Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories/Archive 29

William Tahil's Nuclear Demolition
William Tahil has proposed (and seems to earnestly believe) that a nuclear meltdown (or a couple) was/were intentionally triggered deep below the towers on 9/11. Um...Wow. And here I thought I'd heard it all. While this is sufficiently bonkers to qualify alongside the other nuttiness in this article, is it too obscure to warrant a mention? The next thing you know someone will claim that a bunch of lizardmen rule the world. Oh...wait. (buries face in palm and shakes head) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.254.86.20 (talk) 05:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Too obscure, I'd say. I don't even know what kind of mechanism he could propose that would turn a nuclear meltdown into collapsing a building in this manner. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 00:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't even know what kind of mind comes up with such ideas. And who is William Tahil? Someone whose opinion should carry some weight? HiLo48 (talk) 00:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

this sentence must be reliably sourced or removed
"Just before 9/11 there was an "extraordinary" amount of put options placed on United Airlines and American Airlines stocks"
 * It's totally unproven BS and should be removed. 98.118.62.140 (talk) 14:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The new sourcing is seems to be little improvement, I wouldn't consider globalresearch.ca a reliable source. SK (talk) 16:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

What all sides of this debate conveniently forget
Minoru Yamasaki did WTC! 198.151.130.69 (talk) 05:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ... what's your point? &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 13:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The man who constructed the World Trade Center died way before 9/11 what does this have to do with 9/11 conspiracy theories? Edkollin (talk) 21:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * According to one of the theories, explosives have been planted in the buildings already during construction, but I'm not sure whether 198.151.130.69 intends to allude to this. Neither am I sure that there are any reliable sources reporting on that theory. Cs32en   Talk to me  22:10, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 9/11 was planned already in the early 70s? Somehow, it is getting even more reachy. I guess long-term conspiracies are popular now with the birthers running around. 64.180.40.100 (talk) 17:33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

If a source uses all caps - is it proper to fix it?
I added a speech from John Buchanan from his own campaign web site. Practice has been that a person's own words on a campaign web site are citable as fact for what he said, and not for anything else. The problem is that his web site uses all caps. Should the quote be "fixed"? Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It should be transcribed, in my opinion. SK (talk) 20:07, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * No, I don't think so.  MOS:QUOTE says to preserve the original text, spelling, punctuation, bold and italics as written by the author.  Although casing isn't specifically mentioned, preserving case seems to fit the spirit of what the MoS is saying. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:19, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Self-published sources can be used as valid sources for the opinion of the person who has published the respective source, but only in articles about that sources, or, although this is generally to be avoided, if the person is a recognized expert in a relevant field. So maybe there are good reasons to included self-published sources for statements of experts on nuclear energy in the article on the Fukushima nuclear disaster, as the academic publishing process takes time, but there is no particular reason to include such sources here. Anyway, neither is John Buchanan an expert in a relevant field, nor does he express an academic opinion. Cs32en   Talk to me  20:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The claim is that a presidential candidate holds a specific position. His speeches are RS for asserting what his position is in his own words as made in his specific speeches.   No use of the words other than as a quotation in order to show that he used those words would be proper, and that is precisely the use made.  See Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_61.  I rather think the use is not "unduly self-serving" by the way.   Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:45, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Close, but not exactly. Self-published sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities.  In this particular case, Collect is using an SPS for information relating to Buchanan and his activities (running for for president on a 9/11 "Truth" platform).  In any case, we're already doing this plenty of times in the article with cites to 911Truth.org, stj911.org,  www.physics911.net, etc. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * While his website is perfectly acceptable under WP:SELFPUB for his speech and his positions, I think we need to keep WP:SECONDARY in mind for sources regarding his candidacy. I've added the secondary source for his candidacy that was in Buchanan's article, but I now see that it's only a preview to the full article, which requires a subscription. I believe that this is allowable, so long as the publication information is present, though I'd personally prefer it if someone would replace that preview link with one that was not a mere preview or required a subscription. Nightscream (talk) 23:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Regarding the use of self-published sources, there are two problems: authenticity and notability. While the authenticity is probably not in question with regard to the self-published source presented by Collect, the notability is. That has been resolved, in my view, with the secondary source provided by Nightscream. In my view, and I would add that this is probably a gray area in the policy, if a secondary source exist that establishes the notability of an opinion or position put forward by a person or institution, then authentic self-published sources may be used to reflect that opinion or position more accurately. Those sources should, however, not be used to expand freely beyond what is being reported in secondary sources. Cs32en   Talk to me  00:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * the source is a presidential campaign site of a person who is specifically notable (has his own WP article). The candidacy was reported in secondary sources.   The speech text, however, is not found in secondary sources, but is reliably sourced to the campaign.  Such text is generally accepted on Wikipedia as being a true source of what the candidate said.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 05:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The fact that a person is notable does not imply that a specific statement of that person would also be notable. Cs32en   Talk to me  15:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Request: Can someone add the secondary source at 9/11 Truth movement‎‎? I can't do that, right now, due to general editing restriction (1RR) that apply to this article? Cs32en  Talk to me  00:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Done. Wildbear (talk) 01:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * There isn't a 1RR restriction on 9/11 Truth movement as far as I can tell.  What gave you that idea?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe you're right, the article is under AE but not 1RR specifically. Cs32en   Talk to me  14:59, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Collect: "The candidacy was reported in secondary sources."

Only one source is in Buchanan's article for the candidacy, and as aforementioned, it is restricted from public view. Nightscream (talk) 15:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

How many secondary sources are needed? Yep - his position is covered in sufficient sources. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Misleading Language in Pentagon Section
I have to take issue with the following sentence at the end of the section on the Pentagon:

"The videos show an aircraft striking the building at high speed."

