Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories/Archive 35

Edit request on 29 April 2012
Dear Wiki,

These two links needs to be added to history 9/11. The NIST FOIA release photo don't match flight 175 videos.

Why Did someone remove all the flight 175 photos from the NIST FOIA releases? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wd3kyf4QQso

And why does the only photo of 175 have a black spot on it? That's not United Air. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkRRKVXwcmk

Danp5648 (talk) 16:04, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Youtube videos are not even evidence of the existence of sources. If you can find a real source, even in the context of conspiracy theories, you may suggest an addition.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:51, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

edit request: 3 errors in the last paragraph of Media reaction
The article noted that that unlike the collapse -> The article noted that unlike the collapse

The article also said that conspiracy theories that claim that that World trade Center 7 -> The article also said that conspiracy theories that claim that World Trade Center 7

(That's a lot of thats.) 69.181.161.106 (talk) 06:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Done - Thank you for the tip Edkollin (talk) 21:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Spelling mistake
Last paragraph in the History section has a spelling mistake that can be corrected.

"Since President Bush left office, the overall number of believers in 9/11 conspiracy theories has dipped while the number of people whole believe in the most "radical" theories has held fairly steady.[65]"

It should say "who" instead of "whole" : "while the number of people who believe"
 * Thank you, it has now been corrected.    Joel Why?  talk  14:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Massive violation of Wikipedia Five Pillars on this page
The second pillar is this:

Second pillar Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view.

We strive for articles that document and explain the major points of view in a balanced and impartial manner. We avoid advocacy and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in other areas we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context, and not presenting any point of view as "the truth" or "the best view".

This article is very biased, false and misleading, in blatant and obvious violation of this second pillar. The article is not the slightest bit impartial and does a very poor job presenting the explosive controlled demolition conspiracy theory. The so called "conspiracy theory" of explosive controlled demolition of the World Trade Center's Twin Towers and Building 7 is very well documented.

This 9/11 conspiracy theories highlights one major weakness of Wikipedia and the Wikipedia philosophy: the assumption that if somebody publishes a statement it must be true. The problem in this article is that critical thinking was not applied to the official conspiracy theory, the one proffered by the government and mass media starting on 9/11 itself, the one that blames 19 Arabs armed with box cutters. There are dozens if not hundreds of flaws in the government's conspiracy theory in virtually every area. Just because NIST has published their own theory of what happened does not mean it is true. What this page ought to contain is a detailed critique of the NIST investigations and report along with a defense of that critique. I am willing and able to provide part of the former: the government's apologists will have to provide the latter.

Another way in which the article is misleading is its treatment of the term or phrase "conspiracy theory". By definition the official story is a conspiracy theory. The proposed FAQ flatly denies this but it is true. The article poisons the waters and effectively prevents a reader new to the subject from objectively reading it and evaluating the explosive controlled demolition theory with an open mind. The use of the term "conspiracy theory" in connection with 9/11, coupled with the false statement that the government's account is somehow now a conspiracy theory, seems intended to prevent Wikipedia readers from actually looking at the evidence objectively and with an open mind. You are doing the work of the government and mass media and it is a total violation of this pillar of Wikipedia. (You meaning those who have written this article and rejected edits to make it more accurate.)

Does an Administrator have anything to add on this? When was the last time an Administrator closely reviewed this article to determine how well it complies with this pillar of Wikipedia? Was that ever done?

Peace Beasley Reece (talk) 18:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Read WP:FRINGE and WP:DUE WEIGHT. Just because a view exists does not make it reliable or notable. The neutral view in this case is that the fringe theories, while existing, are not scientific and not accurate. This is confirmed by a slew of reliable sources. We don't give equal weight to Holocaust deniers, Christ myth theorists, flat Earth theorists or Moon landing hoax proponents, and to do so would be against the due weight policy. The same applies with this page, which certainly promotes a fringe theory. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for conspiracy or fringe theories and to demand equal weight clearly goes against due weight on this issue.  Toa   Nidhiki05  18:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Toa,

Your examples have nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks or specifically the explosive controlled demolition theory. You have made a logical fallacy; grouping all conspiracy theories together as one, as equally valid and supported by science, and dismissed them all. You are either unaware of the substantial scientific evidence that supports the explosive controlled demolition theory and the many fatal flaws in the government's story or you are incapable of looking at the evidence objectively. Or you are just an apologist for the official conspiracy theory and you are using and abusing Wikipedia rules to censor my work. In any case, bad behavior.

Claiming that the U.S. government and mainstream media account of the 9/11 attacks is correct is extremely biased. It is the direct opposite of neutral. Same with claiming that the explosive controlled demolition theory is incorrect. You have no idea what neutrality means, nor did you pay any attention to the second pillar of Wikipedia.

Explosive controlled demolition is not a fringe theory. There is no factual basis for you to say that. It is well documented and supported by science. Due weight requires presenting a subject fairly so that others may evaluate it. Claims by the government should always be treated with suspicion, nowhere more than on this subject. The last thing any thinking person should do is accept the government's claims on matters of war and peace without checking them.

Furthermore you never responded to my claim; that the second pillar of Wikipedia requires this issue be presented accurately and in context. The 9/11 Conspiracy theories page does a very poor job of that. Your denials notwithstanding. By the way you cannot make something so by saying it, even if you say it 100 times. The laws of physics apply every day to every building. The official story requires you (me, everybody) to believe that the laws of physics such as those concerning free fall gravitational acceleration and vectors (direction of motion related to the direction of an applied force) did not apply on 9/11 at the World Trade Center. The official story has been proven false and the explosive controlled demolition theory has been proven true. See for example Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and Scientists for 9/11 Truth

The fall of WTC 7 was achieved by explosive controlled demolition. These facts are unknown to the vast majority of the U.S. population and the world. Most do not even know that Building 7 existed; let alone that it came down in 7 seconds let alone the specifics of the collapse: sudden, symmetrical, rapid and complete.

Building 7 of the World Trade Center, a 47 story building, contained offices of the CIA, the Secret Service, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) several financial institutions and then-Mayor Giuliani's Office of Emergency Management.

Despite never being hit by an airplane, Building 7 was reduced to a pile of rubble in about 7 seconds at 5:20 p.m. on September 11, 2001. After 9/11 this fact has been widely covered up by the U.S. mass media and was even omitted from the 9/11 Commission Report.

