section has already been shortened to about half its former length. See the article's history.  WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a valid reason for this change.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * We don't use the language preferred by the people we are writing about in lemmas or section titles. Cs32en  23:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No, but we can use the language of reliable sources. The Times calls them "Blood-drinking, flesh-eating, shape-shifting extraterrestrial reptilian humanoids" and Time magazine uses "shape-shifting reptilian humanoids". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Will you ever understand the difference between an encyclopedia and a tabloid? Cs32en 06:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * So, two highly respected publications, Time magazine and The Times, are tabloids, but nutcase conspiracy theorists who claim 9/11 was an inside job should be taken seriously? You've got to be kidding me.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for letting me know about what kind of newspapers Time magazine and The Times are. Didn't know about them before. It's a journalistic technique to start an article with something that is strange or surprising, and attracting the reader's attention by not explaining it immediately. Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, doesn't draw attention to articles or sections in this way. Cs32en  13:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you mean, for example, the quote mining for "This is not a fringe phenomenon. It is a mainstream political reality."? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Surely they are weasel words and not fit for the article?


 * Though this is exactly how conspiracy theory articles are constructed here. First you have a long tirade of nutjob claims, then a sentence telling that of course all of that is made up with no real evidence behind it. That's how it is; whether that is how it should be is another matter; and whether a less make-the-reader-stupider scheme is politically possible to implement is yet another. 62.78.198.48 (talk) 19:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks AQFK for letting everyone know that you think people who doubt the official story are 'nutcases'. Three steel-framed highrises enduring complete symmetric 'pancake' collapses from asymmetric damage and an airliner flying unchallenged through the most lethally protected airspace in the world - that's obviously the only sane explanation. Nano-thermite found in the dust of the towers? Obviously paint chips. It's completely nutty to think that elements of a government who have killed hundreds of thousands of innocents in a country with no ties to terrorism could possibly have the evil capacity of murdering a few thousand of its own civilians. Not the same people who commited Operation Phoenix in Vietnam, assassinating targets to suppress opposition to US occupation, killing 20,000 Vietnamese completely at random. Surely not organisations who supported Nicaraguan Contras to bring down a people's government and privatise the wellbeing of its populace, financing the deaths of tens of thousands. Surely not the same people who caused a coup d'etat in Chile, supporting a regime which abducted, tortured and killed thousands of Chilean citizens in an attempt to suppress opposition. Surely not the same government who willingly sells firearms at Wall-Mart while ten thousand americans die from gun shot wounds every year. And you think that an organisation with no accountability or anchor of conscience other than money would think twice about killing 3,000 americans to justify killing hundreds of thousands more? You're the nutcase. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.107.142 (talk) 12:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Uhh, you do know that the towers didn't collapse in a 'pancake' fashion, you can quite clearly see one of the towers listing and the top half basically falling over on an angle. That hardly looks controlled. Oh, but hey, you conspiracy theorists are great entertainment, you're like the 21st Century moon landing hoax proponents.

--122.111.250.134 (talk) 16:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Except for the fact that our skies are not as "lethally protected" as you seem to think they are, Operation Phoenix was designed to attack elements of the Viet Cong so that they couldn't slaughter the South Vietnamese, and the Sandinistas were no more of a "people's government" than any other communist dictatorship. Also, if you think that we're wrong for allowing Wal-Mart or any other stores to sell weapons so people can protect themselves, you've got some serious problems. And what country are you suggesting had "no ties to terrorism?" If it's the one I think you're talking about, you're wrong. DanTD (talk) 01:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * So you're telling me that the world's only super power isn't tougher that 4 lumbering jets? The Pentagon is protected by anti-aircraft batteries for gods sake. Operation Phoenix targeted civilian sympathisers at random. Sandinistas were a peoples government, and they accomplished great things (from wikipedia):

"Upon assuming power, the FSLNs political platform included the following, nationalization of property owned by the Somozas and their supporters; land reform; improved rural and urban working conditions; free unionization for all workers, both urban and rural; price fixing for commodities of basic necessity; improved public services, housing conditions, education; abolition of torture[citation needed], political assassination[citation needed] and the death penalty; protection of democratic liberties; Equality for women; non-aligned foreign policy; formation of a 'popular army' under the leadership of the FSLN and Humberto Ortega. The FSLN's literacy campaign, which saw teachers flood the countryside, is often noted as their greatest success[citation needed]. Within six months, half a million people had been taught rudimentary reading, bringing the national illiteracy rate down from over 50% to just under 12%. Over 100,000 Nicaraguans participated as literacy teachers. One of the stated aims of the literacy campaign was to create a literate electorate which would be able to make informed choices at the promised elections. The successes of the literacy campaign was recognized by UNESCO with the award of a Nadezhda Krupskaya International Prize." God they sound like evil reds don't they?