The word aircraft in this context implies that these videos do indeed show a commercial passenger jet hitting the Pentagon, thus proving once and for all that is what happened. If you have taken the time to actually watch those videos you can see that they prove almost nothing for either side. It's impossible to tell what's happening in any of them, let alone prove that it was a commercial passenger jet, or a missile. Some kind of revision in language is necessary here. Something like:

"The videos show an impossible to identify object hit the building at high speed."

Or something of the like. Using the word aircraft here is disingenuous. Any thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThinkForYourself123 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, it does show an aircraft. Whether it's discernable is another question.  I haven't seen the video in a while, so I honestly don't remember.  But I checked the source and the opening sentence states, "The US justice department has released the first video of the plane crashing into the Pentagon on 11 September 2001."  That seems to confirm what our article says.  Do you have a reliable source which says otherwise? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, I definitely see your point. How about:

"The videos reportedly show an aircraft striking the building at high speed."

I'd say that's pretty accurate. What do you think?

P.S. Please forgive my comment formating. I'm slowly figuring it out :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThinkForYourself123 (talk • contribs) 19:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * See WP:WEASEL Mystylplx (talk) 19:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What he said. The source states that it is an airplane, and we have nothing to contradict that. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 22:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The word "reportedly" is not biased and is not a weasel word in this case. It's the word that accurately describes the situation. The videos, in fact, do not "show an aircraft striking the building at high speed," because it's impossible to tell what the object is from viewing the videos. Now, it is true that the sources you point to report that the videos show the impact of Flight 77, and that is how this needs to be portrayed in the article.

We're supposed to take it on faith that it was indeed a commercial airliner, because that is what we've been told by the media, but this entire conversation has to include the possibility that the media hasn’t been told the entire truth. Otherwise this is no longer an article about 9/11 conspiracy theories, it’s an article about regurgitating the media’s debunking campaign. In this case, it’s only fair to the article that something be done to temper the phrase:

"The videos show an aircraft striking the building at high speed."

This sentence implies that these videos are the end of the discussion, and that it’s a fact that the impact of Flight 77 is what is portrayed in them. Please watch the videos again. There is no way of being able to tell what is hitting the Pentagon from viewing them. The only thing we do know, as fact, is that the sources you point to report that’s what is happening in the video. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThinkForYourself123 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It's a weasel word. It implies doubt that doesn't exist in reliable sources. Also see the policy on verifiability not truth. Mystylplx (talk) 03:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia isn't here to "include the possibility that the media hasn't been told the entire truth." See WP:TRUTH. An encyclopedia only reports what's already been published in reliable sources. Trying to infer meaning from the video is against our policies. We're not going to "temper the phrase," because that means asserting our own view of what the video shows. An encyclopedia isn't meant for that. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 11:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree, The videos show an aircraft is misleadingly implying that the aircraft is discernable in the video. The US justice department has released the first video of the plane crashing into the Pentagon (BBC) does not imply that a plane is discernable in the video. Here's what is said in the BBC video (linked from the article, under the picture): "At first it's hard to make out the hijacked plane. But look closely at the lower right-hand corner. The white blob entering the frame appears to be the nose of the plane, skidding along the ground before crashing into the Pentagon. That adds to images from a second security camera, ten feet away, which show a white streak in the lower right-hand corner, then the explosion." (emphasis added). The Judicial Watch page does not say a plane is seen in the videos at all. --V111P (talk) 09:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The BBC is perfectly entitled to publish original research (such as analyzing the video and coming to a conclusion). Wikipedia, however, may not.  Plenty of reliable secondary sources unambiguously state that the videos show an airplane (e.g., the very first google result, for me:  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12818225/). Nandesuka (talk) 12:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The videos show the airplane, not an airplane. We "know" it's the airplane, but not from the videos. MSNBC: The airplane is a thin white blur on the video. Yes, I'm afraid "The videos show an aircraft striking the building at high speed" is original research, so I changed that sentence to read: The videos do not clearly show an airplane. so that it better reflects what the majority of reliable sources say. I also considered, and we can use something like that instead if you think that would be better,: The image of the airplane which appears in the videos has been described as "[a] white blob" and "a white streak" (BBC), "thin white blur" (Associated Press), and "a silver speck low to the ground" (The Washington Post). --V111P (talk)
 * (oops) On the contrary, we have sources which say "The videos show an aircraft striking the building at high speed." It would be absurd to say otherwise.  On the other hand, if a reliable source says otherwise, and it is not corrected in a later article from the same reliable source, that should also be noted.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 23:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, first you can cite your sources, and than we can argue which ones are better, or we can say there are conflicting interpretations. What you can't do, however, is to put unsourced statements back into the article, as you just did. --V111P (talk) 00:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * There's no argument here. Every source identifies the image/videos as Flight 77 and that's how we'll report it. A description of the appearance is not relevant to the fact (as reported in RS) that it is indeed Flight 77. RxS (talk) 04:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Can't we use WP:SENSE in this case? --Solde9 (talk) 21:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Deletion
"When Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, one wing hit the ground and the other was sheared off by the Pentagon's load-bearing columns." So where are they in the photos? Big things, no?--andreasegde (talk) 23:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC) The above was deleted, as it was supposedly not about the article. The sentence quoted is actually in the article. If this comment is deleted again, I will take the matter further.--andreasegde (talk) 09:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a photo service, and talk pages are not a forum for discussing photos or interpreting them. Wikipedia does not interpret, it reports on reliable sources. So the question would be: is the sentence sourced. Answer: yes, it is. Sören Koopmann (talk) 09:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The page referenced is not the page that talks about the Pentagon. After finding the correct page, I found this: "one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns." This article uses "one wing hit the ground and the other was sheared off by the Pentagon's load-bearing columns." Notice the similarity? Apart from that, my point is that not all published sources should be accepted as gospel. If a wing "hit the ground", it did not hit the building. Mete Sozen is a civil engineer, so I'm sure he is well able to talk about the Pentagon's columns, but not aeroplanes.--andreasegde (talk) 10:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Your conclusion does not follow. A wing hit the ground, but the entire plane smashed into the Pentagon. You're assuming that the wing which hit the ground sheared off and should be visible outside. The cited source does not state that. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 16:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not assuming anything. If a wing hit the ground, it is not stated in the article that it later hit the building. That's the problem here. Clarity is paramount.--andreasegde (talk) 19:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There's nothing unclear about the article statement. You literally quoted our article saying "one wing hit the ground." You're arguing semantics to say that our article implies the wing hit the Pentagon; that's pedantry. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 20:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, but "our article" is alarming, and very shocking. Do you really think you control this? Please read WP:OWN, to learn more.--andreasegde (talk) 20:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You seem to be very confused. What about our article is alarming? And I use "our" as the collective, as it belongs to all Wikipedia editors. So please do not accuse me of ownership simply because we disagree. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 21:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you should get back to the point. Mete Sozen is a civil engineer, meaning he is qualified to talk about the structure of the Pentagon. In the referenced article, it says, "Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings: 'What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass'." He is not qualified to know that. BTW, I have put quotation marks in "our" article, and a reference from Purdue University.--andreasegde (talk) 06:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No answer?--andreasegde (talk) 21:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I was attending to real-life issues the past few days. And I really don't have anything to say to your comment about Sozen, as it seems unrelated to what we were discussing before. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 16:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Why is Donald Rumsfeld's 'slip up' not mentioned in this article?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNuosBnlw5s —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.6.63.181 (talk) 22:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * In order to mention it, we would need a reliable source to establish that the the 9/11 truth movement regards this is one of its central points of contention. If you can provide a source per WP:V and WP:IRS, then we can add it. Nightscream (talk) 23:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd be surprised if we couldn't find a WP:RS for it. The reason why it's not in the article is probably because no one thought of adding it or because this is an article, not a book, and some details are obviously going to be omitted.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


