Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories/Archive 5

Aim of the article
How does the article turn from a subject about 9-11 conspiracy theories into an article persuading the reader of their validity?

The WTC 7 section in particular could simply be renamed 911research.net, or prison-planet.com. This might save a bit of space. There was a photo that clearly showed smoke pouring out of the south face, yet it has been removed twice because of its “deceptive” nature. A video shot of the same area supported the caption of the photograph. I can only assume it would be troubling to see if one had a strong desire to hold on to the “limited fire” idea. That and the numerous fire officials suggesting the building was severely damaged and raging with fire doesn’t mean too much either I gather.

Repetitions keep creeping into the article such as the no plane statement, or the minimum fires, or the way it fell. It’s not necessary to tell the reader this information 3 or 4 times.

An article entitled 9-11 conspiracy theories should be simply that…an article about 9-11 conspiracy theories. It should describe the evolution and the sub-culture of society that promulgates these theories and where they survive. Instead the article list nearly 20 links to 911research.net, a website that’s operated by four individuals with only Hoffman having any sort of scientific credentials relevant to the topic. It’s either this cite, or the Jones reference that gets utilized the most. Even the BYU College of Engineering and Technology department went so far as to post a response on Jones’ paper stating,

“Professor Jones’s department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review. The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones”

And the implosionworld.com response to 911research.net carried a critical tone in regards to the whole demolition theory; this is what they do for a living and they seem unconvinced. Perhaps after their review of the subject, it will put some of this to rest.



Conveniently, the advantage of the conspiracy theory is its adaptability. It’s like an amoeba that can change form at any time. If this doesn’t fit, let’s try something else. The pod theory, the once popular claim of conspiracy rhetoric, has faded to the background with the demolition theory taking more of a front seat.

I wonder if any of the employees in the buildings noticed their workspaces looked a little different on 9-11:

My point here is not to debunk these theories, because for some even time travel would make that impossible, but to suggest keeping this article as objective as possible regardless of your beliefs. A summary of a certain claim is just as informative without a 10 point list on why that claim is important to those who believe it. There are plenty of sites in existence already that do their best to convince readers of certain theories.--Doctor9 01:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you make a valid point, especially with the picture of building 7 that was deleted twice. I think the pictures I added of squibs and the crimp should stay though. Those sites are much needed references and sources of information. For example, "where did you hear that there were squibs? You can't put that in the article without a citing a source." - "I saw them in these pictures at PrisonPlanet. Here." SkeenaR 02:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

There is no question that you are right when you say that it would appear the purpose of this article is to persuade the reader of the validity of various 9/11 conspiracies rather than describe them if you only cite examples such as pictures being deleted because they might seem detrimental to promoting validity. And repetitions are obviously no good either. They should go.

This page should not describe an evolution and subculture of society though. See Hippies. That is obviously not the point of the article. It's about theories not theorists. Also, whether or not you were attempting to do so is irrelevant, but Professor Jones' article cannot be discredited, at least yet. It won't help to cite Implosionworld or any other university eggheads(nothing wrong with eggheads) until their has been more review done either - it works both ways. They have an opinion however persuaded it might be, Jones has an opinion however educated it might be, and the government has an official explanation however desperate looking it might be.

Pictures like the one you provided are helpful for describing what these theories are, and there are plenty of those. Conspiracy theories have to be described in detail or you might as well have a blank page or maybe a title. Why would there be a page on conspiracy theories unless we know what these theories are?

Counter arguments to some of the theories are are well presented in the article, especially in the WTC 7 section. But for now, they are all only theories and I think this page does a good job of explaining what those theories are. SkeenaR 05:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

By the way, here is the place for evolution and subculture of conspiracy theorists. SkeenaR 06:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree completely SkeenaR. I think part of the problem is the passion of the conspiracy theorists.  Unlike controversial articles such as abortion, in which both sides are passionate and have unending will to keep the other side in check, I think that this article is followed mostly by belivers in the conspiracy theories.  People like myself get tired of trying to keep the POV in check at some point and stop checking in.  But I agree, I think a reworking of the article is in order.  --Quasipalm 22:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The persuasion orientation of this article is self-evident, but what to do about it? As you say, the advocates are the most diligent of the editors here.  Trying to correct that POV is mostly pointless, as there's a determined group of people with the same pro-conspiracy POV that show up here and edit in that direction.  In that respect, the self-correcting promise of Wikipedia fails, and probably will never be remedied.  Indeed, Wikipedia's reputation as a reliable source has been deeply bruised by recent events, and probably won't recover without significant reform.  The Co-Founder of Wikipedia, whose name we "dare not speak", believes that the answer is to hire editors to sift the candidate entries, and has formed his own Wiki-like venture to pursue that aim.  In the meantime, this stuff is mostly harmless, and maybe even a little fun.  How we edit or don't edit these articles will not lead to the destruction of the Western World.  Wikipedia is just a starting point, not the last word.  Cheers brothers.  A happier and less-stressedMorton devonshire 08:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how it's fair to describe this article as having a self-evident persuasion orientation and as I pointed out to Doctor9, that is an assesment one can come to only if examples such as the picture discussed above are cited and positive examples such as the editing that Doctor9 and others have done are one-sidedly left out. There is no question that this article has steadily improved with input from a large number of people regarding both neutrality and the quality of the writing. Your description of this article is much more biased than the article itself, as conspiracy theories and counter arguments to these theories are both well presented here.