NIST, the National Institute for Standards and Technology (a U.S. government agency) was authorized by Congress to determine “why and how WTC 7 collapsed.” NIST produced a preliminary draft of their final report in August, 2008 omitting the fact that Building 7 fell at free fall acceleration for part of its descent. After a physicist challenged NIST on this point the final report, in November 2008 admitted free fall acceleration for 105' or 2.25 seconds.

NIST wrote, “A more detailed analysis of the descent of the north face found. . . (2) a freefall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 s. . . .” (Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, NIST NCSTAR 1A, page 48)

Beasley Reece (talk) 20:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You are operating under a misconception and have misunderstand key wikipedia policy. Our goal is not impartiality. Impartiality is defined as: "an inclination to weigh both views or opinions equally." This is not what we do in wikipedia, instead we use WP:DUE weight. We don't pretend all opinions are equally WP:VALID.  IRWolfie- (talk) 20:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * To respond to your claims, Beasley Reece, I never dismissed anything. I gave examples of fringe theories that are not covered equally and relevant policies that explain why this is and should be the case for this particular fringe theory. It isn't biased to make a direct claim supported by sources, as the account of the event is. I would suggest you stop making bad faith accusations about me and instead show why the direct policy I showed is not applicable.
 * As for the Truther propaganda you are posting I have neither the time nor will to debate a Truther about why he is wrong and why the fringe science you are supporting is wrong. Everything you are posting is typical Truther stuff that has been debated and disproved numerous times. It is against WP policy to promote Truther ideas as equals with the mainstream, scientifically accepted account, as it would be for any of the examples I listed above.  Toa   Nidhiki05  20:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * As no evidence for controlled demolition as ever been reported in any reliable source we don't report on it. This is perfectly in keeping with WP:NPOV. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * We cannot question the version of events that has been accepted by mainstream academic and news sources, even if they are wrong. Our role is to accurately and fairly reflect what they say.  TFD (talk) 14:18, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Request for Administrative Review
A review by Administrators who preferably have never edited 9/11 articles or gotten involved in their talk page discussion for this and most 9/11 related articles is needed. It has been mostly the same editors and the same arguments for 5 years. People who are outside of our bubble are needed to move things forward or establish added weight to this version. The talk pages should also be part of the review 1. To gain knowledge of the relevant disputes. 2. To clean up the language here which occasionally dissolves into accusations of lack of good faith by other editors and reliable sources and language which may lead others to believe a lack of good faith has occurred. Edkollin (talk) 21:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There isn't any need for Administrative review. There is a need for people to stop pushing fringe theories in violation of WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE.  Toa   Nidhiki05  21:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's been the same editors who support the facts, but the conspiracy theory folks end up getting banned or move on once they see that Wikipedia isn't a soapbox. The CTer's always want to violate Wikipedia policies to incorporate their nonsense in articles....so they end up getting banned and then come back with a sock account. Thems the facts.--MONGO 23:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not going to stop, there are always always going hit and run "point of view warriors" and sock puppeteers. After years on end it is incredibly frustrating especially when the same "I know" "It's obvious" and topics that were just published in Prison Planet the day before are used. "Here we go again" is normal and understandable reaction. But not "every" argument against the article consensus falls into those categories. In my view a majority do but far from "every" one.Edkollin (talk) 20:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * There is nothing particularly special about administrators that makes them any better for reviewing articles. Most wikiprojects have procedures for reviewing articles. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There may be nothing special about administrators but my request is really for and outsiders to look at this administrators or otherwise. Edkollin (talk) 20:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Anyone who wants to can edit the article or take part on the talk page. I'm less interested in hearing from people who want to tell others how to edit but won't edit themselves. Tom Harrison Talk 22:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Posting to the article Talk page isn't exactly going to notify anyone who doesn't already follow the subject. If you've got specific concerns, feel free to post them. Otherwise, I don't know what you can do besides find an admin and personally request they take a look. There's no real process for "admins, please look at this whole debate." &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 22:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * As IRWolfie states, admins have no special status in reviewing articles. Honestly, I'm not sure what this issues are, Edkollin.  Wikipedia being what it is, this is probably as good an article as one could reasonably expect on such a controversial topic.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Administrators do not review articles. TFD (talk) 14:21, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The poll
Why is the remaining quarter of responses from the poll cited omitted from the lede? It's a substantial omission, and not reporting it is sloppy at best and a conspiracy (:P) at worst. 67.164.156.42 (talk) 23:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What "quarter" are you referring to? &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 22:28, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You really can't figure it out? From the article: In a 2008 global poll of 17 countries, 46% of those surveyed believed al-Qaeda was responsible for the attacks, 15% believed the U.S. government was responsible, 7% believed Israel was and another 7% believed some other perpetrator, other than al Qaeda, was responsible. 46% + 15% + 7% + 7% = 75%; 100% − 75% = 25%; 25% = one quarter. From the citation: On average, 46 percent of those surveyed said al Qaeda was responsible, 15 percent said the U.S. government, 7 percent said Israel and 7 percent said some other perpetrator. One in four people said they did not know who was behind the attacks. (emphases all mine) Does this help? 67.164.156.42 (talk) 02:14, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, actually. I wanted to make sure we were referring to the same thing. I don't see how it's "a substantial omission," however. It's basically the same as "No Answer" it's not particularly relevant given the 7% who at least specified "some other perpetrator." &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 03:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "I don't know" and "someone else" are materially different answers in this context. 67.164.156.42 (talk) 03:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Materially, yes; in practical terms, no. "Other" is just a catch-all for groups that don't add up to be enough of a % to mention on their own. Regardless, the ~25% "I don't know" does not need to be specifically called out in the article. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 13:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * To detailed for lede, summary sentence at most. Edkollin (talk) 17:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I think these poll results, especially because of their position, are misleading (and the link to the original article doesn't clear this up either). Basically, "responsibility" is a tricky concept - I can fully maintain that the US are responsible for 9/11 (due to foreign policy) without having to believe they were responsible for the "actual" attacks (or for organising it themselves, etc. etc.). As the article is dealing with a "conspiracy theory", it seems to suggest to me that there is substantial (i.e. majority) belief in a possible conspiracy, which is not necessarily what the poll results suggest at all. (I also think that this is worsened by not mentioning, explicitly, the remaining 25%)... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.30.75.137 (talk) 22:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Removing the sentence not supported by the sources
