Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories/Archive 37

"independent scientific reviews"
The reviews which are cited (an article in the magazine Popular Mechanics, and a study by Purdue) are not independent. Popular Mechanics has two former and one current NASA employee on its editorial review board, which are clearly ties to the government. The Purdue study, as stated in the USA Today article cited, was funded in part by the National Science Foundation, which is a U.S. government agency.

Attempts to correct for this error by changing "independent" to "quasi-independent" were reverted three times. The first time, whether "quasi-independence" is a thing was called into question. There are 156 hits for "quasi-independent" on wikipedia and 172,000 on google, showing that it is frequently used. Quasi-independence has been taken as a scientifically valid concept in peer-reviewed cancer research, such as this article: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2528757.

Neither of these studies are independent under a wide variety of relevant definitions of independent (from dictionary.com):
 * not relying on another or others for aid or support.
 * not influenced by the thought or action of others: independent research.

No argument has been made as to why any of this evidence is irrelevant or either of these studies are truly independent. If the claim to "independent scientific reviews" is going to remain in the article, different sources need to be cited. Magnunath (talk) 21:32, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Popular Mechanics having two ex-NASA employees and one current NASA employee, whether this is true or not, doesn't mean the government had any control over their findings. And same with Purdue. The US government had no control over what Popular Mechanics or Purdue found in their studies. Popular Mechanics and Purdue are not the only people that came to those conclusions. I didn't revert your edits, but I agree with who did.Zdawg1029 (talk) 22:03, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * That the government did not totally control what was found in these studies does not make them independent.


 * Purdue is a public university established via land-grant - it has always had government ties.


 * The current president of purdue was the republican governor of indiana from 2005-2013, and before that served from 2001-2003 as the Director of the Office of Management and Budget under George W. Bush: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitch_Daniels


 * The first Department of Computer Sciences in the United States was established at Purdue University in October 1962. Its head was Samuel Conte, who was responsible for hiring faculty and defining a graduate program (http://www.cs.purdue.edu/history/history.html).


 * The departments' ties to and cooperation with the government began early. Samuel Conte was also the founder and co-director of the Software Engineering Research Center, which was sponsored by the National Science Foundation as a joint effort between Purdue and the University of Florida to foster cooperation between industries and universities in software engineering.(http://www.cs.purdue.edu/feature/conte.html)


 * The study in question was funded in part by the government (also the National Science Foundation).


 * Mete Sozen was on the "9-11 Pentagon Data Collection Team" which was headed by Paul F. Mlakar, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: http://www.asce.org/LandingPage.aspx?id=21906


 * He lead the Purdue team that created an engineering simulation of American Airlines Flight 11 crashing into the North Tower of the World Trade Center: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mete_Sozen


 * And he was part of three of the four phases involved: http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulation/index.html


 * PM is a publication of Hearst. The head of Hearst when this was released was Cathleen Prunty Black, who was also a member of the CFR at the time. The CFR has had close ties to the U.S. government and oligarchs like Hearst and Rockefeller for the entirety of its existence.


 * Cathie Black is married to Thomas Harvey, who has been an assistant director of the CIA, deputy assistant secretary of the Army, and deputy administrator of the Veterans Administration: http://jpgmag.com/photos/342539


 * In 2006, he was nominated by President Bush to serve as Assistant Secretary for Congressional and Legislative Affairs: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-109shrg29718/html/CHRG-109shrg29718.htm


 * Shortly before PM's piece on 9/11 was released, its editor-in-chief (joseph oldham) was replaced by james b. meigs: http://www.hearst.com/press-room/pr-295-20040311.html


 * Half of the members of PM's editorial review board have ties to the government (http://www.popularmechanics.com/about/about-us):


 * Kenneth Kamler (worked closely with NASA in the past and done research sponsored by NASA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Kamler)


 * Thomas D. Jones (NASA astronaut)


 * Buzz Aldrin (Apollo 11 astronaut)


 * Gavin A. Schmidt (NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies)


 * Wm. A. Wulf (National Academy of Engineering)


 * They dictate the tone and direction the publication's editorial policy will take: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editorial_board