Regarding Wal-Mart, I must have serious problems. I mean, seriously. Giving civilians in a very unequal society the power to go through the most laughably flimsy background check to get a gun and protect themselves from other people with guns - clearly very civilised. And I'm talking about Iraq? The one that was invaded because of one alleged meeting in an embassy, which is broadly considered false. The one which 51% of Americans think has no ties to terrorism. The one which had not killed a single American, or threatened to. Although, it has killed a million civilians.. oh no wait, that was YOUR country! 213.40.225.59 (talk) 18:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * 1)The "world's only superpower" isn't vicious enough to shoot down any random jumbo jet that it THINKS is going to be used as kamikaze weapon, because nobody ever considered that any commercial aircraft might be used as one until after 9/11. 2)The Pentagon DOES NOT have anti-aircraft batteries. That's a myth created by the so-called "9/11 truth movement." If they had the devices you people describe, every single airplane that approached Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport would be in danger of being shot down by them. That airport is in walking distance of the Pentagon, so no such batteries are there. 3)Iraq DID have ties to terrorism, and most of the people being killed after we liberated the country were killed by the terrorists who were either there before or came afterwards, not by my country. 4)You seem to know very little about the right to bear arms and gun control laws in the United States. 5)Just because the Sandinistas called themselves a "people's government" doesn't mean they actually were one. They simply carried out the same actions of every other communist dictatorship, including the use of that misnomer. DanTD (talk) 20:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There have been some 1990's VHS tapes in circulation which indicate the then current set of world leaders were in fact reptilian creatures in human disguises -- psychologically this may well be true as portions of our Limbic system zero in upon the postulate and quickly identify many world leaders with Lizard characteristics. 71.51.76.205 (talk) 13:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Including the "Reptilian shape-shifting aliens" section makes a total mockery of this article, you'd be hard-pressed to find one in a billion sane, sober people who actually believe this, in fact why don't you source another notable person other than David Icke to prove this isn't a totally absurd fringe-theory (unique to Icke) that doesn't deserve to be included? If we are to include such nonsense, why don't we also include the Westboro Baptist Churches stance that "God caused 9/11 because of all the f*gs"? I'll tell you why not: This article isn't the place for speculation about God, nor is it the place for speculation of "Reptilian shape-shifting extraterrestrial humanoids." Killdec (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Long ago I gave up any hope of this article providing sound, unbiased, evidence-based coverage of the 9/11 issue. The title alone discredits the content before the reader has begun reading.  Consequently, it doesn't really matter what editors put into this article; it will have little or no consequence on resolving the unresolved issues of 9/11.  Similarly, the September 11 attacks article presents materials which, while accurately matching the descriptions provided  by the corporate media and government, do not stand up as fully resolved when subjected to close scrutiny; as they have been by various academics, professionals, and members of government.  What I propose is a third article for Wikipedia, which I would title, "The Undisputed Facts of 9/11."  This article would be only for facts for which there is little or no dispute by observers coming from any perspective.  Entries within this article would need to be backed up by very sound evidence with which (almost) all can agree.  "Shape-shifting humanoids", "ray beams from space", and "no planes" would certainly not make the cut.  I don't know how much information would succeed in passing the criteria for entry in this article, but it would be interesting to find out. Wildbear (talk) 23:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, no other historical events have an "undisputed facts" article, and I don't see why this should be the first.