The sentence "People who believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories are also more likely to believe other conspiracy theories such as conspiracy theories about the death of Osama bin Laden, with some believing he is still alive." is not supported by its reference in my view, which is why I want to remove it. I'd appreciate being pointed out the reasons for the edit revert - clearly if the reference supports it, it should easy to point out exactly how it does.Burritoburritoburrito (talk) 13:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you can be more specific in what exactly the problem is? According to the source, Dead and Alive: Beliefs in Contradictory Conspiracy Theories:
 * "In Study 1(n= 137), the more participants believed that Princess Diana faked her own death, the more they believed that she was murdered. In Study 2 (n= 102), the more participants believed that Osama Bin Laden was already dead when U.S. special forces raided his compound in Pakistan, the more they believed he is still alive. Hierarchical regression models showed that mutually incompatible conspiracy theories are positively associated because both are associated with the view that the authorities are engaged in a cover-up (Study 2). The monological nature of conspiracy belief appears to be driven not by conspiracy theories directly supporting one another, but by broader beliefs supporting conspiracy theories in general."
 * A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The main problem is that it doesn't mention 9/11. :) And even if it did, the study sample sizes and methodology would not support the sentence as stated either. Burritoburritoburrito (talk) 00:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * He's got a point. If the study doesn't mention 9/11 CTs, it would amount to synthesis to include it here.    Joel Why? (talk) 12:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The source does mention 9/11 CTs; obviously I didn't quote the entire article. But I suppose a case might be made that this content is better placed in an article about CTs in general rather than 9/11 CTs.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It does appear to be synthesis as the study is only talking about directly related theories. The most that could be said here is "People who believe in a 9/11 conspiracy theory are also more likely to believe other 9/11 conspiracy theories" and such an opinion is not particularly notable. Wayne (talk) 22:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * And even that would be a stretch, given that the studies were done on not on general population, but on undergraduates with low sample sizes. So, good to go? Burritoburritoburrito (talk) 23:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The 9/11 conspriacy theories are one of the examples studied in the article. The conclusion is that people who believe in one 9/11 ct are more likely to believe in other 9/11 cts, even if the theories directly contradict each other. It should certainly be included in the article. Tom Harrison Talk 10:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * No, they are not. Please see the abstract quoted above for the studies description. Burritoburritoburrito (talk) 12:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I wonder if you've actually read the article:
 * "For instance, the idea that authorities are engaged in motivated deception of the public would be a cornerstone of conspiracist thinking due to its centrality in conspiracy theories. Someone who believes in a significant number of conspiracy theories would naturally begin to see authorities as fundamentally deceptive, and new conspiracy theories would seem more plausible in light of that belief (Read, Snow and Simon, 2003; Simon, Snow, & Read, 2004).  Indeed, the two conspiracy theories mentioned above – an autism/vaccine connection and 9/11 as an inside job – both revolve around that central proposition."
 * Tom Harrison Talk 13:49, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That the 9/11 conspiracy theory shares with the autism/vaccine connection the property of revolving around seeing authorities as fundamentally deceptive does not support the claim either. Not to mention it's not actually shown in the paper either :) Burritoburritoburrito (talk) 00:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I wonder if you actually understand the article: The study does not say that 911 conspiracy theorists hold contradictory beliefs as both you and the sentence imply, it says that knowing authorities are fundamentally deceptive (a sky is blue claim) supports contradictory conspiracy theories existing at the same time. The closest the study comes to your interpretation is "This relationship may hold even to the point that people...are likely to endorse contradictory conspiracy theories about the same topic." This is clarified towards the end where it indicates that it's possible that people likely do not believe in any particular theory themselves and tend to not dismiss contradictory theories to facilitate discussion and avoid conflict and suggests further research is required. The only proven correlation is that many conspiracy theorists believe that authorities are fundamentally deceptive and unfortunately this is also a view also held by most who dont believe any conspiracy theory so is hardly notable even for that. The study was also primarily based around Princess Diana conspiracy theories and composed almost entirely of female participants making it of little value here. The Osama part was of little interest and 911 was not studied or tested at all. The WP article already notes that believing the government was involved is a conspiracy theory and that contradictory theories also exist so this source is not notable and appears to be confusing for some. Wayne (talk) 15:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * @WLRoss: Where does the study say "that knowing authorities are fundamentally deceptive..." or that "authorities are fundamentally deceptive and unfortunately this is also a view also held by most who dont believe any conspiracy theory so is hardly notable"? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Though it needs a reference, it seems like common sense knowledge that anyone believing in 9/11 CT's would also be likely to believe in other preposterous fables like the booger-man, the existence of a left-handed flyswatter and shapeshifters.MONGO 17:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It may seem like common sense but unfortunately that view is based on ignorance and is also contradicted by the reference. Wayne (talk) 01:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not based on ignorance, its a basic observation of fact about the CT movement and its adherents.  Toa   Nidhiki05  01:56, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the reference and others added here are fine...those likely to believe in fables are, likely to believe in fables'. I'm surprised anyone thinks such a basic deduction would even demand a reference for this correlation.--MONGO 02:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * How can you think the ref is "fine" when it doesn't support the claim being made? Your OR claim is a BLP issue and requires BLP level referencing. Wayne (talk) 03:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure it does. How is that a BLP issue? I never claimed it was original research....but since we can't closely paraphrase without making it a referenced quote, the text seems to jive well with the reference by inference. The source indicates that those that believe one CT are more likely to believe in other CT's...since we know the 9/11 CT's are CT's, then if one believes in 9/11 CT's then they are more likely to believe in others...sorry about the booger-man comment as his/she/it isn't a CT, but is a myth so since the 9/11 CT's are also based on myths, they're in the same vein it appears. Imagine all the silly books that have bene written by some to "provide evidence" of the booger-man or bigfoot or UFO's or shapeshifters...but have nary a single ounce of proof within...it's all about making a buck you see...not as ugly as the kind of slander and libel the 9/11 "truthers" are guilty of, but it's all about making a buck. Fiction simply sells better than fact.