 * It is unlikely if not impossible, with so many people w/ government ties on the editorial review board of PM (which is in turn owned by a corporation run by someone w/ very close government ties), that their editorial policy would permit the publication truly independent research. Magnunath (talk) 21:47, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've never seen so well-researched nonsense before. It is nonsense, and should be treated as such on Wikipedia.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 10:17, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It's quite the conspiracy theory isn't it.--MONGO 16:23, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * In re Magnunath's most recent edits. I agree that not all the theories have had independent scientific review, but that no independent scientific review has found any evidence supporting the theories.  I'm not sure how to rephrase the lead; one could rationally suggest that the lead should note that not all the theories have been studied by independent scientists, but still that no evidence in favor of any of the theories has been found.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 00:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know...looks like much to do about nothing, really. Some of the "theories" may not have been debunked since they aren't worth even addressing.--MONGO 00:48, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Kevin Bacon played an astronaut once...The circle is complete. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 02:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There are also independent scientific reviews (like Steven E. Jones') that have found evidence in support of some theories (in his case, nanothermite in WTC dust samples as evidence of controlled demolition). NIST has declined to conduct a similar analysis of dust samples, and no independent scientific review has been done which rebuts Steven E. Jones' work. There are also some theories which are less a question of "independent scientific review" and more a question of politics, like the "bush and friends lied to us" theory and foreknowledge theories. There is plenty of evidence in favor of these theories (such as Bush saying that "there was no way anyone in our government could have envisioned planes being used as missiles" the same day that his military was running drills simulating planes being used as missiles, the govt's treatment of Sibel Edmonds' testimony regarding FBI foreknowledge, Richard Clarke's testimony regarding an august 6th memo that was ignored, etc.) For these reasons, I think clarifying that the studies cited have not addressed all theories and that there is not a consensus among independent scientific reviews w/r/t 9/11 conspiracy theories is worthwhile. Magnunath (talk) 23:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There very much is a scientific consensus about whether 9/11 CT's are worthwhile. Consensus is not the same as unamimity, Jones is out of his field of expertise, and the other links you provided are not relevant to the engineering and scientific communities' assessments. VQuakr (talk) 23:53, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Is there a consensus? Architects & Engineers for 9/11 truth have gotten thousands of people to sign their petitions, people that are members of the engineering and scientific communities. Accusing Steven Jones (who has a pHD in physics) of being unqualified to analyze dust samples and identify thermitic compounds is one thing - it'd be another if NIST or any other peer-reviewed article rebutted his claims or attempted conducted their own analysis of dust samples from the world trade center.
 * The other theories (and facts) are relevant to the engineering and scientific communities' assessments. Foreknowledge is a precondition of controlled demolition, and we have evidence of foreknowledge. Government lies and coverups are a precondition of controlled demolition, and we have evidence of government lies and coverups. Magnunath (talk) 03:49, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, there really is. Re your NIST rebuttal, please review WP:PARITY. "Thousands" of architects and engineers is not a lot, not even as a minority group. Polls have indicated that double-digit percentages of various populations think the moon landings were faked, but those are silly fringe viewpoints with no support from the scientific community either. VQuakr (talk) 07:10, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That's really not comparable. As we've already established, several 9/11 conspiracy theories are true and are backed up by a wide variety of research from many sources and communities: see Sibel Edmonds, Peter Dale Scott, Webster Griffin Tarpley, David Ray Griffin, and others. A&E for 9/11 truth is about just one element of 9/11 (and 9/11 conspiracy theories), and it's role should not be overemphasized or understood outside of its relationship with these other thinkers and theories. In that context, when there is evidence that the government is lying about and covering up other aspects of 9/11, and has failed to respond to independent peer-reviewed scientific research finding nanothermite in the WTC dust particles, if "parity" is not being met its because the government has not risen up to the challenge of adequately supporting its version of events. Numerous scientific revolutions have come about through dissent, and the influence of corporations and governments in manufacturing consent should not be ignored: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/30/scientists-democracy-dissent-reasonable-boyd Magnunath (talk) 00:56, 5 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It could be that all the universities and the mainstream media are run by a secret cabal and are therefore unreliable. However policy requires us to accept those sources as reliable.  TFD (talk) 23:49, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It is possible to operate under that assumption and continue to cite these sources, which does not require endorsing everything they say or overstating what these studies claim. The universities and the mainstream media are reliable in some instances but not others. They should be scrutinized, that doesn't mean wikipedia's source reliability policy needs to be changed. I have no problem with citing the purdue study or the popular mechanics article, as they are worth taking into account. Saying that they are independent seems like a stretch, and claiming that they have rebutted "the theories" is an overstatement because there are many theories they do not address at all (including "who" and "why" theories). Magnunath (talk) 03:49, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Magnunath, all we need are some reliable secondary sources that support the information you wish to add or modify. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 03:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Word. I got some of my own, there are many good places to find them. Some other wikipedia pages besides this one include 9/11 advanced-knowledge debate, CIA–al-Qaeda controversy, and United States government operations and exercises on September 11, 2001. There is information cited here that is reliable that could be added to the september 11 attacks page, as could a lot of the information on this page. There are also a lot of books worth using, like Peter Dale Scott's and Sibel Edmond's. Magnunath (talk) 03:49, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * We are not adding a bunch of conspiracy theory nonsense to the September 11 attacks article.--MONGO 16:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course not! Just the abundant conspiracy facts that are currently not present on the page Magnunath (talk) 00:56, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There are no conspiracy "facts" not already present in 9/11 attacks. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 01:54, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, that's not true! There is no mention of Sibel Edmonds, Military exercises, Mossad, and much more on the 9/11 attacks page. Here are some "conspiracy facts" included on other wikipedia pages with reliable citation:


 * Sibel Edmonds:


 * Edmonds testified before the 9/11 Commission, but her testimony was excluded from the official 567 page 9/11 Commission Report.