 * In the video it is Donald Rumsfeld who is talking. That doesn't convert that video in a reliable source automatically? --Solde9 (talk) 01:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of entire Building 7 subsection
Why was this entire subsection on WTC Building 7 completely deleted, along with the supporting reliable sources? Is it irrelevant? Is it somehow biased or misleading? Are the sources unreliable? You really should give a precise reason for deleting an entire section of an article along with all the support references:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories&diff=430572843&oldid=430470741 Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. Or it is a special article talking about the building 7 conspiracy somewhere else? If no, it should be mention here. --Solde9 (talk) 01:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There is an article 7 World Trade Center, but the conspiracy theory material seems more appropriate in this article. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Solde9: We have an entire article devoted to World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories which includes a full section on Building 7.
 * Ghostofnemo: I don't know why you're asking this question considering you participated in the last discussion about this very thing.  Please see WP:ICANTHEARYOU.  Anyway, you are exhausting the community's patience and you've been warned about this multiple times.  See you at WP:ANI.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * My apologies. --Solde9 (talk) 18:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

You 9/11 truthers are wasting your time because you don't get it. There is a strong consensus here that the "conspiracy theories" are wacko fringe. This discussion board is as predictable as the sun coming up in the east. Newbie adds truther information, veteran editor takes it out. Truther squawks. Veteran editors win and item does not get in because the vast majority of editors support the veteran editor and the veterans do have a greater knowledge of the guidelines then the truthers for the most part. All is quiet for awhile before the process starts over again. LIHOP May 31 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.225.141.253 (talk) 21:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * While most editors here are not "truthers" and believe the theories to be fringe the picture the unsigned user is painting was close to the truth 3 years ago but not now. Nutjobs and wacko and tinhat was language commonly used in these discussion pages and one editor stated it was the job of editors to promote the Popular Mechanics article debunking 9/11 CT's. I even proposed a a topics ban based on WP:SNOWBALL the consensus just seemed so strong to it did seem pointless to me to debate certain topics further. Well I was proven wrong. For ages there was a very strong consensus against putting the Architects and Engineers Petition and the "thermite" study in the article.  That material is in the article. In the history section is also material discussion how 9/11 is different from typical conspiracy theories (although there is plenty of material discussing mindset similarities). Edkollin (talk) 22:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It does appear that this deletion violates WP:NPOV: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." I've been threatened with a topic ban for reinserting the material! What do the other editors think about this issue? Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Here is the last time it was this issue was debated.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:9/11_conspiracy_theories/Archive_28#Total_deletion_of_Building_7_section My opinion is the same as it was then, that what Wikipedia guidelines considers reliable sources by any stretch of the imagination have deemed building 7 theories central to the 9/11 conspiracy theories. The article needs to reflect what these sources are saying. The last debate on the subject was is January. If the last debate was last week it would be badgering to bring it up again, but relating to what I told the unsigned user there is no such thing as a permanent consensus, 5 + months is enough time to try and reopen a debate I probably would have went here first rather then put it in the article.  Edkollin (talk) 22:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If the New York Times is reporting that WTC 7 is considered by conspiracy theorists to be perhaps "the most compelling evidence of a cover-up or inside job" then surely it deserves to be mentioned in an article about 9/11 conspiracy theories. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * How about a "request for comment" WP:RfC? Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Mcdo5454, 11 June 2011
Based on recent polls, such as a 2011 CNN poll, now 84% of Americans believe that the US government knew the attack would occur or planned the attack. Only 16% now believe that foreign cave dwellers were involved in the attacks. Thousands of engineers, pilots, military officers, professors and others also agreed that there is overwhelming evident to show that nano-thermite and RXD were used to bring the towers down. Nano-thermite and RXD were found in every dusk sample taken.