--MONGO 03:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If you are proposing to accept "inference" as reliable then how about we take the inference from another claim in the same study (ie: seemingly outlandish conspiracy theories sometimes turn out to be true) and say that applies to 911 conspiracy theories as well and add that to the article? Or do different standards apply to your OR? Wayne (talk) 15:11, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't say that though does it...it doesn't have anything to do with whether the CT's are true or not, just that those that believe in one CT are more likely to believe in other CT's. I forget what that medical condition is called.MONGO 15:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The article actually does say that. Wayne (talk) 01:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If you're proposing to replace the contested sentence by "people likely to believe in ct are likely to believe in ct", I don't mind - vacuous tautology is better than unsupported statements. Otherwise, WP:NOR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burritoburritoburrito (talk • contribs) 02:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The point of the article is that c. theorists, for example 9/11 Truthers, are more likely to believe other cts, even if they are mutually contradictory. That's why the title is "Dead and alive". Tom Harrison Talk 10:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * This is an unsupported inference. What the article shows is that there are conspiracy theories, such as Diana's death, that the study of a small sample of undergraduates indicated correlated with contradictory ones. This implies neither the claim holding for other conspiracy theories such as 9/11 nor for these conspiracy theories in the general population of people believing them. If a hypothetical paper would show that undergraduate marihuana smokers are likely to drink beer, it wouldn't constitute evidence that "people using cocaine are more likely to drink beer" either. Burritoburritoburrito (talk) 12:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * @Burritoburritoburrito: Too much of your argument is based on your own personal opinion (you don't agree with the study's sample size, the subject's gender, methodology, etc.) rather than following reliable sources. This is a common argument (reliable sources are wrong!) that can be summarily rejected because it goes against numerous Wikipedia's policies including WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:NPOV.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I have no qualms about the paper's reliability, methodology and results. It's just that the current OR in the article is not among them. Let me reiterate my original request. Please point out how exactly the article shows that "People who believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories are also more likely to believe other conspiracy theories such as conspiracy theories about the death of Osama bin Laden, with some believing he is still alive." with a quote(s); I hope we all agree none of the quotes presented so far meets the challenge and that it should be easy to do given your conviction :). The Truthers quote below uses explicitly the qualifier "seems" with no support for the statement whatsoever and applies equally explicitly only to the "Truth Movement". At best, if you were to accept that sentence on its face value, you could argue for saying something like "Many members of the 9/11 Truth Movement allege that bin Laden died before 2001"; why this would be notable enough to be included somewhat eludes me. Burritoburritoburrito (talk) 02:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The study did not examine 911 conspiracy theories. You cant say that a finding regarding the death of Diana applies to 911 when the study does not make that claim. Wayne (talk) 15:11, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm forced to agree with Wayne. The study doesn't refer to 9/11 conspiracy theories.  I have little doubt that those who believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories are more likely to believe in other (often contradictory) conspiracy theories, but this study doesn't demonstrate it.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 21:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't really understand your reasoning. The second study in the article found that people who believe in one 9/11 conspiracy theory - that bin Laden was already dead at the time of the Abottabad raid - are more likely to believe the contardictory theory that he is still alive:
 * "The conspiracy theories surrounding the death of Osama bin Laden can be divided into two major categories: those that propose he was already dead at the time of the raid, and those that propose he is still alive (Kingsley & Jones, 2011). The former seems to have currency among the 9/11 conspiracist Truth Movement; many “Truthers” allege that bin Laden died in 2000 or even earlier, and his video appearances since then were in fact staged productions made with a body double.  The latter theory varies; some people believe that he is still at large, while others think that he was captured alive and is being secretly held for interrogation by the CIA.  Naturally, these two theories are irreconcilable; bin Laden cannot be both alive and dead at the same time.  However, as in Study 1, we predicted that belief in the two conspiracy theories would be positively correlated."
 * Tom Harrison Talk 22:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Since when has the status of bin Laden been a 911 conspiracy theory? It's certainly not covered in this WP article. The only time the study makes a connection is what you posted above where it says that 911 truthers tend to believe he is dead while other groups hold the contradictory beliefs. The study has effectively separated truthers from contradictory belief in regards to bin Laden. This was neither a rigorous nor a large study and it makes heavy use of "may" and "might" regarding it's findings, along with suggestions that more study is required so it can't be used for anything other than for the two conspiracy theories actually tested or it becomes WP:OR. Wayne (talk) 01:42, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The reference says 9/11 Truthers tend to believe bin Laden was already dead at the time of the Abbottabad raid - that he died in 2000 or earlier and the videos were faked - and that this belief that he has been dead for years is positively correlated with the contradictory belief that he is still alive, on the run or in a secret CIA prison. The reference clearly supports the sentence in the lead, "People who believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories are also more likely to believe other conspiracy theories such as conspiracy theories about the death of Osama bin Laden, with some believing he is still alive." Tom Harrison Talk 10:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Point out where the study says that the belief he is alive is positively correlated with truthers. The researchers make it clear that truthers generally hold a single opinion and they never questioned anyone who believed 911 conspiracy theories in the bin Laden study. Regardless of whether the claim is true or not, this study does not support the claim being made in the lead. Wayne (talk) 11:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * @Burritoburritoburrito: As I said earlier, this content might be better placed in an article about CTs in general rather than 9/11 CTs, but so far no one has agree with my suggestion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:23, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree, FWIW. There's even a nice Further reading section in the Conspiracy theory article. I'd still suggest some rephrasing, along the lines of the abstract, but I'd be happy with that outcome. Burritoburritoburrito (talk) 12:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The 9/11 conspiracy theories are conspiracy theories...the article doesn't have to be specifically about 9/11 conspiracy theories to be relative to this point.MONGO 13:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * @MONGO: If we use your interpretation for sources then we can add this to the article; The study notes that "conspiracy theories are not by definition false," and that "seemingly outlandish conspiracy theories" sometimes turn out to be true. It may not have been "specifically about 9/11 conspiracy theories" but it does say this in the study and is as legitimate an edit as your suggestion. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Wayne (talk) 02:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, guys, but I don't agree. Bin Laden being dead is, for the most part, a CT that is separate and apart from the standard 9/11 CTs. I am all for pointing out how ridiculous conspiracy theorists are -- but, using this study is a bit of a stretch. We have plenty of far more relevant hard facts and studies which clearly show these 9/11 CTers to be completely oblivious to rational thought. I don't think adding this tenuously related article is necessary to rub it in.    Joel Why? (talk) 13:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