 * On May 13, 2004, Ashcroft submitted statements to justify the use of the State secrets privilege against the planned deposition by Edmonds, and the same day, the FBI retroactively classified as Top Secret all of the material and statements that had been provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2002 relating to Edmonds's own lawsuit, as well as the letters that had been sent by the Senators and republished by the Project on Government Oversight.


 * September 11 attacks advance-knowledge conspiracy theories:


 * Sibel Edmonds, an FBI translator, stated that the FBI received information in April 2001, from a reliable Iranian intelligence asset, that Osama Bin Laden was planning attacks on 4–5 cities with planes, and that some of the plotters were already in the country and the attacks would happen in a few months.


 * August 2001 – The Israeli Mossad gives the CIA a list of 19 terrorists living in the US and say that they appear to be planning to carry out an attack in the near future.


 * According to a former CIA chief of operations for counterterrorism Vince Cannistraro, there was speculation that Urban Moving Systems may have been a front for an intelligence operation investigating fund-raising networks channeling money to Hamas and Islamic Jihad. On March 15, 2002, The Forward claimed that the FBI had concluded that the van's driver, Paul Kurzberg, and his brother Sivan, were indeed Mossad operatives, who were in America "spying on local Arabs". ABC news cited this report on June 21, 2002, adding that the FBI had concluded that the five Israelis had no foreknowledge of the attacks.


 * Immediately following the attacks, President George W. Bush stated that "nobody in our government at least, and I don't the think the prior government, could envisage flying air planes into buildings" and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice claimed no-one "could have predicted that they would try to use an airplane as a missile". An Air Force general called the attack "something we had never seen before, something we had never even thought of."


 * United States government operations and exercises on September 11, 2001:


 * Vigilant Guardian is a Command Post Exercise (CPX), meaning it is conducted in offices and with computers, but without actual planes in the air. The exercise involves all NORAD command levels. Out of a range of scenarios being run on September 11, 2001, one was a "traditional" simulated hijacking.


 * Aside from military exercises, a National Reconnaissance Office drill was being conducted on September 11, 2001. In a simulated event, a small aircraft would crash into one of the towers of the agency's headquarters after experiencing a mechanical failure.


 * CIA–al-Qaeda controversy:


 * During the anti-Soviet jihad Bin Laden and his fighters received American and Saudi funding. Some analysts believe Bin Laden himself had security training from the CIA.


 * Former FBI translator and Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds, interviewed by Brad Friedman on the The Mike Malloy Show on June 2009 has stated : "I have information about things that our government has lied to us about. I know. For example, to say that since the fall of the Soviet Union we ceased all of our intimate relationship with Bin Laden and the Taliban - those things can be proven as lies, very easily, based on the information they classified in my case, because we did carry very intimate relationship with these people, and it involves Central Asia, all the way up to September 11." Magnunath (talk) 01:58, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Magnunath, we cannot "scrutinize" reliable sources, per "no original research". The most we can do is correct errors in reliable sources that have been identified by other, later reliable sources.  If you have feel that government funding creates bias then you need to write to your Congressman/woman.  TFD (talk) 19:36, 5 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying that anyone should do original research, in that sense. Scrutinizing and using sources wikipedia considers reliable can and should be done concurrently. Sometimes, reliable sources disagree and include facts that can be used to support divergent viewpoints. Making sure that we scrutinize the *application* of reliable sources can only improve the quality of wikipedia. As long as wikipedia remains independent, it should not be necessary to write to congress for us to be able to conclude that studies funded in part by the government are not totally independent of the government. Magnunath (talk) 01:58, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's pretty clear there is no consensus for your suggested edit. But a WP:RFC might be fun. TippyGoomba (talk) 06:01, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

The "Official conspiracty theory" redirect page
I just posted the following to Talk for the Official conspiracy theory redirect page (with text somewhat edited here to fit the context of the present talk page):


 * The Official conspiracy theory (link shown in red here, access it through a search) redirect page does not go to the most appropriate article. It goes to 9/11 Truth movement, which does not discuss the "official conspiracy theory" in a substantive way. The present article 9/11 conspiracy theories takes on the topic more explicitly. Instead of being a redirect, the Official conspiracy theory page should be a disamiguation that provides a link to both articles.