It would be interesting to hear your opinion on the proper course of action and direction for Wikipedia to take regarding it's reputation as a reliable source of information.

I don't think that misinformation is harmless, but I agree with you that this article is interesting, informative and believe it may even be helpful for a variety of reasons. And I'm glad to see you are feeling better! SkeenaR 20:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Now some of it sounds POV trying to convince readers of the worthlessness of the conspiracy theories. dsws 19:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I think this article could benefit from showing what both the proponents and opponents of these theories think. This provides a more neutral point of view and gives the readers both sides of the story allowing them to learn more about the theories than they could by just reading one side of the issue. It would seem that both sides working together could provide a more neutral point of view in general which would give the readers more confidence in the article as well as putting the theories into perspective. My experience thus far has been that both sides are trying to sell their own point of view and therefore there is the danger of disinformation creeping into the article because it supports one side or the other and that disinformation could remain and be propogated as it goes unchecked. Rcronk 18:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Link nightmare
How many see also links do we really need? A few months I deleted my way down to about 20 -- does anyone want to do the honors this time? --Quasipalm 22:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Some of the links aren't even categorized properly, or at least should be indented under others, particularly "Ben Chertoff, cousin of Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff Penned Popular Mechanics 9/11 Hit Piece" and "Alex Jones Responds To Ben Chertoff, Popular Mechanics 9/11 Debunking Campaign" - Scott McMasters

Why are people deleting links? I add one just to have it removed without discussion, so I add it again and it's removed again with no discussion. Is this really the way of Wikipedia? Chaos just because someone doesn't like it? 71.112.224.112 12:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Hezbollah
Hezbollah is an anti-Semitic terrorist organization and when citing sources from it's television station, one should point that out. ~ Scott McMasters

Articles lacking sources
This article is titled 9/11 conspiracy theories and there is no end to the sources for these theories and speculation about them both pro and con. Does anybody have thoughts about removing the article from Articles lacking sources? It really doesn't make sense to me that the article should have that tag. SkeenaR 03:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I see that only the discussion page has this tag. I'm not sure what this means. SkeenaR 04:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not seeing this tag. Which one is it? Tom Harrison Talk 15:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

It's right at the bottom underneath where I am typing. It says Categories: Wikipedia controversial topics|Articles lacking sources. It doesn't show up like that on yours? SkeenaR 20:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Got it. See diff for what it was. Tom Harrison Talk 21:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Science, Protoscience, and Pseudoscience
The better description to identify the science behind these theories is Protoscience and Pseudoscience, because these two concepts perfectly balance the dual nature in which people see these conspiracy theories -- some see the scientific evidence as science, and others see it as something which doesn't quite measure up to science. The articles on these topics are informative and helpful for the reader in analyzing the scientific methods described in the article, and coming to their own conclusions. Morton devonshire 21:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Morton, a book you would probably find interesting is "Why People Believe Weird Things" by Michael Shermer, the guy who wrote the Scientific American 9/11 article. The book isn't too bad and you will find some examples of science and pseudoscience in there that are pretty interesting. The chapters cover a range of interesting subjects. It would be interesting to have seen his article if he would have applied any of his own lessons such as convergence of evidence. You might want to try concept that yourself. Check it out. But I think that the scientific aspect of the 9/11 investigations might need its own page if that were to be written about in Wikipedia because it is such a broad topic and I'm not sure whether it deserves it's own article but it would probably be fun to edit. Anyway, article has already been split into a few. SkeenaR 23:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Morton, those links seem funny there. Let's get some more input first. SkeenaR 00:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Rather than reverting them because you don't like them (I will just put them back). Please discuss it.  It's not the SkeenaR show.  I'm not 'fraid you boy -- I've tangled with the Cult of Mumia, and you couldn't hold a candle.  Let's be friends.  Your fellow WikipedianMorton devonshire 00:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

(Helpful comment: "its" is NOT the plural form but the possessive adjective; "it's" is the contraction of "it is" -- it's just one of those weird English things.)