War games
Why has the war games section been removed? "Northern Vigilance" and "Vigilant Guardian".

"Is this real world or exercise?"

etc... Gwryla (talk) 12:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Criticism Section Not policy
Wikipedia says Criticism should be integrated into the article. Because having just Critique violates NPOV. It means that arguments for and against should be together, not separate. Hence the tag. In any event tags placed are not removed by one editor, what happens is a debate on a talk page. You cannot by yourself decide if NPOV is satisfied. It requires a talk page debate to remove tags. WP:STRUCTURE --Inayity (talk) 19:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You cannot by yourself determine that NPOV isn't satisfied, nor have you indicated yet as to how it isn't.--MONGO 20:50, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It probably is better not to collect "rebuttals" in a seperate section titled criticism. Integration is good. We could start with "On September 11, 2001, 19 terrorists from al-Qaeda intentionally crased American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175 into the North and South towers of the World Trade Center." Tom Harrison Talk 20:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the problem with the tag is that it claims that there is an NPOV issue. If anything, this article is biased in favor of CTs.  But the tag is partially right in that we shouldn't have a criticism section.  Instead, criticism should be integrated into the article.  When I was working a lot on the article a couple years ago, I intended to remove the section, but I got burned out before I got around to it.  If someone wants to try to integrate this content into the article, that's fine with me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:19, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Then do not remove the tagWP:TAGGING. Is that how Wikipedia works? The policy on Wikipedia is to integrate Criticism CANNOT stand alone because it is violates NPOV. You are supposed to State an issue and then state a rebuttal, state an issue, state the balance. "Most XX believe YY, However, ZZ disgaree for PQY reason" that is why it has in NPOV. In any event you must first have a discussion before arbritary removing tags. It is not the correct way to edit.Until the content is integrated then the tag is valid per wiki rules of WP:STRUCTURE--Inayity (talk) 03:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What is your proposal for integration? Without one, the tag is pointless. Arkon (talk) 04:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you familar with the rules I have stated, you have stated an opinion about what is pointless, I have stated WP:TAGGING policy. Above are suggestions, until the section meets wiki standards tags are there to notify people, per policy.Just follow the policy, if i have violated policy also tell me how. talk page for a reason, rules for a reason. I will not repeat why it violates NPOV when Tom has explained it and I have explained it. It is not my rule, it is wiki rule, you are NOT supposed to have a Criticism Section on wikipedia. Silly threats, let us see. --Inayity (talk) 04:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * So that would be a "no, I have no concrete suggestions" then? Arkon (talk) 04:11, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Make your suggested edit, and we can move forward. But quoting essays, which WP:TAGGING is, by the by, goes no where. Arkon (talk) 04:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Inayity...what exactly do you want to see here...each section have a discussion on a particular conspiracy theory and then also have a rebuttal for why the theory isn't accepted by the overwhelming majority of scientists/engineers, etc.? If that's the case, then no reason to not integrate the material, but that sounds like a major rewrite...just slapping tags on articles without a concrete proposal isn't very helpful.--MONGO 04:28, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Why do we have tags then? Why do we have a talk page? Why do we bother with rules. I have listed wiki policy. It is helpful because it lets others know there is work to be done in that section. I do not have to do it, you do not have to do it, but it warns the reader, or future editor. I have suggested (and it is being ignored) to balance the section with counter criticism. There is not ONE A class article anywhere on Wikipedia that has in a criticism section, because it is not policy and how we are supposed to structure articles. But you prefer edit war to talking, why not just leave it and start the fixing the section process. Is it something to edit war over?--Inayity (talk) 04:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Tags are not badges of shame. In this case, they've served your stated purpose of letting "others know there is work to be done in that section. I do not have to do it, you do not have to do it".  So has this talk section by the way, and your frivolous AN/I report.  Mission accomplished.  You may propose a brilliant edit for all we know, but without a proposal, it's worthless now.  Arkon (talk) 04:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * We could separate out the paragraphs that explain why people believe these theories - that accounts for about half the section. Perhaps we could also separate out reactions to the theories by politicians, scientists, social scientists etc.  TFD (talk) 04:43, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep, in theory that sounds fine. Refutations beside statements always turns....weird.  I'd just have to see the result to have an informed opinion. Arkon (talk) 04:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

"And yes, we did it."

 * "Summoning every thread of experience and courage, I looked Khalid in the eye and asked: 'Did you do it?' The reference to September 11 was implicit. Khalid responded with little fanfare: 'I am the head of the al-Qaida military committee,' he began, 'and Ramzi is the coordinator of the Holy Tuesday operation. And yes, we did it.'"

I'm open to leaving this in, taking it out, or rewording it, subject to editorial judgement, how we choose to organize the article, etc.; but the statement is supported by the source. Tom Harrison Talk 11:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer it stayed in the article, but it doesn't have to be where I originally placed it of course.--MONGO 18:58, 19 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I thought that it said (or implied) that Pakistan had foreknowledge of 9/11. I've re-added it back to the article but in a different section.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

FAQ needed:
I propose that a FAQ be created, and posted at the top of this page, and other pages related to 9-11 conspiracies. I find we have people posting the same questions over, and over again. Many of them complain that the articles are not neutral. Other topics covering fringe science or controversial science have similar faqs, such as evolution or AIDS denialism. I have taken two questions from the AIDS Denialism FAQ and modified them as a start. I want there to be discussion on them, and consensus before moving forward and creating a FAQ. Other questions can be added, this is just a start. Feel free to edit them. Some questions from the Evolution FAQ may also be useful to include. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 12:29, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I would suggest adding a disclaimer about reliable sources as well. Just a brief outline of what is not reliable and "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". IRWolfie- (talk) 12:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Harizoth, I don't know why we didn't think of this earlier. This is a terrific idea, thank you!JoelWhy (talk) 13:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think there was an attempt to make one a few years ago, but certain individuals objected because the answers didn't fit their PoV. I'd say this is as good a time as any to try again. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 15:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What an excellent idea; I support this FAQ.  Toa   Nidhiki  05 