 * Moveover, "official conspriacy theory" is a term that seemingly is not unique to the 9/11 events, and should be available for providing access to articles on other events too, as may be appropriate. Making it a disambiguation page would facilitate that. Coastwise (talk) 03:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The correct link is Official Conspiracy Theory. I changed the target to Conspiracy theory (disambiguation) since, as you say, it has multiple uses. That disambiguation page has, in turn, a clickable link to List of conspiracy theories, so our readers should be able to find what they are looking for. VQuakr (talk) 01:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * How can a conspiracy theory be "official"? HiLo48 (talk) 01:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It is a fringe term, used to characterize the mainstream account of the 9/11 attacks as just another conspiracy theory. It is, however, also a valid search term and routing it to our disambig page on conspiracy theories in general seems to be the most neutral way to address it. VQuakr (talk) 01:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Coastwise and VQuakr's suggestion seems reasonable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Caprarescu accuses CIA and SRI of September 11 attacks
I propose to add the following text as the last paragraph of the "History" chapter:

Bogdan Alexandru Caprarescu published a document called "The Secret Organized Crime" in which he accuses an international criminal organization composed of the Central Intelligence Agency, the Romanian Intelligence Service (SRI), and presumably other secret services of many crimes including September 11 attacks. Caprarescu testifies that Alexandra Maria Hila, his ex-girlfriend and an alleged CIA agent, told him that Elisabetta Di Nitto, associate professor at Politecnico di Milano and an alleged CIA agent, "helped CIA organize September 11" by killing "those who opposed". According to Caprarescu, Hila said that these people were killed by causing "diseases, accidents, suicides". In the same document Caprarescu witnesses that CIA and SRI read the thoughts of people and control the bodies of people.
 * Has he considered that the CIA and SRI might be run by Reptilians?--MONGO 17:09, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I am certain he is considering it now. I suspect we will now be entered in his document as CIA agents like his last girlfriend. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Alternative Theories and Evidence
There not a line about the missing $2.3 trillion that were mentionned by Donald RUMSFELD the day before 911. Because of the 911 events there was no investigation about these missing $2.3 trillion, and even more money was spent by secretary of defense. Why ignore this fact and this motive ? I wrote a few lines about this motive, including the video interview of Donald Rumsfeld, but my contribution has been deleted immediately. What is the procedure ? Could we vote to add this motive ? User:DAVIDJACOBCHEMLA —Preceding undated comment added 00:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