Mcdo5454 (talk) 20:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you cite or link to the specific poll? Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 23:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

EDIT REQUEST RE:== In a 2008 poll of 17 countries, 15% of those surveyed believed the US government was responsible for the attacks, 7% believed Israel was and another 7% believed some other perpetrator, other than al Qaeda, was responsible ==

This has no citation, no information on WHO conducted the poll, no mention of which countries were surveyed. These are all important things to include in any survey data as the entity conducting the poll and the demographic surveyed can make an enormous impact on the results of the survey. For example: I could conduct a survey that shows that 85% of the people surveyed believe women use sexual harassment as a control mechanism and most cases are false accusations, sounds pretty overwhelming until you realize 90 percent of those surveyed are people who have been terminated from employment for claims of sexual harassment. ALWAYS LIST A SOURCE IN A SURVEY AND A DEMOGRAPHIC PLEASE

Sagecorliss (talk)Sage

Edit request from Tfdavisatsnetnet, 11 July 2011
It seems that the Criticism section is becoming contaminated by pro-conspiracy theory rebuttals, some of which are not pertinent to specific criticisms. Can these be removed from this section and possibly moved to a new 'Responses to Criticism' section? This paragraph in particular is a criticism of the critics and so does not belong in a Criticism section:

"Historian Kenneth J. Dillon argues that 9/11 conspiracy theories represent an overly easy target for skeptics and that their criticisms obfuscate the underlying issue of what actually happened if there was not a conspiracy. He suggests that the answer is criminal negligence on the part of the president and vice president, who were repeatedly warned, followed by a cover-up conspiracy after 9/11.[247] This was expanded upon by columnist Matt Mankelow writing for the online edition of the British Socialist Worker. He concludes that 9/11 truthers while "desperately trying to legitimately question a version of events" end up playing into the hands of the neoconservatives they are trying to take down by creating a diversion. Mankelow noted that this has irritated many people who are politically left wing.[248]"
 * This paragraph is not at all a "pro conspiracy theory rebuttal". It contains claims that the 9/11 conspiracy theories are causing certain negative effects. Making a claim that the 9/11 theories are having negative effects is not a response to criticism but is a criticism. Edkollin (talk) 19:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

That intention is difficult to determine from the wording. It seems circular. Can it be clarified? Who is the "their" in this sentence: "Historian Kenneth J. Dillon argues that 9/11 conspiracy theories represent an overly easy target for skeptics and that their criticisms obfuscate the underlying issue of what actually happened if there was not a conspiracy."? Simplifying the sentence could read: "Skeptical critics of conspiracy theories obfuscate what actually happened if there was no conspiracy.", or "9/11 conspiracy theorists' criticisms obfuscate what actually happened if there was no conspiracy." I see your point that the second simplification appears to be the intent, but I had to reread it several times to be sure. Should it be that difficult?

There is a similar problem with the Mankelow quote "...this has irritated many people who are politically left wing" in that the position of these "many people" regarding the conspiracy theories is not specified. Do these "many people" disbelieve the theories, or do they believe them but view them as impolitic, or a mixture of both? Specificity here would aid comprehension.


 * Having reread the actual sources I do find misleading unclear material but not what you find unclear. The subject of the Dillon article is "Anomalous Mistake-driven Opportunity Creation" (AMOC)." AMOC occurs when a government official charged with a certain problem commits an extraordinary error--one so inconceivable that no one can imagine that he/she has perpetrated it" Dillon argues that Bush and Chaney were so incompetent prior to 9/11 that no can imagine it. He then goes to argue the "real" conspiracy was covering up this incompetence. Marlowe wrote this "The second type is a different breed. They are desperately trying to legitimately question a version of events, however mistaken in their conclusions.
 * But they irritate many on the left who feel that the 9/11 truthers have succumbed to exotic ideas that supposedly unmask a cover-up but which actually allow the real cover-up to go unchecked.
 * The real story of 9/11 is a tale of US foreign policy backfiring, with its roots in British and US involvement in the Middle East for decades.
 * But the truth movement, in its attempt to challenge the neocons who took us to war, merely plays into their hands. It creates a canny diversion from addressing the real questions."


 * The articles language for Mankelow does reflect the sources meaning. These "many" left wingers are irritated that the 9/11 truthers because they divert attention from real conspiracy carried out by neo conservatives to cover up a failed foreign policy. Do these left wingers also believe in the 9/11 conspiracy theories? Mankelow doesn't discuss this so we can't be more specific.(In my experience most liberals and left wingers think the neocons and Bush are morons incapable of pulling off what the 9/11 truthers say they did)  While "many" is a Wikipedia weasel word it is also an exact quote that should not be expanded upon by an editor trying to figure out what he meant.


 * So my recommendations would be to reword the Dillon material to reflect the AMOC theory and how that diverted from the "real coverup". Instead of expanding upon Dillon's theory I would say that Mankelow had a theory with similar themes involving a diversion from a real post 9/11 coverup of failures. I still see no "pro conspiracy theory rebuttals"  Edkollin (talk) 21:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Edkollin, please bear with me on this. This article is on 911 conspiracy theories, and this section is on Criticism of these theories. The use of the word "conspiracy" to describe a cover-up is confusing here. The phrase "real conspiracy" in this discussion is similarly distracting. A conspiracy to hide government incompetence is a conspiracy as much as any truther conspiracy, so why is this not in a list of conspiracies, at least as an alternate kind of conspiracy (I'm not asking to move it, I'm asking to encourage thinking about how this is presented)? In a sense, because it apparently denies the validity of truther conspiracies but postulates another conspiracy, it is really neither fish nor fowl for the opposing sections of this article. You've convinced me that it is not a rebuttal of criticism; yet, most critics of 911 conspiracy theories take he government's side, more or less, and so a criticism that doesn't is again, different.