 * Looks fine to me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Propose Q3: Wikipedia is part of the coverup? A3: That is a statement, not a question. However, if we are part of the coverup, what makes you think we're going to chanage our mind just because of your magic words (see also - freeman on the land) and Q4: But it's true, take a look at this! A4: (someone else write this) Egg   Centri  c  16:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * A4: That was fabricated as part of a false-flag operation; it's just what they want you to believe, and you're falling for it. Fight the power, man! Tom Harrison Talk 17:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Proposing Q5: You're mocking me, aren't you. A5: Oh no no no no no no no.  Toa   Nidhiki  05  17:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Heh. Okay, back to more serious questions. Here's a few I came up with by trawling through the archives:

&mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 19:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think those all work quite well - worded fine and addressing many of the stuff that is repeatedly brought up here. We may also want to make one about 'verifiability, not fact' or 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence' - that's another thing that might be helpful.  Toa   Nidhiki  05  20:51, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

It will definitely need a section addressing why Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth aren't a valid source on par with real scientists. Another addressing common arguments that people keep posting. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 11:04, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I reverted the change of Q4. It sounded like a conspiratorial POV. . Saying that the mainstream explanation is a conspiracy theory and "the question really is, 'What conspiracy theory do you believe in?' - that of the government or that of an entire worldwide movement", sounds incredibly weasely. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for catching that! I've been on a Wikibreak and didn't notice this in the history.
 * That said, I've seen no other objections to this FAQ list. Anyone have further additions/changes, or should we go ahead and implement this change? &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 20:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It looks good. I'm fine with implementing the change.  Many thanks to the editors who created this FAQ.  They did a better job than I could have done.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I've gone ahead and created a FAQ based on the wording agreed upon below. Please add this to your watchlists.  Thanks.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:07, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposed FAQ

 * A3 assumes that the mainstream press is covering this issue fairly and in an aggressive manner. Both of those assumptions are highly questionable, IMHO. I think this should be changed to "which have been the focus of significant discussion in the press or among investigators and citizens groups." Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * A6 is interesting. I know I've had material referenced with numerous reliable sources removed from the article (see the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth petition discussion - the fact that the group claims to have gotten more than 1000 signatures of architects and engineers asking for a new investigation, and the Able Danger discussion). Does this mean that well-referenced material will no longer be deleted? Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh no..not the A&E for "TRUTH" again!--MONGO 02:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Both of your 'suggestions' are a clear no as they are designed to 'allow' you to add the nonsense that 9/11 Truther groups publish as a reliable source on this page, even though their work (which isn't peer-reviewed in a scholarly journal) clearly violates WP:RS, WP:FRINGE, and WP:UNDUE, to name a few. You openly publish your desire to include this material on your user page, so it is open to public record and scrutiny in relations to this.
 * The FAQ is fine as-is and serves a solid purpose - note that the CT/denialist hypotheses are not supported by any source, not that the article will not cover random CT claims posted by blogs or on YouTube, clear up confusion with the CT label and Wikipedia's NPOV policy. 9/11 denialist fThere is absolutely no reason to change it to allow random CT crap to be included. This page is not a vehicle for CT/denialist activism and the FAQ makes that very, very clear.  Toa   Nidhiki05  03:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

widely accepted?
The article states that "9/11 conspiracy theories are conspiracy theories that disagree with the widely accepted account that the September 11 attacks were perpetrated solely by al-Qaeda" Well these days there are more disagrees than agrees on the official version from the US-government. Several books and tv documentations have shown, what is strange about how the incident apparently happened. These days way more people seem to believe the conspiracy, than the official version. I think the "widely accepted" should be removed. (And93hil (talk) 19:14, 2 September 2012 (UTC))
 * 49% of Americans believe lasers focus sound waves, so should we give that equal weight on the laser article? Due weight is how we decide which things belong, and the idea that 9/11 CTs are fact simply isn't, no matter how many idiots believe it.  Toa   Nidhiki05  19:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * What matters is wide acceptance in reliable sources, e.g., newspapers, academic journals. TFD (talk) 23:15, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Not only books and tv documentaries! I'm seeing a lot more 9/11 conspiracy t-shirts these days. You might be on to something. TippyGoomba (talk) 01:22, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think "widely accepted" should be removed as well and replaced with the "factual account"...these "theories" are more idiotic than bigfoot, UFO's, moon landing conspiracy theories and all the other conspiracy theories put together.--MONGO 04:42, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Great idea, I'd support that.  Toa   Nidhiki05  18:33, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure; it's a bit like saying people who think John Quincy Adams was the second president disagree with the widely accepted history of the US. Tom Harrison Talk 19:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * "Widely Accepted" is the wording the source for that sentence used. Personally do not see anything inaccurate about the statement. Edkollin (talk) 22:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 August 2012
I think it is important to point out that the ethical considerations of hiring a cousin of Michael Chertoff, a former Assistant Attorney General and the new Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), as senior researcher. AND I think that Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth should be mentioned along with their website: http://www.ae911truth.org/. They say that the official story/investigation stated that it didn't find thermite at ground zero and then later admitted that they didn't look for it in the first place. I find a lot of evidence is not given here. I think this page protects those who are guilty. Some more home work needs to be done and I think that the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth should be considered for finding more information about it.

LynnetteA11 (talk) 15:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: 9/11 conspiracy theories are fringe theories and have not been confirmed or supported by any scientific, peer-reviewed journals - they have also been debunked by various organizations and publications. As such, presenting them as fact is giving too much weight to them as opposed to the proven account as to how things happened.  Toa   Nidhiki05  15:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * " ... proven account as to how things happened." Proved where and by whom with what result? So far as I am aware (and it's a topic that interests me, as a retired lawyer), the version of events published by the 9-11 Commission has never been tested in a court of law and was never peer reviewed. Marbux (talk) 06:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 1. The NIST (a) did not find any need for thermite to explain the collapse, (b) or any plausible method of planting several thousand pounds of thermite in the buildings unnoticed, (c) that any testing or debris for iron, aluminum, sulfur, etc. would provide any useful information as these and all the other elements found in thermite are also used extensively in building materials (e.g., Steve Jones et al. discovered that paint had been used in the WTC buildings not thermite).
 * 2. Not a single expert or professional body in any of the relevant fields has published anything other than support for the findings of the NIST.
 * 3. By law the NIST is expressly forbidden from participating in the establishment or enforement of building codes. Nevertheless, the majority of its recommendations have already been adopted by independent bodies and authorities for incorporation into state, local, and international building codes.
 * 4. As a lawyer I'm sure you understand what needs to be shown before a court will admit "expert" testimony. Good luck, you'll be up againt the professionals at the NIST, its contractors, and every professional engineering body in the US and abroad. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 08:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