on alternative views: "Government investigations and independent scientific reviews have found no evidence for the theories." The last part isn't exactly true and is it Wikipedia policy to blindly believe the government version of events (which is just another conspiracy theory in that case)? --41.151.29.112 (talk) 17:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is true. Other "reviews" have been done, but there's no evidence as to their being "scientific".  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:22, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * A statement like that needs a reliable source to back it up. USchick (talk) 17:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Citations 13, 14, and 15 (among others) all support this statement. "Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material."    Joel Why? (talk) 18:25, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The NIST report and Popular Mechanics are investigations funded by organizations allegedly responsible for the attacks. They are disputed by conspiracy theorists. When you say "independent scientific reviews have found no evidence for the theories" that part needs to be sourced because architects and engineers disagree and are calling for a new investigation USchick (talk) 19:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Please go peddle your conspiracy theories on a forum and not on Wikipedia. Wikipedia deals in facts. Facts are supported by evidence, real evidence, and real evidence does not include what some guy said in some YouTube video.74.107.103.88 (talk) 19:41, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The number of architects and engineers that disagree and are calling for a new investigation is a very, very tiny minority. The number of architects and engineers that agree with the official story is overwhelming.74.107.103.88 (talk) 19:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Where is the source for this claim. Have architects and engineers been polled about agreement with NIST conclusions or whether there should be a new investigation? Edkollin (talk) 08:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Then it shouldn't be a problem to find a source to support this statement "independent scientific reviews have found no evidence for the theories" USchick (talk) 19:48, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No, those are independent reports, and conspiracy theorists then managed to create yet more conspiracy theories to support their original conspiracy theory. The sources are there. You are free to believe whatever you'd like. Please see the FAQ above that explains all the reasons why we're not making your proposed changes.    Joel Why? (talk) 20:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There's nothing in FAQ to address this issue. Can you please point it out? It's not accurate to say "independent reports" when you really mean one report that's not independent. USchick (talk) 20:08, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Two reports, both of which are independent. Unless you have reliable sources demonstrating that they are independent, they're treated as independent. We don't decide how to label or not label a report based upon what conspiracy theorists think. 9/11 conspiracy beliefs are considered fringe under Wiki guidelines, as pointed out in the FAQ.20:22, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 12 years later, architects and engineers are still calling for an independent report  and the article needs to reflect that. USchick (talk) 20:25, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * A group claims they have gotten 2,000 architects and engineers supporting their call for a new investigation. Has anybody verified that the people who signed the petition are reputable experts? Edkollin (talk) 08:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't care what a few conspiracy theorists believe, that doesn't change reality. I've added citations to the Purdue study and the Pop. Mechanics one. Problem solved.    Joel Why? (talk) 20:47, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! USchick (talk) 21:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The original statement ("Government investigations and independent scientific reviews have found no evidence for the theories.") still stinks because it leaves the false impression that a small weed was said to have popped up in the lawn, but the lawnkeeper indicated that there was no such weed. First of all, the conspiracies (i.e., weeds) appeared because the "government investigations and independent scientific reviews" were so poor (i.e., a weak, spotty lawn) in the first place. To go back and say that the lawn was full and robust and thus no weeds could/can exist is too broad and too sweeping and logically flawed. Honestly, I'm not supporting either side, because both have significant problems, but this statement has the feeling of "nothing to see here folks" which is unnecessary in an article on alternate theories.99th Percentile (talk) 04:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That's even less correct than what the conspiracists are proposing. As far as I can tell, the conspiracies appeared because some implausible data were not fully explained by the mainstream analysis.  To use your analogy, there may be weeds, and there are some (not-fully-explained) observations which might occur if there were weeds, but there are other things which would occur if their were weeds, which did not occur.  The "government investigations and indepdent scientific reviews" didn't investigate things which were implausible and would have had other consequences which were not observed.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2014
Under sub-section 4.4 Flight 93, the third paragraph states "According to some theories, the plane had to be shot down by the government because passengers had found out about the alleged plot." It should be noted that this, and many other theories shown in this article, only supports the notion that the government definitely had a hand in the terror attacks. Therefore, it should be amended to include a parallel view of the conspiracy theory in which the U.S. government in no way orchestrated or helped to orchestrate the events that took place on 9/11, in order to place balance in the article. The theory that the U.S. air force did authorize a fighter jet to shoot down the airliner, but in order to protect the lives of many more Americans than were on Flight 93, would be an ideal addition. A proposed revision would be: "According to some theories, the airliner was to be shot down by the U.S. air force because passengers had found out that the government was orchestrating the attacks. A parallel theory is that the government authorized the take-down to prevent a fourth terror attack (there had already been three confirmed attacks - the Twin Towers and the Pentagon)." I believe it is fair and balanced.

Dudeman656 (talk) 05:53, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. While Wikipedia does try to lend equal weight to all theories, those theories must come from reliable source material. Simply putting forth a theory yourself without supporting references is considered original research, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. -- El Hef  ( Meep? ) 16:40, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Why is somebody lying in the intro? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.209.180.23 (talk) 19:49, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

?'
"The civil engineering community accepts that the impacts of jet aircraft at high speeds in combination with subsequent fires, not controlled demolition, led to the collapse of the Twin Towers."

Really? Who's the "civil engineering community"? The source linked to this statement just shows the personal opinion of Bazant. When did Bazant become representative of the "engineering community" to speak in the name of them? Dornicke (talk) 20:25, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe you can suggest more references?--MONGO 22:35, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I suggest a real reference. The one presented in the article is just personal opinion. Dornicke (talk) 16:29, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Feel free to add one...or more...--MONGO 18:16, 30 March 2014 (UTC)


 * No. I think the sentence should be removed unless those interested in keeping it find a real reference. Dornicke (talk) 18:34, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not phrased well, but the overall gist is correct. And it's not just Bazant's "personal opinion" that the collapse was due to the airliners. The statement could use rephrasing here, but the citation is valid. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 18:52, 30 March 2014 (UTC)