We could just include all three. There doesn't seem to be a lot of overlap. Tom Harrison Talk 00:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Morton, please take it easy and let's get on with the rest of it. SkeenaR 00:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Dude, I'm cool. The only folks that shake my juju are the Mumia supporters -- man, those folks have drunk the Koolaid and are ready to tie on their matching sneakers and track suits, and take a ride to the Sun.  No reasoning with those Chumbas.  You guys are reasonble by comparison.  You find my lack of faith disturbing?  Still having fun here.  Morton devonshire 06:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not Darth Vader so I don't find your lack of faith disturbing. I find it disturbing that so many seemingly intelligent people will unquestionably accept everything that the mainstream media and the government, who are both proven to lie not only repeatedly but habitually, tell them about devastating, suspicious and politically imperative events and at the same time try to discredit and ridicule anyone who even so much as questions these events or points out glaring anomolies and contradictions in the 'official' story. It should be very disturbing to anyone concerned about the future that people will follow in such a manner considering the consequences that can and have resulted. Yes, this is fun, but not everything should be made fun of. SkeenaR 22:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The claim that it is "unquestioning" and that it is "everything" is unsupported; in fact, it is intellectually dishonest, self-serving and hypocritical. The "ridicule" can be seen directly in your comments. -- Jibal 18:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Hypocritical? I think you should start backing this up now. Start talking. SkeenaR 04:37, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The difference between 9/11 and other government "lies" (e.g. weapons of mass destruction) are the thousands of people that experienced 9/11, firsthand (yet alone the millions watching on television), as well as the hundreds of motorists and other witnesses at the Pentagon, and the thousands who would've taken notice of any effort at placing the amount of explosive in WTC7 necessary to take down the building. There lacks any convincing evidence to the contrary of the "official" story.  -Aude ( talk | contribs ) 22:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, millions and millions of people watched planes fly into buildings, we can agree on that. This can be debated till the cows come home. This article describes some of these theories and the reasoning behind them. It does ok. We already discussed the sources of the 'official' story. Many of the same sources that gave people the Gulf of Tonkin Incident. It's turned out that even ousted dictators can be more truthful. I'm only suggesting caution, not credulity to any particular sources of information.SkeenaR 22:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Own it. Don't be bashful bro -- you're a True Believer, aren't ya?  Morton devonshire 01:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm holding a neutral point of view though true believers in the mother governments version would dispute that. Until there is proof of anything one way or another, I believe it is best to let the chips fall where they may. Here, have yourself a laugh Mort. SkeenaR 04:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The Onion does wonderful satire -- I assume you knew, right? Morton devonshire 21:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

uh-huh. SkeenaR 22:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Why does Bov like Jim Hoffman so much?
I noticed that in the external links 'Scientific American 9/11 Article Skeptical of Conspiracy Theories by Michael Shermer, Phd.' had a 'Reply 1 to Scientific American's Debunking of 9/11 Skeptics' with a link to http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/sciam/ but no 'Reply 2'. So I did a little digging in the history and I found that 'Reply 2 to Scientific American's Debunking of 9/11 Skeptics' existed at 02:39 24 January as http://www.serendipity.li/wot/sciam_reply.htm.

It was deleted at 22:32 on that date by Bov.

Bov made another edit just after that, at 22:34 24 January. He replaced the link to http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=2492 embedded in "Kevin Ryan was subsequently fired from his job." with a link to http://911review.com/articles/ryan/personaldecision.html.

911review.com is apparently the work of Jim Hoffman, who is listed first among the principal contributors to wtc7.net.

So Bov (i) replaced a link to a page on www.thetruthseeker.co.uk with a link to a page with the same content on one of Hoffman's sites, and (ii) removed a link to a page on serendipity.li which could be seen as 'competing' with a page on a site run by Hoffman.

Bov says "I'm a 9/11 researcher and work on the 9/11 pages."

Wikipedia praises Jim Hoffman to the skies in its page on him (I wonder who wrote this?), saying that he is "a 9/11 researcher ... [whose] work has been a source of inspiration [to others]". (The Jim Hoffman page confirms that 911review.com is one of his sites.)

One has to wonder why Bov likes Jim Hoffman's work so much that he replaces or removes links so as to draw attention away from other sites and to those of Hoffman.

And, also curiously, just as the 'competing' link to the Reply to the Scientific American article on serendipity.li was removed, leaving only the link to the Reply on Hoffman's site, so too was a 'competing' link to the Reply to Popular Mechanics on serendipity.li removed, leaving only the link to the reply on Hoffman's site.

Until 1 February there was:


 * Reply 1 to Popular Mechanics re 9/11
 * Reply 2 to Popular Mechanics re 9/11

The second link was removed by 24.4.180.197 at 7:08 1 February.

One has to wonder, when two links to serendipity.li are removed, leaving only links to Hoffman's 911review.com and 911research.wtc7.com sites.

I have restored the links to the pages on serendipity.li and to www.thetruthseeker.co.uk which were deleted. If Bov (or one of Jim Hoffman's other admirers) wishes to delete these then perhaps he would care to give his reasons before doing so, especially in the case of the link http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/reply_to_popular_mechanics.htm which is a long and detailed refutation of Popular Mechanics' attempted debunking (and it doesn't stop there, but goes on to consider the implications of certain 9/11 evidence that Popular Mechanics failed to mention). Did 24.4.180.197 think that the brilliance of Jim Hoffman's Reply would be somewhat diminished in comparison with the serendipity.li Reply?