'No plane' explanation needed
I've just discovered reading the article that there exist 'no planers', people who think there were no planes. What do they think happened to all the people who were on the real planes, and where are the real planes now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.41.212.2 (talk) 10:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that the explaination is that the people were taken to a secret government facility, presumably to live out their natural lives without contact with the real world. I don't know what was to have been done with the planes.  (Sorry about the grammar.  I really don't know the tense for a past event conditional on a past event known to be false.)  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Poll in intro
"In a 2008 global poll of 16,063 people in 17 countries, majorities in only nine countries believe al Qaeda was behind the attacks. 46% of those surveyed believed al-Qaeda was responsible for the attacks, 15% believed the U.S. government was responsible, 7% believed Israel was and another 7% believed some other perpetrator, other than al Qaeda, was responsible."

But 46 + 15 + 7 + 7 = 75. What's with these numbers? 98.239.102.254 (talk) 08:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * According to the source for that sentence 1 in 4 did not know who was behind the attacks Edkollin (talk) 21:20, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

"Soft" versions
There are certain "softer" theories that are often classed with 9/11 conspiracies, yet are distinct. For instance, the idea that the Bush administration was actively in denial about intelligence that "Bin Laden determined to strike inside U.S", motivated by the idea that if such a strike were successful it would provide an excuse for a desired war on Iraq. This is not technically a conspiracy theory as it requires no coordination between Bin Laden and Bush, only a common interest in an open military conflict between the US and some part of the Muslim world. I think this should be mentioned somehow in the article, and distinguished from the core topic. Homunq (࿓) 23:03, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Do you have any sources for this? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Those are not conspiracy theories, just speculation that could be right or wrong. TFD (talk) 16:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Need more discussion of Building 7
It's barely mentioned in the article, but one of the main questions raised by proponents of these theories is how and why it collapsed.24.27.63.92 (talk) 06:36, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That's actually covered under World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 17:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It may be covered there, but there should be more said about it here. A paragraph in the WTC section of this article might suffice.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 17:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Directed-energy weapon
I read through the previous discussions about the theory of directed-energy weapons. I'd like to revisit that idea now because there are a lot more sources available. The theory is that a Directed-energy weapon was used in the attack. The evidence is that steel does not vaporize and turn into dust with fire alone. “The idea is you heat it up so hot the material begins to evaporate from the surface, the same as if you heat up water it begins to boil and eventually it’s all gone,” The professors say the technology needed for their project exists today
 * Sources on directed-energy weapons related to 9-11: From the National Institute of Standards and Technology
 * Others
 * Melted vehicles seven blocks away
 * Vaporized
 * Laser weapon    USchick (talk) 19:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm tempted to revert this back due to WP:NOTAFORUM, but you know that rule since you have been around here. One of the few issues the truth and 9/11 CTers agree on is that space lasers were not used in the attacks, and many CTers have actually written papers disproving the theory.  Toa   Nidhiki05  20:29, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * USchick, in your expert opinion, were these directed-energy weapons used by the culprits from flying saucers?--MONGO
 * If you take the time to review the links, you will see journalists asking Rumsfeld the question and his answer. He does not deny the technology exists. The fact that it's classified information, prevents me from explaining to you exactly how it works, but if you get the appropriate security clearance, let me know, and maybe we can talk about it. USchick (talk) 21:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay! I saw the application for a junior astronaut certification in a box of Captain Crunch cereal! Do you think that will suffice to allow me to see the top-secret stuff?--MONGO 21:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Perhaps you will take a look at the sources? USchick (talk) 21:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This theory, like every no-planes theory, is incredibly fringe relative to the main 9/11 conspiracy theories and are rarely mentioned even a smidgen in reliable sources talking about the CTs. We shouldn't have any mention of the "no-planes" stuff in this article, let alone talk of frikkin' laser beams. That no planes theory section should be removed.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 01:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