 * There has been absolutely nothing published supporting any WTC demolition theories in any actual Civil Engineering journal. There's a bit of a problem with fringe theories in that the actual academics tend to ignore them, so it's a bit difficult to find citations that say that they reject them. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 07:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd love to see you prove that claim about "absolutely nothing published". HiLo48 (talk) 07:47, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Me too. I'd also would love to see a reliable source for the sentence "The civil engineering community accepts that the impacts of jet aircraft (...) led to the collapse of the towers." And I don't see such a reliable source - that sentence WILL BE REMOVED. I'll wait 48 hours. Dornicke (talk) 21:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The source already in the article states that the mainstream description of the collapse is, "generally accepted by the community of specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering." The publication is the Journal of Engineering Mechanics. I think the article fairly summarizes this group as the "civil engineering community", but of course there is always room for improvement. Please do not remove cited content, however, and you may want to check your caps lock key. VQuakr (talk) 23:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The source in the article only shows the personal opinion of Bazant. He's the one saying that such a "engineering community" accepts the official explanation. If you want to keep that sentence and reference, you need to fix it ("according to Bazant, the "engineering community bla bla bla"). Otherwise, it needs to be removed. And it will. Dornicke (talk) 15:58, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Dropping ultimatums isn't exactly helpful. Especially since you could rephrase the sentence as you suggested, instead of demanding others do the work for you. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 16:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Feel free to provide a referenced argument besides your own opinion and maybe you can then get others to agree to changes.--MONGO 16:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * No, MONGO, I don't have to provide a "referenced argument", and I think you need to improve your reading skills and review the project policies. Anyone with two functional neurons is able to see that the reference does not support the sentence in the text. THAT is the issue. I dont't have to provide anything. On contrary. If you want to keep that sentence, YOU must replace that reference for a another one that supports what is written on the article. Otherwise, it will be removed, in accordance to the project guidelines. I have to do nothing. Dornicke (talk) 17:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Article reasonably summarizes the source, which is reliable. If you disagree, WP:RSN is thataway. You still need to check that sticky caps lock key. VQuakr (talk) 19:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * No, the article does not summarizes the source. The source is indeed reliable, but it doesn't support the text in the article. As I said, I do not have to do anything. IF YOU want to keep the sentence, fix it. Otherwise it will be removed. Period. Dornicke (talk) 19:57, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Then why don't you trot out a source that confirms the opposite. Attacking a source or a statement is one thing, but without any evidence explaining why the source is wrong, you're just blowing hot air into a plastic bag. You think there's something there, but everyone can see right through it. JOJ  Hutton  21:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

How is the statement not aligned with the core content policies of verifiability, no original research, or neutral point of view? (see also; content guideline on fringe theories) — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 22:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Then why don't you trot out a source that confirms the opposite. - Because I don't want to, because I don't need to, because I didn't say that we need a source that confirms the opposite - in fact, I have no idea of why you came to the conclusion that I was looking for a "source confirming the opposite".
 * How is the statement not aligned with the core content policies of verifiability, no original research, or neutral point of view? - The statement is the personal opinion of a single person. It is being used to reference the statement that "the civil engineering community" rejects other explanations. If you want a reference to that statement, you need to present a source that confirms it. The present source only shows the opinion of a single person - not the "engineering community". But it is being used in reference to the "engineering community". The source is false. Dornicke (talk) 20:57, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Censoring Dornicke for his reasonable request is illustrative of your weak argument. I suggest flagging this article as biased or controversial. As Dornicke correctly points out, one man's quote is not illustrative of the entire engineering community. Even the title speaks to the inherent bias of this article. Reasonable skeptics can appreciate the logic presented above. Those without the facility of critical thought can cling to their beliefs, but it has no place here. Censoring him for engaging you politely on this talk page only serves to further highlight your biases.


 * At a certain point, Wikipedia will jump the shark and join the dustbin of irrelevant infotainment media. The demarcation point will vary from individual to individual, but as the process continues the probability of you meeting it will also increase. Perhaps even those who have censored Dornicke may find themselves on the other side of that line at some future juncture.


 * It is for the above reasons that we operate within the bounds of logic when discussing. No matter how firmly attached some editors may be to the 9/11 narrative, the use of logic and rational dialogue must remain sacrosanct.


 * As it stands Wikipedia's policies are an arbitrary set of rules which are applied where it suits senior editor's opinions. It is nothing new for me to say this; It is written across the web and known to most who have examined talk pages. Editors can comfort themselves within their circle of believers, but elsewhere a consensus is forming about the arbitrary nature of Wikipedia's rules.


 * By selfishly clinging to your beliefs and by discarding rational dialogue, you not only retard the growth of this resource, but you also threaten to destroy it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.93.73.206 (talk) 18:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Feel free to climb down from that soapbox any time now. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 19:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Snark is a poor substitute for a cognizant reply. As I recall, it is written somewhere in Wikipedia's set of subjective standards that editors should engage with good faith. Characterizing my thoughts as 'speaking from a soapbox' does not refute what I have said. To the contrary it serves to illustrate how you find yourself above Wikipedia's policies when defending the institutional position. It is another prime example of your refusal to engage in a rational dialogue. Your petty sniping only reinforces what I have presented.