Adam Adler 23:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I've been wondering that too -- I was told by Michael Moore, Howard Zinn, Ward Churchill, Noam Chomsky, and Mumia that David Ray Griffin was the patron saint of 9/11 conspiracy theories. How dare you elevate Hoffman.  Morton devonshire 02:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Serendipity is a site which contains many offensive antisemitic references and links so I am removing links to that site. Please discuss it here if you see the need to promote antisemitic websites to represent 9/11 truth. Bov 02:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I might equally ask you to discuss it here before you conceal bigoted viewpoints that embarrass the other 9/11 conspiracy theorists. Tom Harrison Talk 02:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC) Please see my explanation below. Tom Harrison Talk 15:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Tom, honestly I don't think its fair of you to direct that comment at Bov which could easily be construed as a very nasty personal attack. I'm just saying. SkeenaR 06:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I suppose you could be right Mongo(see edit summaries). Anything else you would like to add? SkeenaR 07:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, that was very sloppy writing on my part. Of course the bigoted viewpoints are not Bov's. The bigoted viewpoints are what Bov wants to remove. More, and hopefully better expressed, at Talk:Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11. Tom Harrison Talk 15:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

-

Adam Adler replies to Bov, who wrote that "Serendipity is a site which contains many offensive antisemitic references and links so I am removing links to that site."

This appears to be outright slander by Bov. It is true that the serendipity.li site criticises Israel (more exactly, its policies toward the Palestinians) and points to evidence of possible connections between Israel and 9/11, but so do many other respectable sites, for example:

Antiwar.com http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j030802.html www.whatreallyhappened.com http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fiveisraelis.html AlJazeera.com http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=10364

Or does Bov define a "respectable" site as one which does not criticize Israel in any way or consider evidence of possible Israeli involvement in 9/11? I suppose so. In which case Bov is misusing the English language (not just this page) to suit his purposes.

And there are already links on the '9/11 Conspiracy theories' page which are not laudatory toward Israel. Does Bov or anyone else seriously propose that all links to external pages be excluded if they even mention Israel in connection with 9/11?

In any case, Bov's charge that serendipity.li is an antisemitic website appears to be false, since I have not seen any antisemitic comment on serendipity.li, and the site's editor explicitly rejects this claim, see Reply to enquiry concerning "being seen as anti-semitic".

This sort of objection is really trashy. Anyone can throw around unsupported charges of "antisemitic", "racist", "Nazi", etc., and this is typically a tactic used by disinformation agents to start a big fight or to distract from some information they wish to suppress.

Bov says, "... so I am removing links to that site."

What Bov is really saying is: "serendipity.li is objectionable for reasons that are not related to 9/11 so I am removing links to articles on that site about 9/11". The lack of logic (not to mention the arrogance) of this is amazing.

Could it be that the real reason that Bov has removed these links is that he wishes to remove links to pages on serendipity.li which deal with the same subjects as pages on www.911research.wtc7.net (for reasons best known to Bov)?

As I said in my previous message:

I have restored the links to the pages on serendipity.li and to www.thetruthseeker.co.uk which were deleted. If Bov (or one of Jim Hoffman's other admirers) wishes to delete these then perhaps he would care to give his reasons before doing so, especially in the case of the link http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/reply_to_popular_mechanics.htm which is a long and detailed refutation of Popular Mechanics' attempted debunking (and it doesn't stop there, but goes on to consider the implications of certain 9/11 evidence that Popular Mechanics failed to mention).

It is interesting to consider the history of the '9/11 Conspiracy theories' page a little more.

Bov states that he has removed the links to the serendipity.li pages (the two replies to Popular Mechanics and to the Scientific American debunking). The history tells us that these links were removed at 02:36 2 February by 198.207.168.65. Let us see what else 198.207.168.65 has done to this page recently. We find:

02:23, 2 February 2006 Added link to www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/index.html

02:22, 2 February 2006 Added link to 911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/index.html

19:39, 30 January 2006 Added linK to www.911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/index.html

www.911research.wtc7.net is, as noted above, Jim Hoffman's website. As I asked earlier, why does Bov like Jim Hoffman so much?

Could it be that Bov has for months systematically used the 9/11 pages on Wikipedia for the promotion of his, or rather, Jim Hoffman's website? On which we find advertisements for Jim Hoffman's book.

And probably, not Bov alone, since one might suspect that there are several other "editors" whose primary purpose is the same.

It is also interesting to look at the changes to this page made by 24.4.180.197, who was the person (Bov?) who at 7:08 1 February removed the link to


 * Reply 2 to Popular Mechanics re 9/11

When we look at the history of the changes made by 24.4.180.197 we find:

07:09, 1 February 2006 Removed link to http://reopen911.org/ Why? Is it because reopen911.org gives away a free DVD which provides evidence that a 757 did not hit the Pentagon (a view which Hoffman is known to disagree with)?

07:08, 1 February 2006 Removed link to http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/reply_to_popular_mechanics.htm

07:07, 1 February 2006 Changed "It is argued that connecting a cell phone to a tower's signal would have been near to impossible from the air. Based on this information, theorists suggest the calls were fabricated or never made at all." to " Based on this information, some theorists suggest the calls were fabricated or never made at all. Others disagree." This appears to be an attempt to undermine the evidence provided by Kee Dewdney in his "Project Achilles Report" that cellphone calls from high-flying fast-moving commercial airliners were impossible on 9/11/2001. Since 'cellphone calls from the planes' is part of the official story, denigration of evidence that this was impossible is in effect supporting the official story.