 * As it stands, the article is a collection of alternative conspiracy theories of all kinds (recall that the official account is, in fact, a conspiracy theory). That's what they are, and if anyone considers the title to be discrediting, that is merely because of their own negative associations with the term "conspiracy theory." Westboro Baptist Church is a satire site and as far as I know has not been quoted in a "serious opinion" context by any reliable secondary source. Icke, it appears, has, hence the difference.
 * I don't think it's anybody's place to decide what is "too ridiculous" to be considered worthy of mention in this article; if a theory has been noted as serious by a reliable secondary source, then it may be included here. I for one would like to see the interesting "fail-safe theory" mentioned in this article (the idea that explosives were secretly built in during the original WTC construction as a safeguard in unforseen circumstances). While I don't personally believe it, it does address some of the difficulties with the other theories and therefore seems as worthy as anything else. -Jordgette (talk) 01:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * On November 10, 2001, US President George W. Bush stated in a speech to the United Nations: "Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th; malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists, themselves, away from the guilty."(ref) In effect, Bush is calling 9/11 conspiracy theorists "malicious liars"; and that pejorative connotation has stuck to this day.  if anyone considers the title to be discrediting, that is merely because of their own negative associations with the term "conspiracy theory."  I disagree, for the reason just stated.
 * I don't think it's anybody's place to decide what is "too ridiculous" to be considered worthy of mention in this article. I don't disagree.  This article is clearly not intended to be a reference for undisputed facts; it is an accounting of unverified conjecture.  But where then, in Wikipedia, does one go to find a clear accounting of undisputed facts with respect to the 9/11 topic?  For those who question the official story, the September 11 Attacks article reads like propaganda; its material is far from undisputed.  Perhaps 9/11 is a first among historical topics in needing a third article.  My purpose in making this proposal is to try to bring people together in agreement on the 9/11 issue, rather than pushing them apart as so many other entities seem to be trying to do.  As paraphrased in this article from the conclusion of the recent National Geographic Channel program, The program concluded that the divisions over 9/11 conspiracy theories show that the 9/11 attacks have left a wound that neither can nor should be healed.  I was appalled by that statement when I viewed the program.  I was actually appalled by the entire program; but that conclusion drove the wound particularly deep.  I would hope that Wikipedia would seek to bring people together with credible, factual information, rather than seeking to drive them apart with questionable speculation and disputed material presented as fact.  This is why I am proposing the creation of an article based on undisputed facts of 9/11. Wildbear (talk) 02:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If you feel that September 11 Attacks reads like propaganda, you should go to that article's talk page with examples of specific inappropriate propaganda-like language that should be removed, with your reasoning for why it constitutes propaganda. However, I'd be careful about throwing that word around. A creationist would probably claim that Evolution is propaganda, but that's only because they have an antithetical minority view. But the fact that the opposite view prevails does not automatically make the majority view "propaganda." Where should someone go who wants to learn the undisputed facts about the diversity of life on Earth? I'd argue that an article like that wouldn't be of much use.