We should not add any theory unless it appears in a good secondary source about 9/11 conspiracy theories as such - a work like Among the Truthers, just for example. Tom Harrison Talk 23:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The Truthers do not support the weapons theory. Please let's review the sources before we make any knee jerk reactions. Thanks. USchick (talk) 02:38, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If these weapons exist, then why not just use them to take out al quackka years ago?--MONGO 03:39, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not clear to me if he's actually claiming this is a fact. I hope he's saying "here's what a bunch of crazy people believe, let's add it to the article with all the other crazy stuff".
 * This theory is stupid, the sources for it suck. But the question is do enough idiots believe this that it should go into the article. How do we go about determining that? TippyGoomba (talk) 03:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Given that no reliable sources care much about them is indicative. However, even the main conspiracist sources mention them generally in the context of "stuff the government promotes to discredit us" so that is a pretty good indication. Same goes for the "no-planes" theories in all their iterations.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 04:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * There are some sources for it...and we should also add the one on Holographic projections.---Dr.MONGO 04:35, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Please tell me someone believes something involving 911 and holographic projections. TippyGoomba (talk) 06:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The entry Conspiracy Theories in The 9/11 Encyclopedia says "The third theory is that the U.S. government, not Al Qaeda, committed the attacks. (Some believe that bombs were planted in the World Trade Center and Pentagon, arguing that burning jet fuel alone could not have caused the extensive damage. Others subscribe to a more extreme "no plane" explanation, contending that the four aircraft were either passengerless remote-controlled devices or missiles surrounded by holograms of planes.)" Based only on this, the no-planes theory probably deserves a brief mention. The citation is:  Tom Harrison Talk 12:30, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That should be included then...can we find a reliable reference (or 2) which describes that some people saw Satan or Osama bin Laden in the smoke? I saw some websites on this. I always thought the event was the work of the devil(s).--MONGO 14:28, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think seeing "some website on this" is enough to warrant inclusion. That being said, I did see numerous stories (or, at least, memes) regarding Satan being seen in the smoke, but I don't think it was at all related to any of the CTs. In any case, if we have good evidence of 'no plane' theories, they should be included. If we have good evidence of other conspiracy nuts distancing themsevles from these even nuttier theories, we can include that information as well.    Joel Why? (talk) 14:32, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * What about the phased plasma rifles in a 40-watt range? I don't think we should be deciding who is a bigger nut...we should report all referenced conspiracy theories and let the reader decide! Dr. MONGO 15:08, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Dr. Mongo, the mentioning of theories that have no prominent support among the truthers will be of little to no benefit to the reader. Wikipedia is meant to impartially convey the more prevalent phenomena as opposed to publishing every last possibility that one can imagine or find. Now if you have some mainstream or even many alternative news sources to substantiate the prominence of these beliefs among the truther community, then it probably is acceptable. But that fact is usually contingent upon mainstream news recognition of it. This is for the sake of the reader who shouldn't be bombarded with an absurd excess of (non-beneficial) information when it is already derived from frivolous, non-factual, and absurd content. True Skepticism (talk) 17:16, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess you're right...planting bombs all over one of the most secure buildings in the world and doing so undetected...making sure airplanes are (or aren't) hijacked by suicidal wackos, paying many thousands of co-conspirators to keep their mouths shut...none of that is as nutty as photon torpedos from the Starship YERANUS.--MONGO 18:16, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Mongo, I'm afraid I don't believe or support any conspiracy theories about 9/11. You may have misinterpreted what I said, or I have inadvertently. Do you want me to clarify at a certain point in my preceding response? True Skepticism (talk) 18:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, I was agreeing with you mostly...but whatever can be reliably referenced should be included. Most kitchen sinks have a garbage disposal.--MONGO 19:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not so much more vs. less nutty, as it is peanuts versus cashews. What seems crazy to US college-educated males with broadband internet isn't necessarily the same thing that seems crazy to an unemployed laborer in Cairo. Anyway, we can't pick through primary sources and decide. That's a job for journalists and academics. All we do is summarize the secondary sources those researchers write. Tom Harrison Talk 18:35, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * A few trivial mentions in secondary sources of a theory that is considered fringe even within the conspiracist community does not give a strong basis for mentioning the "no-planes" theory. Mention of the no-planes theory tends to be limited to a single sentence or even just part of a single sentence. I think the most that can be justified, based off the coverage in reliable secondary sources, is a single sentence. A whole sub-section with a paragraph and image is way too much.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 21:36, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Let's create a section on Fringe-Fringe Conspiracy Theories...we can then put the plasma rifles, halographic images, sonic booms and directed-energy rays all in there. Itks pretty POV to try and decide what is and what isn't a credible conspiracy theory though. Equal weight might be the best way to go.--MONGO 03:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * My 2c... the determinant should be notability, not credibility for conspiracy theories. Even a reliable citation or two doesn't make something notable. --Sam (talk) 04:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Mongo, while I still try to maintain a serious discourse on this page, I have a sense that you are being rather satirical. Again, I think you should really emphasize the significance in these ultra-fringe theories through citations of mainstream news publications or several alternative media sources. Unless you can bring those sources to the community's attention, your cause really has no substance or purpose being on this article. Wikipedia is not an entertainment encyclopedia meant to amuse its readers with seemingly insignificant information. Meanwhile, you are welcome to augment the table of primes factors page ad infinitum with your significant, useful, and necessary information. True Skepticism (talk) 14:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you took his comments waaaaay too seriously. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 14:38, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * So much for any objective purpose in this conversation and page. Turning Wikipedia into an entertainment platform is repugnant. True Skepticism (talk) 22:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Humor is human nature. If you don't want humor on Wikipedia, you'll be a very unhappy person here. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 22:38, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry...I did not mean to offend, nor infringe upon the rights of others to offer suggestions. However, my stance is that we're not here to report which conspiracy theories are supported by the mainstream truthers or the Architects and Engineers for Truth...we're here to write an article using the most reliable secondary sources available. If those sources claim that some believe that Directed-energy weapons, halographic illusions or even ufo's brought the towers down, then it is within our focus to report those findings in this article.--MONGO 00:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

There does need to be a recognition that certain conspiracy theories are so fringe and non-notable that even mentioning them in this article gives them undue weight. I have yet to find a significant mention of the "no-planes" theories in any major secondary sources. When they are brought up, which is rare in itself, it is to very briefly note them as being an oddity even within the conspiracist community. At best we can justify a sentence or two noting that these views exist and that they are not well-received even by other conspiracy theorists. What we have in this article right now is way more than is appropriate.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 00:57, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to keep up. Are you proposing we have a fringe-fringe section in this article or should we split this out into an ultra-fringe new article?  A new ultra-fringe article is going to require a lot of editing to the current fringe articles to add the "See Also" link and section hats (every section of every CT article will need one) to a new article.   --DHeyward (talk) 09:21, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * My first preference is to have nothing about the no-planes theories in this article or any article, except those about noteworthy advocates of such theories. One or two brief sentences somewhere in this article or perhaps the 9/11 Truth Movement article would be another option. I don't think it should have its own section in any article.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 20:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought we were discussing directed-energy weapons?--MONGO 21:28, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Some of the very fringe no-planes theories involve such claims. Yes, there are even people who are fringe within that very fringe crowd.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 22:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Seems like dancing on the head of a pin is an exclusive group though I don't see the distinction. CT is CT and it seems that's where the fringe line is drawn.  LIHOP, MIHOP, invisible space aliens with holographic projectors, etc.  In for a penny, in for a pound.  --DHeyward (talk) 07:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think all of us know that some things are considered fringe even within the conspiracist community and that this fact is generally recognized in the mainstream. We should act accordingly.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 18:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Thats strange? everything i said here has been deleted? 22:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.221.30.239 (talk)
 * See WP:NOTFORUM. TippyGoomba (talk) 03:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Please review the sources I provided and determine if any of them are considered unreliable. This is the appropriate place to do that, not in an edit war. Thanks. USchick (talk) 05:25, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Youtube links, blogs, and books with no scholarly value. None of them are reliable. Such poor quality would shame even a social scientist. TippyGoomba (talk) 06:19, 14 March 2013 (UTC)