07:05, 1 February 2006 Changed: "Some conspiracy theories of the DC strike suggest something other than a Boeing 757 impacted the Pentagon, such as a missile or a small remote-controlled aircraft. Others disagree with this theory and believe that a plane did hit the structure." to "Some conspiracy theories of the DC strike suggest something other than a Boeing 757 impacted the Pentagon, such as a missile or a small remote-controlled aircraft. However most disagree with this theory and believe that a plane did hit the structure." What basis did 24.4.180.197 have for changing "others disagree" to "most disagree"? Based on my observation of 9/11 websites it seems to me that the view that a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon is definitely that of a minority, and a small one at that.

06:47, 1 February 2006 Added link to 911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/index.html Another link to Jim Hoffman's site.

The above constitutes evidence that there has been a deliberate attempt to hijack the 9/11 web pages on Wikipedia (at least the '9/11 Conspiracy theories' page, though I have also seen evidence of this on the 'Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11' page) so as to direct attention to Jim Hoffman's websites and away from any website which expresses views regarding 9/11 which are contrary to those on Hoffman's websites (in particular regarding whether a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon and whether the objects which hit the WTC buildings were commercial passenger jets) or which provide evidence which is inconsistent with the claims made on Hoffman's websites. In other words, it appears that Bov and perhaps others have systematically biased the Wikipedia 9/11 pages so as to present Hoffman's account of 9/11 and to suppress any reference to alternative views (especially those which are more critical of the official story than Hoffman is). I do not believe that this is consistent with Wikipedia policy. If others agree then perhaps an examination of the 9/11 Wikipedia pages to eliminate the effects of this misuse is desirable.

Adam Adler 15:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * >>"so as to direct attention to Jim Hoffman's websites and away from any website which expresses views regarding 9/11 which are contrary to those on Hoffman's websites"


 * I'd gladly put in links from other reputable sources, but it's easiest for me to use a source that I know and which I respect. So what?  If you have sources other than anti-semitic or hoax sites (promoting pods and missiles and holograms), go ahead and link to them instead - no one is stopping you.  It's no secret at all that I link to sites I believe are the best sources for the information.


 * Tom - no problem, it's clear what you meant.


 * I hope that people really will take a look at the links I provided:


 * http://www.serendipity.li/wot/bush_betrays_america.htm This article features stars of David next to everyone in it who is Jewish - this harkens directly back to the Nazis forcing Jews to wear Star of David patches so they could be identified and ultimately rounded up for extermination. Here's one sentence in there: "Check out how the U.S. Department of Defense has been re-organized. That was the work of the Jew Cohen." Who writes like that? The link to this article is on this page (bottom): http://www.serendipity.li/wtc14.htm


 * http://www.serendipity.li/hr.html#zundel "Zündel, an award-winning cartoonist, artist and videographer, was Canada's best-known revisionist. For publishing a slim booklet entitled Did Six Million Really Die? he was twice put on trial and convicted on a charge of spreading 'false news.'"


 * The Diminishing Numbers of Alleged Dead in Auschwitz (Caution: Considering the possibility that the number of Jews killed at Auschwitz may have been inflated, especially for political purposes, may be a thought crime.) http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2004/08/156377.php (linked to on Serendipity.li here: http://www.serendipity.li/ziolynx.htm)
 * Bov 02:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * "One has to wonder, when two links to serendipity.li are removed."
 * Not really, links to serendipity on other wikipedia pages are also typically quickly removed once the readers take a look at the content of that site. There's not really anything new going on here except for people that haven't seen the various discussions on talk pages about removing the links to this site.


 * Just to add to this, I removed a section of Jim Hoffman's bio that was a copyvio from his site. Bov acknowledged as much on the talk page and promised to rewrite. A few weeks later, the section reappeared, but this time the original was removed from Jim Hoffman's site. Very odd. --Mmx1 20:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Claims related to Jews and Israel
"However, this does not account for the Jewish dominance in finance and the large population of Israeli nationals who worked at the World Trade Center." I'm missing the relevnace of this. What is it exactly that "does not account for the Jewish dominance..."? Does User:Pwner2 mean to suggest that disproportionately more or fewer Jews were killed? I don't see how this adds any useful information to the article. Tom Harrison Talk 01:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Ditto. Morton devonshire 01:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Me too. MortonsSockpuppet 01:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well. Since my sockpuppet agrees, it must be true!  Morton devonshire 01:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * All (and their sockpuppets), I already removed this and replaced it with info on the proportion of Jews killed (15%+ of the WTC victims, and 25% of those killed who worked in the Twin Towers) compared to the proportion of Jews in New York City (12%), which should hopefully show how baseless the "missing Jews" stories are. --Goodoldpolonius2 06:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I recall watching a 911 documentary on UK television (Channel 4 I think) in which several NY residents spoke of their seeing half a dozen or so excited men watching the WTC attack from atop a van, cameras in hand. They alleged that the van and the men had been in situ since before the attack commenced, as if they were waiting for it.  Did anyone else see this programme, and can you remember its title? 86.17.246.110 01:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Photos
Is it just me or does the photo of the plane hitting seem like unnecessary advertisement? There are plenty of images just like it, so hopefully we can find a similar picture without 'CNN' plastered all over it. The comment could still portray the same thing with something like: "Video of the second plane crashes into Tower 2 was broadcast live on TV" (you get the idea...)