 * The biggest difficulty that I see with your suggestion is that there will never be consensus on what is truly undisputed. The buildings came down...that's about it. If you include that planes hit the buildings, some will object and say that is not undisputed. -Jordgette (talk) 03:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Wildbear: Have you ever thought of just creating your own Wiki encyclopedia? Then you can put whatever you want and don't have to abide by Wikipedia's policies.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Quest: What policy am I violating, or proposing to violate? Nothing would go into the proposed article which is not supported by Reliable Source to Wikipedia's standards.  And nothing would be conveyed which gives undue weight to a minority viewpoint — the article would contain only material which nearly everyone agrees upon; and thus by definition it would not be giving undue weight to a minority.  It would also be, by definition, NPOV; more so than either of the articles between which it seeks to strike a balance.  The goal would be to uphold Wikipedia's principles to the highest standards. Wildbear (talk) 04:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, for starters, you objected to using WP:COMMON for the article title: "The title alone discredits the content before the reader has begun reading". You complained that the article "presents materials which, while accurately matching the descriptions provided by the corporate media and government.".  That's exactly what we're supposed to do, per WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:RS.  You really have two choices.  You can lobby Wikipedia to change it's policies and guidelines (which is a fool's errand) or you can create your own Wiki where you can control all the rules yourself.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. But that addresses two articles to which I am not proposing any changes.  They can continue as they are.  My question is, if the article I am proposing is not a clone of any existing article, and it conforms to all of Wikipedia's policies, is there a reason why it should not be allowed to exist, even on a trial basis?  Is there a principle or policy that I am overlooking?  The article would have a purpose which is not fulfilled by any current article, which is to show where common, undisputed ground exists as documented by reliable sources.  Or to put it another way, it would be matters documented by reliable sources for which no controversy over the validity exists in any reliable source (or a very minimal number of reliable sources, e.g. one or two.) Wildbear (talk) 05:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I see your point of, why can't a unique and perhaps socially beneficial article exist that conforms to all WP standards? But my problem is with the execution of the article's intent. Who decides what no controversy in any reliable source is? Are the hijackings controversial? The New York Times reports that planes hit the buildings (already controversial to a very small minority), and that the buildings collapsed, and that people died. Beyond that, the paper relies on information from workers at the scene and authorities for anything regarding what was found, and the interpretation of those findings. So overall I would say, it's an interesting thought, but basically what you're describing is the September 11 Attacks article. After all, is there any controversy that FEMA and NIST concluded what they did, etc.? I guess you could write a clone of September 11 Attacks except with sentences like Three buildings in the World Trade Center Complex collapsed due to structural failure on the day of the attack[22] excised. Even if consensus could be reached — and I maintain that it couldn't — I frankly still don't see the point of such an article. -Jordgette (talk) 08:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * A ground rule for this article would be, that any entry for which a controversy can be found in reliable source can be challenged and removed. This article is for matters for which no dispute is documented in reliable source.  Since we know at the outset what many of the controversial issues are, we can avoid entering issues which are known to be controversial in the first place.  There are actually a very large number of elements of 9/11 which are not disputed at all.  The only potential problem I foresee for this article is finding ways to keep it down to a reasonable size.
 * After all, is there any controversy that FEMA and NIST concluded what they did, etc.? No, there is no controversy about what they did, and there is no controversy that they concluded what they did.  This would be appropriate information to include in the article.  This might appear to be leading toward a clone of the September 11 Attacks article, but I don't think that that would turn out to be the case; as there are many other undisputed facts which would present a broader perspective, and allow the reader to see and compare, and draw their own conclusions.  This contrasts with the September 11 Attacks article, which simply presents a straight-forward narrative derived from statements selected to present that narrative. Wildbear (talk) 19:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So if the Houston Chronicle reports that some Truthers don't believe that planes hit the buildings, it wouldn't make it into the article? I'm still a littl unclear on what controversy in a reliable source means.
 * No one can stop you from writing the article; I just worry that it won't last long, that you'll be accused of posting a "sanitized" version of September 11 Attacks, and that your time could be spent more productively doing something else. -Jordgette (talk) 20:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Before answering your question, I spent a few hours studying what the "no-planers" are saying. If there are facts which the no-planers do not dispute, and which no one else disputes, then those facts would be appropriate for the article.  I was unsuccessful in finding any such facts in the time that I spent searching.