I have a few thoughts. Do you think it might make more sense to create a new Wiki article on AMOC where this can be spelled out in more detail along the lines of your discussion post above, and then reference it in this article? There currently is no such article. There is a lot packed into the sentence on Kenneth Dillion, and doing this may make it more readable. I am not familiar with Dillion's article, and perhaps it holds other examples outside of 911 that can be described in a separate article, and so can be linked from other articles as well. Also, please don't take offense, but I have the feeling that you are much more familiar with this material than most people, and that you are not looking at this the way that someone new to the material sees it. BTW, I do like the change that you apparently made. That new second sentence in the paragraph does help.


 * Dillon Article
 * Mankelow Article
 * As far as AMOC, if there is nobody else proposing the theory there is probably no need for a separate article for it, but we still need to discuss it here to more accurately describe Dillon's point of view.
 * There use to be language in the article discussing incompetence cover up and incompetence conspiracy theories, why it disappeared I don't know. My guess is while any theory claiming cover up of incompetence is literally a 9/11 conspiracy theory in common parlance "9/11 conspiracy theories" refer to Make It Happen(MIHOP) and Let It Happen(LIHOP) theories(really very few discussions are about LIHOP theories these days but most explanations of 9/11 conspiracy theories do make a brief mention mention of LIHOP). As seen in this section and the media section of the incompetence is generally used to rebut "9/11 conspiracy theories". Think of it like saying I am going to TIVO my favorite program. Most likely they are not literally not using a TIVO device but a modem provided by their cable provider. Edkollin (talk) 16:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Marking request as answered while discussion is going also based on heading the original requestor can edit the article as well.Jnorton7558 (talk) 06:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Lovepompitus, 19 July 2011
The title of this article should be changed to 9/11 Alternate Theories to more accurately reflect reality and to avoid the negative connotation of the word conspiracy.

Lovepompitus (talk) 20:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * . A long-term consensus that "alternate" or "alternative" are not accurate descriptions of the theories.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk)
 * Yes it has been debated for years but not recently. There is no permanent consensus. While I favor reopening the debate, as I noted above in another section the common parlance in reliable sourcing remains "9/11 conspiracy theories" so we need to follow that. Edkollin (talk) 21:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of petition description
Why was the description of this petition deleted? It's notable information that is supported by the reliable sources cited: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories&diff=440239510&oldid=440238603 Ghostofnemo (talk) 03:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Like it or not that one organization and it's leader is mentioned while very rarely are the other petitioners. The local press regularly posts notices of their meetings when they come to town. Edkollin (talk) 21:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As we've discussed before, there are petitions and there are petitions. A petition signed by more than 1000 architects and engineers is clearly more notable than one signed by 300 average citizens. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ghostofnemo: You participated in the previous discussions why this was rejected, so I don't understand why you're even asking this question. Are you saying that you don't remember why?  There's search function you can use to search the talk page archives.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It was not rejected. Some editors wanted it in, and some editors just deleted it anyway, despite the fact that it is NPOV, well-sourced, and highly relevant to the article. Ghostofnemo (talk) 16:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You didn't answer my question. Can you try again? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I remember the discussion; my recollection is that no consensus was reached. Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:35, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm a newcomer to this page, Ghostofnemo, but looking at your posts and the archives of this page, it is clear that you refuse to acknowledge consensus views when you don't like the consensus. Niremetal (talk) 04:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You might want to check the definition of consensus sometime. If the opinion is split and about half the editors have strong objections to something, that's not consensus. Also, I might note that there used to be a consensus that the earth was flat and was at the center of the universe. There cannot be a consensus to keep factual, neutrally worded, reliably sourced, relevant material out of articles. Well, ideally there can't be, but I guess since this is Wikipedia, anything is possible. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

3.1.3 Israeli agents - addition suggestion
What do editors feel about adding the following to the 3.1.3 Israeli agents subection?