I don't think it's too bad. I think it has kind of a cool effect actually, giving a sense of immediacy. yea? nea? SkeenaR 23:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

A sense of immediacy, or just one of American-style overhype (a-la Paul Verhoeven films)? - Drrngrvy 18:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Image use
We only own copyright on pictures we produce (graphic mock ups). Anything else is free reign. Best regards, Paul Joseph Watson http://www.propagandamatrix.com

Original Message From: xxx To: prisonplanetweb@hotmail.com Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 11:14 AM Subject: image use request/wikipedia user

Hi Paul, I go by the username Skeenar as a contributor on Wikipedia and I would like to know if it is possible to contribute pictures from the PrisonPlanet website without violating copyright regulations. Sincerely, Skeenar

As well as www.prisonplanet.com prisonplanet.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used Prisonplanet] and Propaganda Matrix the same rule applies to the following.


 * www.infowars.com infowars.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used Infowars]
 * www.prisonplanet.tv prisonplanet.tv is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used PrisonPlanet TV]
 * www.infowars.net infowars.net is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used Infowars.Net]
 * Arnold Exposed

There was a dispute over this matter. SkeenaR 07:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Head of the Jesuits and conspiracy theory
There are a number of conspiracy theories involving the Jesuits, and the head of the order - sometimes known as the Black Pope. There are several webpages alleging that the BP was responsible for/linked to 9/11 - a mention should be made of this (rather implausible) theory. Jackiespeel 16:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Beware false authority
This is from the WP:RS page "Would you trust a plumber to fill your cavities? Likewise, you should probably not trust someone who has a Ph.D. in plant biology to tell you about quantum mechanics. Just as actors in TV commercials don white lab coats to make viewers think they are serious scientists, people with degrees in one field are not necessarily experts in any other. Watch out for false claims of authority. Try to use sources who have degrees in the field they are discussing. The more reputable ones are affiliated with academic institutions. The most reputable have written textbooks in their field for the undergraduate level or higher: these authors can be expected to have a broad, authoritative grasp of their subject."


 * As such, I submit that David Ray Griffin is not a reputable source on the issue of what did or didn't happen on 9/11, as he is a theologian and philosopher by training, and not an engineer. All information sourced to him should be removed from this article.  Morton devonshire 20:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Thats called CENSORSHIP. Now why would you want him removed? Note that strcutural enguineers have said the WTC was brought down by fire melting steel! http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/collapse/meltdown.html So, so much for THEIR expetise. Leavge Griffin in, as his books and talks are excellentin for adn presenation. Brian
 * Actually, the melting steel theory is a straw man argument. The account which is widely accepted by structural engineers does not claim that the steel melted.


 * He's not a good source for information on the actual events, but surely he's a primary source for information about 9/11 conspiracy theories. Tom Harrison Talk 22:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * But he doesn't just report on what the theories are, he also asserts that they're true. Morton devonshire 03:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * We should not say of a claim by Griffin, "this happened" (see Griffin, vol 2 ch 7). We should say, "Griffin, in vol 2 ch 7, claims this happened." Right? Tom Harrison Talk 03:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Theories are by definition neither true nor untrue. To assert truth on a page titled "9/11 conspiracy theories", beyond whether a theory has in fact been posited, is a ridiculous standard.  There are articles all over Wikipedia filled with scientists asserting the "truth" of their various theories.  For that matter, there are conflicting legal theories all over Wikipedia.  If your mission for Wikipedia is that only "true" theories be retained, you have your work cut out for you.  Regardless, as pointed out, originators of theories are in fact primary sources.  --Benjamindees 12:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * For that matter neither are are any on the 9/11 Commission engineers. Kaimiddleton 01:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Or any of the four Jersey widows. If you were to walk up to one of them and say "I wouldn't trust your opinion the way I wouldn't trust a plumber to fill my cavities" I'm sure they could quote you a face fully-sourced, cogent facts that still question the official story.  See for instance  or  or . Kaimiddleton 01:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I understand that there are lots of opinions about what happened, including the very emotionally charged opinions of family members. But that's different from what Wikipedia suggests is a reliable source -- WP:RS suggests that a reliable source is someone who has a broad authoritative grasp of the situation, based upon academic preparation or experience in the field.  Neither the Griffin nor the victims' relatives have these credentials, and therefore are not reliable sources.  Strongly-held opinions, yes, reliable sources, no.  Neither is the 911 Truth organization reliable according to WP standards, as it lacks independence.  Also, please archive parts of this page -- getting too long to be navigable.  Thanks.  Morton devonshire 03:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * "Neither is the 911 Truth organization reliable according to WP standards, as it lacks independence."
 * Then the WP:RS guidelines are inherently flawed. Finding an independent, accredited source is by definition impossible.  But I really just think you're reading too much into it. --Benjamindees 12:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia says that reliable sources are ones that have separate editorial oversight -- 911 Truth doesn't. Wikipedia also says that exceptional claims require exceptional evidence.  It also says that certain "red flags" should prompt editors to examine closely and skeptically the sources for a given claim.  A few clues according to Wikipedia:  (1) Surprising or important facts which are not widely known; (2) Surprising or important recent events which have not been reported by reputable news media; (3) Claims which are not supported, or which are contradicted, by the prevailing view in the scientific community. This is especially true of claims whose proponents consider that there is a conspiracy of "official science" to silence them. By all of these measures, the 911 Truth organization is not a reliable source.  Morton devonshire 16:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * In regards to the seperate oversight, what qualifies? Some news organizations would definitely qualify, but many non-"respectable" ones might not. (And I'm sure we can name lots on both sides of the issue.) Also, would government documents be considered reliable sources as they may not have seperate oversight? (I recently posted a link to an opinion by Leonie Brinkema in the Moussaoui case, along with a page from the NTSB. They don't have any editorial oversight. I apologize if I'm misunderstanding anything. Orville Eastland 14:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