 * "Controversy in a reliable source" is for conformance with Wikipedia's policy of having everything originate from a reliable source. If this doesn't make sense, others are welcome to comment on how it should be modified. Wildbear (talk) 05:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Can we please allow an edit which challenges the assertion that David Icke means "Jews" when he says "reptilian shape-shifting aliens"? He denies it, he has never used the word "Jew" or referred to Jews in this context, and furthermore the respected British journalist Jon Ronson (who happens to have a Jewish background) has written about this extensively in his book "Them: Adventures with Extremists", and himself doesn't believe there is any basis to this allegation, however absurd Icke's actual thesis may be. If this idea (I happen to agree with Ronson that Icke means exactly what he says - reptilian aliens) is going to be referred to here at all, it should be balanced. I have tried to edit this before registering, but had it deleted. (As far as having this section under the entry at all, I'm neutral on this. People can distinguish, if they research it, between "fringe" and "mainstream" conspiracy theories, and the information about David Icke is covered elsewhere.) Thanks. Mirtar (talk) 15:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I have simply removed the libellous quotation, since the request above has been online for three weeks. (Mirtar) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.111.34.212 (talk) 18:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I concur with the removal, even though it's not libelous, not being controversial. It seems to be from the Phoenix New Times article, but as a quasi-quote from an unnamed Anti-Defamation League spokesman, but the needed attributions would be too confusing.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course it's controversial. And if it wasn't, it could still be libellous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.111.38.235 (talk) 18:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course it's not controversial nor libelous. Even if it were libelous, we could report it if we could find who actually said it, and report that fact.  But we have no idea who said it; a somewhat-unreliable newspaper quoting an (claimed) unnamed ADL spokesman.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I, the source in my paragraph above, and many others call it into question, and David Icke has never said or implied that shape-shifting aliens=jews. I don't understand how this imputation isn't controversial. (It's neither here nor there if we know who stated it in that citation.) It's worth mentioning that this misreading of Icke, and it's origins, are well-documented in Jon Ronson's book Them: Adventures with Extremists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.111.34.155 (talk) 00:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Flight 77 Cabin door never opened
Worth adding is a report from an independent Australian researcher. Found here: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=18405 It states that the door to flight 77 never opened drawing the conclusion that the hijackers were never able to enter the flight cabin and able to fly the plane. Leitmotiv (talk) 07:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "Report from an independent Australian researcher" is being very generous here. We need a better source than a claim on a conspiracy theorist forum. Hut 8.5 21:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Independent for sure. Australian yes. Researcher... definitely. The flight data was available to everyone and provided by the government. It just took someone to know what they were looking at to realize the sensor for the cabin door remained closed during the entire flight. This a big new development and worthy of mention in the main article once more of the details are fleshed out. Leitmotiv (talk) 21:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "Researcher" seems doubtful. However, it might be worthy of note in this article if reported on by a reliable source.  (Anything with "911truth" in it is unlikely to be a reliable source.)  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Researcher is a pretty open ended term. Apparently he is a computer programmer too. A computer programmer might be more reliable an interpreter of data than the average joes, like that of which can be found here. And the conspiracy theorist forum is full of technical speak by pilots, who seem to know what they are talking about. I'm so sick of those two words, conspiracy theorist. At the very core is critical thinking as opposed to blind ignorance.Leitmotiv (talk) 22:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly. The height anomaly reported by Pf911T would be easily accounted for by an error in the air pressure correction.  I believe that's the "official" story, but Pf911T never considered it.  This one might be important, except that internal door sensors were not and may still not be considered critical equipment.  You'd have to check the maintenance log (which may not be available under the FOIA) to see whether the door sensor was out, and it might not even be there.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 23:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * According to pilots, if the door sensor was inoperable it would read "#ERROR." It did not. It read "0" for closed the whole flight. A "1" would have indicated the door was open. I'm sure there will be more found out about this. Leitmotiv (talk) 23:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure there will be more found out about this; probably that it's not the cabin door sensor. But we still need a reliable source, even in the context of conspiracy theories.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 23:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I like your theory that it's not the cabin door. I think I will have to bow out. I've notified the discussion panel of another important development in the conspiracy theory and I think it bears paying attention to for a future addition. Leitmotiv (talk) 23:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Apparently aircraft of that type have no sensor on the cabin door, only later models have one. 88.112.56.9 (talk) 13:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)