 * Feel free to approach the discussion with the tools of logic, although I expect you will not. For myself, at least I can say that I have endeavored to engage in a discussion within the bounds of reason and under the terms of good faith. That said, it will not surprise me in the least if you choose to follow up with more name calling. Par for the course... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.252.12.32 (talk) 04:52, 15 May 2014 (UTC)   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.63.243.5 (talk)


 * We're not here to refute what you say or to engage in a debate "with the tools of logic," this is not an Internet forum. As the notice (backed up by policy) says at the top of this page "This is not a forum for general discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories. Any such messages will be deleted." Per WP:5P we're here to document what the mainstream media and reputable scholarly community have to say about the subject, with proportional representation of alternate and fringe points of view, describing them as such according to mainstream media. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox: you're the one calling folks "selfish" and "snarky."   Acroterion   (talk)   14:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. You misconstrue what I have said. I am not proposing a debate about 9/11. I am suggesting that one man's opinion is not illustrative of the larger engineering community. I am pointing out the obvious in that this article is biased (see title) and should be tagged appropriately. Given the differing viewpoints, controversial would also be appropriate. If by putting this in context you feel that I have been soap-boxing, you are entitled to your opinion. However dismissing my comments out of hand by labeling them as 'soap boxing' is not the same as engaging in good faith. I hope you can appreciate this distinction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.34.0.242 (talk) 15:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * This has already been addressed. The Journal of Engineering Mechanics is a reliable source for characterizing the opinion of the engineering community. As for the rest of your comment, 9/11 conspiracy theories are a fringe topic and will be addressed as such. VQuakr (talk) 19:33, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but the sentence does not meet an encyclopedic standard. You cherry pick the narrowest possible application of the policies to meet your chosen outcome. Regardless of notability, it is illogical to take one man's statement of opinion as illustrative of the larger community. Moreover, it is not demonstrated via notable sources that "most of the engineering community" has made inquiries into the topic. Thirdly, poor logic is also exhibited above via false dichotomy: "There has been absolutely nothing published supporting any WTC demolition theories in any actual Civil Engineering journal."


 * Policies and guidelines can be useful, but they are meaningless where they are applied without reason or good faith. In the absence of common sense and logic, the highly subjective rules can be applied beyond the point of absurdity. Hence the rule quoting, deletions of comments, and assumptions of conspiracist intent. Although I may not have the page on hand for quick quoting, I am sure you are aware that WP policies ask that editors endeavor to be reasonable about the application of rules, and not to cherry pick.


 * Surely one could go through whatever may be categorized as notable sources of media and find several illogical statements. Next an editor could manipulatively juxtapose the sourced material without context to meet any outcome which he desires. That process will never be encyclopedic.


 * You can deny that the title it is biased by alluding that alternative ideas (or even skepticism concerning official ideas) qualifies as 'fringe', but can you say that the title is encyclopedic? The article from the heading onward is clearly something less than logical or objectively researched. I know of no encyclopedia that prints dismissive (and exaggerated) entries concerning ideas to which the author's biases carry disdain. An encyclopedia would simply omit this article.


 * Again, I ask that the article be tagged appropriately and that the offending sentence be rephrased or removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.252.112.118 (talk) 01:52, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * What VQuakr said. The source is perfectly adequate. There is no reason to remove or change it. there is no reason to add a tag either. Time for you to move on.--McSly (talk) 01:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I believe Wikipedia left out another Wikipedia reference for this article on conspiracy theories
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Impact_Demonstration Qui Tam Relator 20:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:CIRCULAR explains why we do not use Wikipedia as a source for content within Wikipedia. VQuakr (talk) 05:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Original research?
I truly fail to understand why my edit is deemed OR. It is a strictly factual matter that polling established that support for military action was already there before 9/11. That is highly relevant given that the basis for many conspiracies is that the attacks were designed to provide said support.

CJK (talk) 22:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * It seems you haven't fully read the policy I've linked to. Here is the most relevant part of said policy: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the author(s) of that source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article." Please read, understand, revert and try to keep it in mind for future edits. Thanks.TMCk (talk) 23:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I didn't do any of that. The line I inserted was


 * Polling from February 2001 shows that, even before 9/11, a majority of Americans were in favor of sending troops back to the Persian Gulf to remove Saddam Hussein from power.


 * There is no "A and B implying C". There is just a presentation of Fact A.


 * CJK (talk) 00:04, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry but that's "nonsense". There is fact A (what some conspiracy theorists believe) and B, a statement implying that it can't be right b/c a source from before 9/11 has (besides other polling) a poll that says what you said in your edit. Can you see now that there is something wrong when you apply our policies to your edit in regards to OR/synth?TMCk (talk) 03:12, 31 May 2014 (UTC) A and B of course implies C, that there was "enough support" already... at some point... [just to make it more clear for you].TMCk (talk) 03:26, 31 May 2014 (UTC)


 * It is a simple observation, informing people what the state of public opinion was before 9/11. You are the one doing the synthesis. Are you saying that all contradictory observations are OR synthesis? Or are you actually disputing the fact in question?


 * Are you seriously saying there is no way we can incorporate the results of this poll? Is it not highly relevant to the discussion?


 * Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. I did not do anything other than report the fact, given in one source. Please tell me where I arrived at a conclusion not stated in the source. Of course, the source was from before 9/11 so it does not mention 9/11.


 * CJK (talk) 12:47, 31 May 2014 (UTC)


 * the burden is on you to show that this information is relevant to an article about conspiracy theories. So far you have not presented any source that connects this polling information to a CT, so you are continuing to violate WP:SYN by adding it back in. VQuakr (talk) 19:07, 31 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Are you saying that the information is irrelevant? CJK (talk) 21:45, 31 May 2014 (UTC)


 * First you argued in your edit summary that it's just a fact you added. There are lots of facts that are not suitable to be included in this article. Now you're saying/asking if the information is not relevant. It is not relevant if secondary sources have not made that connection. It might be relevant to you but you're not a reliable source to make that connection and give it relevance. Read up on OR/synth again while putting your personal believes/feeling aside and you should come to the same conclusion.TMCk (talk) 22:35, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Non-Topical Grammatical and Typo Errors
Footnote #193 lists Chip Berlet as, "Senior Analyst at Senior Research Associates, in Summerville, Massachusetts." That is incorrect. At the time of that interview on Democracy Now!, Berlet was Senior Analyst at Political Research Associates in Somerville, Massachusetts. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_Research_Associates http://www.politicalresearch.org/2009/09/26/pra-senior-analyst-chip-berlet-offers-insight-in-arcs-investigation-into-post-election-racial-politics/ RushRhees (talk) 07:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅--MONGO 11:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Random unreliable sources
Why are editors to restoring content sourced to random blogs of non-professionals, and other unreliable sources? Q6 at the top of this page is being ignored. Such as: Talk about ignoring Verifiability and Fringe theories.--Theamazo (talk) 20:20, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Gordon Farrer, a tech editors blog
 * Charlie Brooks's (comedian) blog
 * Charlie Skelton's blog
 * Paul Zarembka's book THE HIDDEN HISTORY OF 9-11-2001:
 * 911truth.org
 * 911review.com


 * That (Gordon Farrer) is an editor of the Sydney Morning Herald. It is a RS. It falls into WP:NEWSBLOG. Describing it as a blog subject to removal is entirely inappropriate. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:25, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The second is not Charlie Brooks it is Charlie Brooker. Brooker is a columnist for the Guardian newspaper. Since the section is in "Media reaction" it is entirely correct for a columnist's reaction to be included. Guardian is generally regarded as RS. It is not a blog. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:31, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a Theguardian.com opinion piece. Opinion pieces are not published as part of the main print, so less of a 'media reaction', more of a personal 'journalist reaction'. Again, how Brooker's views on conspiracy theorists mindsets is relevant or reliable here evades me.--Theamazo (talk) 20:41, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that it is opinion, but it is not Random unreliable sources. It is, in fact, properly sourced as Brooker's opinion to a RS (The Guardian). If you believe the Guardian is not RS for the ref you have the option of taking it to WP:RSN. Capitalismojo (talk) 21:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I do not understand why Zarembka's book is listed here. It is a collection of scholarly articles written by the members of Scholars for 911 Truth. Regardless of one's opinion about the 911 Truth Movement & the unofficial conspiracy theories, if a Wikipedia article on 9/11 conspiracy theories wants to cite the best academics/intellectuals who question the official 911 Commission Report, then Zarembka's book is a legitimate source. In full disclosure, I helped proofread that book -- that collection of essays by the leading intellectuals within the 911 Truth movement -- before its publication. However, I am not a member of the 911 Truth Movement.RushRhees (talk) 08:20, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem with including this info, so long as it's made clear that this is merely the claims being levied by conspiracy theorists, and not serious arguments that have made it through a legitimate peer-review process.    Joel Why? (talk) 13:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Zarembka is fine as a source for what truthers think (although secondary sources are prefered). It is not, however, "a collection of scholarly articles". It is just a collection of truther writings. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 23:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 9/11 Truth Movement "intellectuals" is an oxymoron.--MONGO 11:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The third paragraph is a bit light
Currently the third paragraph of the lede reads:

This gives the reader the false impression that it is only the NIST and Popular Mechanics that have investigated the events of 9/11; that only the "civil engineering community accepts" the findings of the NIST (i.e., the "official version") as rubber stamped by the 9/11 Commission. In reality the widely-accepted mainstream account is based on a huge amount of evidence, none of which supports any of the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11.

The lede of this article needs to make it clear that this is a WP:FRINGE topic, and that 9/11 conspiracy theories are just that... conspiracy theories. Not because they have been "rejected", but because they have been disproved and debunked by numerous investigations. Investigations that have been conducted by experts employed by government agencies as well as those conducted by independent organizations and institutions. Suggestions? — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 12:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)