"Wikipedia also says that exceptional claims require exceptional evidence." You mean, like WMDs? How about Saddam caused 9/11? How about that mushroom cloud over Iraq? Exceptional claims from the Bush Administration are taken as legitimate with virtually no evidence at all. Then people on wikipedia use this as a reliable source. 198.207.168.65 23:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm debating Wikipedia, and you're debating politics. Can we stick to Wikipedia, please?  Morton devonshire 23:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Dudewheresmypizz4 20:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Village Voice Articles
Here are links to several articles in the February 22-28th edition of the Village Voice dealing with alternative theories. The main article gives a brief history of the 9/11 truth movement accuses alternative theorists of being rigid,unwilling to hear evidence that may call into question or debunk their theory,ironically having unquestioned faith in the competence of government agencies that deal in security and law enforcement. Companion articles deal with 9/11 alternative theory basics, conspiracy theories in general , people that are suing the EPA. I put in the Government Foreknowledge section the revelation the much discussed advance warning given to the mayor of San Francisco at the time came from a public State Department website 14:15, 23 February 2006 (Ed Kollin)

CBC

 * Conspiracy Theories CBC Television

--Striver 01:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The CBC series seems to promote a lot of the worst stuff - Former CIA analyst Robert Baer is a main person on there and he trashed David Ray Griffin in an article for the Nation. The other focus is on the Saudis. There is not a word about the strong evidence, like Building 7 demolition or the stand down of the US military, but Meyssan is discussed again and again.  It's one of these things that mixes the good and the bad, which can turn off or confuse a lot of people.  CBC explicitly states:


 * "The fifth estate found NO credible evidence in the public domain to prove the U.S. government had any specific advance knowledge of exactly what would happen on September 11, 2001."


 * But then they say: "Khalid Shaykh Mohammad (KSM) was the mastermind behind the 9/11 attack."


 * Gee, funny they can't find a thing on the US cover-up, but know exactly what KSM's role was. Here's another gem:


 * "In 1995, investigations connect KSM to the first WTC bombing. Federal prosecutors gave CIA a copy of a wire transaction for $660 (US) between Qatar and the U.S., dated several days before the blast, sent by KSM."


 * Even the wikipedia page on the 93 bombing discusses the role of the FBI in the first bombing, which the CBC says nothing about in talking about KSM:
 * [FBI foreknowledge]
 * "In the course of the trial it was revealed that the FBI had an informant, an Egyptian man named Emad Salem, a former army officer. Salem claims to have informed the FBI of the plot to bomb the towers as early as February 6, 1992, information he was privy to possibly because he himself initiated the plot. Salem's role as informant allowed the FBI to quickly pinpoint the conspirators out of the hundreds of possible suspects.


 * Salem, initially believing that this was to be a sting operation, claimed that the FBI's original plan was to supply the conspirators with a harmless powder instead of actual explosive to build their bomb, but that an FBI supervisor decided that a real bomb should be constructed instead. He substantiated his claims with hundreds of hours of secretly-recorded conversations with his FBI handlers, made during discussions held after the bombings. According to Alex Jones in his film 9/11: The Road to Tyranny, these tapes include the FBI ordering Salem to "cook the bomb."


 * Salem said he wished to complain to FBI headquarters in Washington about the failure to prevent the bombing despite foreknowledge, but was dissuaded from doing so by the New York FBI office. The FBI has never contradicted Salem's account."


 * So although it's slick and interesting, it's a mixed bag that seems to promote the same stuff that Frontlines/State Dept does - KSM & Meyssan. We might as well link to the State Dept Indentifying Misinformation page and see the same info. 24.4.180.197 19:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with that. But there are a whole lot of interesting anomolies compiled there. I just think it's pretty good for mainstream as far as that there is a lot of interesting information in one spot that is verifiable. Network TV usually isn't the spot for any kind of eye openers. It might not have been an eye opener for you or a lot of other people, but like I said, mainstream. It doesn't even pretend to be "radical" like Michael Moore. It is stuff that I would say is pretty rare to be seen on TV. As for motive or intent behind it, that could be another issue but I found it surprising when I first saw it considering the source. Actually, considering the source, it's incredible. SkeenaR 04:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