FBI spokesman Margolin said: "Their explanation of why they were happy was that the United States would now have to commit itself to fighting [Middle East] terrorism, that Americans would have an understanding and empathy for Israel's circumstances, and that the attacks were ultimately a good thing for Israel". Yet the Israelis' were witnessed celebratiing on the New Jersey waterfront during the first sixteen minutes after the initial crash, from the time the first plane hit the north tower at 8:46 a.m., to the time the second plane hit the south tower, at 9:02 a.m. At that time the overwhelming assumption of news outlets and government officials was that the plane's impact was simply a terrible accident. It was only after the second plane hit that suspicions were aroused. The journalist Christopher Ketcham has pointed out that if the men were cheering for the reasons given to the FBI, then they obviously believed they were witnessing a terrorist act and not an accident. Oded Ellner admitted on Israeli TV: "We are coming from a country that experiences terror daily. Our purpose was to document the event". This would imply that they thought they were documenting with film and video a terrorist act before anyone knew it was a terrorist act. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 14:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Your conclusion does not follow the facts stated. People in the US military, worldwide were summoned to conference rooms and mess halls to gather in front of the TV long before the second airliner hit. The summons was to watch an attack on New York. Thus, depending on your background, you would be certain or confused as to whether the first collision was an attack. It is reasonable to presume that a person in Israel would identify the first collision as an attack. Stapler80 (talk) 03:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Excuse me but nothin there is "my opinion" and nothing there is my own conclusion, as you put it. I merely contributed something to the article from a secondary source that adds detail to the incident with what has become known as "the five dancing israelis" and its relevance to conspiracy theories surrounding 911.
 * What you or I consider "is reasonable to assume" is not relevant. Do you have an issue with the above that is based upon wiki policy?
 * As for "long before the second airliner hit"... there were only seventeen minutes between them. So what you wrote appears to be only your opinion, (or do you have a reliable secondary source that states the above). Either way, it does not detract from the information and conclusion provided by the journalist I cited.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 11:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Re Terrillja's recent undo:
 * I am assuming the intent of this article is to document what the main conspiracy theories are. If that is correct, may I request that the following points be addressed somehow.
 * At present the section on the Israeli agents does not fully detail the conspiracy theories concerning them, nor the reasons for the belief in their alleged foreknowledge. I would like to attempt to improve that.
 * If someone wants to rewrite what has just been added and then undone/deleted, I am fine with that.
 * But as it stands now, this subsection appears to wish to downplay and explain away the theories, not just document them. There thus seems to be a WP:NPOV infringement here with this undo. Any thoughts anyone? Therefore saying the Huffington Post is not a neutral source as a reason seems not relevant (and a tad ironic). 'Is it a reliable secondary source for details of a 911 conspiracy theory', seems to me to be the more appropriate question. Any thoughts anyone? Terrillja?--Mystichumwipe (talk) 14:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Clarification My comment was mostly my opinion. But the part of "long before" is sourced to actual recollections of military personell I have knowledge for. I'm sure there are reliable sources documenting the fact that military personell was summoned to watch the attack on New York on live TV. "This would imply that they thought they were documenting with film and video a terrorist act before anyone knew it was a terrorist act." is the opinion I responded to. It seemed to me that it was your opinion. But as you clarify it was the journalist opinion. But an opinion nonetheless that expresses a POV. If this journalist's opinion was to be allowed the military POV would also have to be presented. It seems to me as too much weight in light that the only proponent of that POV is a journalist not a conspiracy theorists. Stapler80 (talk) 14:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. Regarding this that you wrote: "...too much weight in light that the only proponent of that POV is a journalist not a conspiracy theorist". I think this raises problems of how to define such. And why is that even necessary? This Wiki article is about the conspiracy theories NOT about the people who hold them. The cited journalist documents this particular theory. At present this Wiki article does not accurately detail the theory. It dismisses it by showing 'foreknowledge' is not held by officialdom (in this case the FBI). I suggest that the article would be improved by having both: i.e. 1.) the details of the 'foreknowledge'theory AND 2.) the consensus view of that. At present we only have the latter.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 12:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Should we add a section for Judicial Test Cases?
There is no mention in this article of the various attempts made at testing the conspiracy using the courts. Just this spring the 2nd Circuit dismissed the Gallop case that claimed the Pentagon was hit by a rocket or other explosive as frivolous. There was the Stitch case that I have yet to read, and a consolidated multidistrict case that claimed a laser type weapon destroyed the WTC; both in New York. And there is a new case in Denver that claims Article III standing by challenging the post 9/11 security measures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stapler80 (talk • contribs) 15:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC) Stapler80 (talk) 03:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: You need to be more specific about what needs to be done, and you need reliable sources supporting your change. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * There are court opinions of the second circuit and Southern District of New York. As well as DOJ memorandums in PACER. Are these citable? Stapler80 (talk) 19:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * If they make specific arguments for or against 9/11 Truther claims, then yes. Nightscream (talk) 20:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You are confusing conspiracy theorists (and disinformation agents) with "Truthers". This article is about conspiracy theories, not 9/11 Truth.  "Truthers" would be among the first to argue that allegations of a rocket hitting the Pentagon or lasers destroying the WTC buildings should not go to court, as there is no evidence supporting such claims.  Wildbear (talk) 21:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Truthers are conspiracy theorists. There's a few people who question specific parts of the events, but the 9/11 Truth movement is dominated by conspiracists. The well has been poisoned there; anyone who seriously just wants to re-examine specific events would do well to distance themselves from that group. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 23:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that the 9/11 Truth movement is a "group" or "organization" as such. (And thus it can't be avoided the way that one can avoid a group or organization.)  Rather, I would define it as a collective term for all persons who openly question the official account of events and/or call for a new investigation. Any questioning of the official account is usually sufficient to earn someone the "truther" title; if there is a way to question or seek investigation on the 9/11 matter and simultaneously avoid the "truther" title, I don't recall seeing it defined.  If what I have stated here is a fair definition of "truther", then using "truther" as a defining term for 9/11 conspiracy theorists may be overly broad and, in some cases, a misdefinition.  If what I have written is not a good definition for "truther", proposals for a better definition are welcome.  Wildbear (talk) 02:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The cases that have gone to court have been dismissed. The laser weapon cases were dismised for lack of standing. The rocket pentagon case was dimissed by President Bush's cousin sitting as appeals judge as frivolous without even an formal answer from the government. The pleadings were aimed at testing the conspiracy theory but were not allowed to proceed. Stapler80 (talk) 01:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Commenting out edit request while discussion is going on. Jnorton7558 (talk) 09:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Why was the link to the Rumsfled interview deleted? http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=3845 "...Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.135.72.159 (talk) 22:58, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Jones has not explained how the amount of explosive needed ... / NIST Investigation scope
I am opening this section to discuss the aforesaid claim that no explosives scenario has been explained. Jim Hoffman has published such scenario http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/blasting_scenario.html The question is can this reference be cited?

I am also adding to this discussiong the NPOV issue aparent when the holes to the theorists are readily exposed and the holes of the official versions are not. The following language was deleted by QuestforKnowledge because as he puts it "are of questionable relevance":

''The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) concluded the accepted version was more than sufficient to explain the initiation of collapse of the buildings. The NIST investigation was limited to the collapse initiation analysis and did not dwelved into the actual fall of the towers. cite web|title=NCSTAR 1,WTC Investigation, Executive Summary at xxxvi "Simulation ..."|url=http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201.pdf|accessdate=22 July 2011''

Another NPOV issue is the total silence as to the fact that the underground fires were burning for more than 90 days and a firefighther described the amount poured on it as that of a giant lake. http://web.archive.org/web/20081226231906/http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/12/19/archive/main321907.shtml

The scope of the NIST investigation the is relevant in the light that the article appears to state that all official organizations back the NIST report and the average user would easily assume that the NIST investigation was a full blown rather than the limited investigation that it was.

The fact that the fightfighters describe the water poured on Ground Zero as a Giant Lake neutralizes the allegation that the excavation equipment would melt. Here another NPOV issue.

The allegation that Jones has not explained the thermite scenario is charged in the light that a self plublishe scenario is published plausibly arguing that ceiling tiles and paint were the explosives. NPOV issue. Stapler80 (talk) 19:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The NIST report does indeed explain the collapse/fall of the towers. You use "collapse" and "fall" to mean different things when the language of the report clearly does not. The mean of the report's title is fairly clear. There is nothing in that report that indicates it is restricted only to the beginning of the collapse, rather than its entirety. If there is and I missed it, can you point it out?


 * The "giant lake" comment does not "neutralize" the fact that excavation equipment would be damaged if it met molten steel. In the first place, you need to cite a source to establish that this a Truther argument, as it does not appear in the 12.19.01 CBS source. In the second place, the comment is by one person, Tom Manhley, and not "firefighters" in the plural. Lastly, the word "lake" was clearly used as a bit of shorthand or metaphor, and not some precise measurement:


 * "'You couldn't even begin to imagine how much water was pumped in there,' said Tom Manley of the Uniformed Firefighters Association, the largest fire department union. 'It was like you were creating a giant lake.'"


 * That Jones has not explained aspects of the thermite scenario is derived from the cited sources in the article. By contrast, no one has provided any reliable sources about tiles or paint being explosives. If you have any, then please cite them.


 * As it is, I see nothing here that constitutes a "NPOV issue". Nightscream (talk) 20:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I cited the source of the thermite scenario (scroll up). I asked for a review of its reliability as a source.


 * I believe the 12.19.01 article does say that the water was sprayed on a 24 hours basis. But I found no truther article making that exact claim. I am concerned about OR and NPOV as it is clearly evident from the picture and the 12.19.01 article that the excavation equipment was being cooled by water hoses. I mean, if I change the article to correct the NPOV it would look like OR. But if the melting excavator claim is left to stand, the article is evidently biased. I attempted describing the photo but that was challenged a not Wiki style. Please comment further.


 * Yes, you missed something. And the fact that you rely on the title of the NIST report is more evidence of the NPOV issue as it is misleading. Read the pecific Executive Summary page cited:
 * The scarcity of phyical evidence that is typically available in place for recontruction of a disaster led to the following approach:
 * Simulations of the behavior of each tower on September 11,2001. in four steps:
 * 1. The aircraft impact into the tower, the resulting ditribution of aviation fuel, and the damage to the structure, partition. thermal inulation materials, and building contents.
 * 2. The evolution of multi-floor fires.
 * 3. The heating and consequent weakening of the structural element by the fires.
 * 4. The respone of the damaged and heated building structure, and the progresion of structural component failures to the initiation of the collapse of the towers.
 * The NIST report is totally based in a computer simulation that did not dwelve into the actual fall of the towers. No part of the report is aimed at explaining why the building did not topple slowly instead of falling at free fall speed nor the pulverizing of the concrete. This is just the scope of the investigation.
 * The NIST report is totally based in a computer simulation that did not dwelve into the actual fall of the towers. No part of the report is aimed at explaining why the building did not topple slowly instead of falling at free fall speed nor the pulverizing of the concrete. This is just the scope of the investigation.


 * Thus I think it is important to correct and clarify the scope of the NIST report. Stapler80 (talk) 01:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It is important to understand that NIST is not the FBI. NIST's mission does not allow for criminal forensic investigations. The NIST report is aimed at establishing adequate and safe building and construction standards. The thousands of pages in the multi-volume report is filled with safety standards. Only a relatively small portion of the report is devoted to WTC analysis. I found no reason to disbelief the NIST investigation. But it was a limited investigation. Stapler80 (talk) 02:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Commenting out edit request while discussion is going on. Jnorton7558 (talk) 09:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There is adquate documentation supporting the claim that NIST conducted a limited investigation that does not address some of the significant evidence, even though the claim remains controversial. Under NPOV the fact that such claim exists is reportable in the article (not reporting it would exhibit bias), and I believe the edit request should be granted. Coastwise (talk) 20:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Documenting changes just made
The first sentence was not at all not representative of the content of the one source that it cited. Moreover, the cited web page is obviously incomplete (ending with a heading that has no content following, and not containing other content relevant to the original first sentence that its introduction foretells). Research on TheWaybackMachine shows that the page has been in this incomplete form for quite some time (perhaps always).

MY CHANGES: (1) I cited to another page from the same website. (2) I added a second citation. (3) I subsumed the one-sentence "Types of Criticism" section and its citation into the new first sentence (i.e. moving it there). Coastwise (talk) 22:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Rfc on deleted WTC 7 information
An editor has requested that a Request for Comment be held on this issue on my talkpage, but asked me to do it since they were unfamiliar with the process. Since we seem to be unable to resolve this among ourselves, I agree that this might help us resolve the issue:

Should a subsection with information about the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 be included in the article 9/11 conspiracy theories? Such information has been repeatedly deleted from the article, as was done here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories&diff=430572843&oldid=430470741 Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No. for all of the same reasons that have been brought up over and over (anyone new to here, search the archives). My position is unchanged.-- Terrillja talk  13:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No As Terrillja points out, this has been discussed many times. Very briefly, this article already has a section devoted to controlled demolition conspiracy theories.  Also, we have a full article devoted to World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories.  Anything more is undue weight.  While conspiracy theorists might think that Building 7 (where no one died) is more important the Twin Towers (where nearly 3,000 people died), secondary, reliable sources don't.  Weight should be determined by third-party reliable sources which are independent of the topic, not by what the conspiracy theorists themselves think is important. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No. This is a summary section for another article, but the sentence or two that existed noting collapse of WTC7 is central to the 9/11 conspiracy theories should be restored because it was reliably sourced but still in summary form so no undue weight. Edkollin (talk) 21:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No. There is already a link to the full article on the controlled demolition theories, and creating an entire new section here to garner attention for that portion of the conspiracy theory would result in undue weight. Niremetal (talk) 04:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes. There is no reason not to mention the controversy over WTC 7 in the WTC section of the 9/11 conspiracy theories article. As the deleted New York Times article reference says, this is probably THE biggest mystery of the 9/11 attacks, and is mentioned by almost every conspiracy theory as a red flag. And I quote: "But the collapse of 7 World Trade Center — home at the time to branch offices of the Central Intelligence Agency, the Secret Service and the Giuliani administration’s emergency operations center — is cited in hundreds of Web sites and books as perhaps the most compelling evidence that an insider secretly planted explosives, intentionally destroying the tower." http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/22/nyregion/22wtccnd.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1 Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Anyone interested in contributing may wish to review this talk page exchange, wherein I attempt to understand what issues are important to Ghostofnemo. My intended approach was to start with very simple statements of fact, get agreement on them, and gradually move to more contentious issues. My hope was to determine what information Ghostofnemo felt belonged in Wikipedia as a whole, and what belongs in individual articles versus summary articles. The editor did not respond well to that approach, possibly because I did not explain it adequately, but Ghostofnemo abandoned that exchange. --  SPhilbrick  T  14:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If you'll check out the exchange we had on my talk page (link above), you'll see that you were the one who was off to a meeting and never apparently had time to "respond more fully" as you indicated you might. Odd that you would characterize this as ME abandoning the discussion! Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes For the sake of completeness the article should contain such section. I read the talk page but was not an instructive exchange. When a side of a story is ridiculed it is important to keep NPOV on the reporting. I believe that the WTC 7 issue is not the strongest point on the conspiracy, the underground fires raging for over 90 days while firefighters dumped water on them 24/7 is the most misterious part of the event. The only similar firefighting events I can recall are wild forrest fires and the Japan nuclear catastrophe. But it is WTC 7 that has gotten the attention. It should be included. Stapler80 (talk) 14:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes - This article has a large section titled "Collapse".  That section is a summary (see WP:Summary Style) of another article: World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories.  Within that latter article, is a large section devoted to building 7, namely World_Trade_Center_controlled_demolition_conspiracy_theories.   Thus, the Collapse section in this article should summarize, proportionally, the building 7 section from the "Controlled demolition" article.   For instance, if building 7 occupies, say 20% of the Controlled Demolition article, it should occupy, roughly 20% of this article's "Collapse" section.  That is enough to make it a (small) subsection of this articles "Collapse" section. --Noleander (talk) 20:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes - It is the most critical event of 9/11. It is the most unexplained, the most unknown, and the most frequently cited by those who do know about it. It deserves its own section. 82.32.10.68 (talk) 23:08, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Possibly - The official theory of a progressive collapse builds on the impact of the crashing planes. It can't be applied on WCT 7, which rises the demand for another theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onkel a (talk • contribs) 23:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes - Whether you agree with them or not, the 911 truthers seem to be particularly attached to the collapse of building 7. Entire media campaigns and websites have been devoted to purely focusing on building 7.  So I do think that a fair representation of 911 conspiracy theories would include this information. Mr.Johnson1982 (talk) 14:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks like there's still no consensus on this issue. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Lead section
Alright this just ridiculous, it should not take two fucking paragraphs to introduce the subject of the article and calling it anti-semitic in the opening sentence without extensive documentation of this being a hallmark is completely absurd. I understand that certain editors aren't happy with the outcome of the RFC and that a link to this article was added to the main 9/11 article, but that doesn't mean you should go out of your way to destroy this one. The definition of what the 9/11 conspiracy theories are should be first and foremost in the introduction of it, not a two paragraph preamble that is designed solely to debunk the theories. Soxwon (talk) 19:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * All of us want to improve the article. As it is, there's a lack of context. We pretty much have to say what happened before it makes sense to say they deny it. Tom Harrison Talk 22:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It can be safely assumed that the readers knows what 9/11 is and even if they don't they can follow wikilinks. Soxwon (talk) 17:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Demographics are very reasonable for conspiracy theories like this. The fact that 7% somehow believe Israel is responsible is relevant to the core subject (the CTs), as is the fact that many are Arab.  Toa   Nidhiki  05  18:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Regarding the lede, I'm with Soxwon on this one. I don't think it necessary to give a detailed explanation of 9/11 before explaining CT.  Honestly, I haven't followed this article too much recently, but over the last few months, it appears as if the lede has taken a turn for the worse.  This version from July is better.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)