"Corporate" media
I think the neutral counterparts are 'alternative' and 'mainstream', not 'alternative' and 'corporate'. Tom Harrison Talk 17:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I used "corporate media" rather than "mainstream media" because corporate media has a wiki-page whereas mainstream media redirects to mass media (on which the terms "corporate media" and "mainstream media" are given as synonymous). One could argue that "corporate media" has some kind of distasteful connotation, the way, for instance, "conspiracy theory" does.  But I think one could also argue, with equal strength, that the mainstream media is the corporate media; the large (mainstream) media outlets are all corporate.  Furthermore, the idea that monied corporations and elite special interests are behind the claimed inside job is central to the philosophy of most 9/11 conspiracy theories. Kaimiddleton 18:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * "Corporate" is just a code word for the left's conspiracy theory that the mainstream media is one big monolithic enterprise controlled by a powerful elite, and as such, is blatant POV. The media is far to fractious to support such an outlandish and unsupported claim.  Morton devonshire 18:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree that 'mainstream' is synonymous with 'corporate' in general, or in this context. The mainstream account is not limited to what is produced by the media. Conspiracists distrust all mainstream sources of information. They distrust the mainstream account not because it is corporate, but because it is mainstream. Tom Harrison Talk 19:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * "They distrust the mainstream account not because it is corporate, but because it is mainstream." I'm going to have to ask for a reference for that. --Benjamindees 04:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * See A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America, by Michael Barkun ISBN 0520238052, Chapter 1 The nature of conspiracy belief and Chapter 2 Millenialism, conspiracy, and stigmatized knowledge.

Systematic Whitewashing
"Donald Rumsfield let his guard down and said in a speech that the flight was shot down."

While this sentence could have used some work, and a better reference, it does constitute "evidence" in support of a conspiracy theory. Instead of removing it, why didn't somebody spend 30 seconds on Google, find the reference, and maybe clean up the language? Any non-controversial article on Wikipedia would at least get this benefit. It looks to me that a few very active people on this article spend more time whitewashing than editing. --Benjamindees 04:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Donald Rumsfield let his guard down is speculation. The rest, suggestive, but not exactly evidence: the flight wasn't shot down, but it was brought down more or less deliberately. Peter Grey 06:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

video
I have no opinion about whether or not a link to the Loose Change video should be included here, but there seems to be some disagreement. Would people like to comment here saying why or why not? Tom Harrison Talk 15:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It's actually been in the See also section for some time (pointing to a disambiguation page). I fixed the disambiguation, and suddenly folks started pulling it out without explanation. At any rate, Loose Change is a documentary video that deals with several of the theories proposed on this page. It's completely relevant for anybody who wants more information. -- MisterHand 16:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * A lot of people have a lot of issues with this film because it promotes hoaxes which many in the 9/11 movement do not support at all -- the film makes no mention that there is debate, but presents these issues definitively, sometimes with the statement 'we don't know what happened, but . . .' however, presents these claims without caveats or context that many don't support them:
 * Here are some quotes from the film:
 * “It would seem that an entire plane disappeared upon impact.”
 * “So what could blow a 16 foot hole in the outer ring of the Pentagon . . . A cruise missile.”
 * “So if Flight 93 didn’t go down in Shanksville, then where? You ready for this? Cleveland.”
 * “Flight 93 passengers were taken to an empty NASA research center.”
 * “Why is the damage to the Pentagon completely inconsistent with a Boeing 757?”
 * “If different planes were used, what happened to the original ones?”
 * The film in general promotes the ideas that commercial jets did not the buildings but were switched or replaced by drones or missiles. For example, one way it makes us think that something other than a 757 hit the the Pentagon is to distort the eyewitness reports by showing an equal number of witnesses saying they saw the commercial jet, a small plane, and a helicopter (1 each).  In reality, only 2 said they thought it was a small plane compared to over 40 who specifically cited a large jetliner, with close to 100 witnesses documented online.  These types of distortions create a false idea of what actually happened at the Pentagon.  Many many documented plane crash sites leave virtually no debris, and not a single eyewitness ever says they saw a missile, only films like 'In Plane Site' and 'Loose Change' make these assertions based on people saying the plane sounded like a missile, after they note specifically that it was a 757 - this is disinformation.  Bov 22:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That's all well and good, but it's not a reason not to include it in the "See also" section. Assuming NPOV, we shouldn't be making value judgements on what is or isn't included. The film is a widely seen presentation of 9/11 conspiracy theories. One preferable approach to including it in See also is to write a short paragraph in this article about the film, explaining what it is and briefly addressing the criticisms. That way there's more context as to what the film is about. -- MisterHand 22:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I've added a subsection for criticism of the 'loose change' video. I tend to think that most criticism should go in Loose Change (video), but it might be useful to address some of the concerns here. If nobody expands it in a few days, I'll take it out. Tom Harrison Talk 01:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

7 WTC: Diesel fuel tanks for NYC's OEM "bunker"
Why, in this massive article, is there no mention of the presence of several huge diesel fuel tanks in WTC. They were placed there by the Giuliani administration, in violation of building codes, to fuel emergency generators. Isn't it likely that THESE, and not deliberate sabotage, were the cause of the explosions that felled 7 WTC. Why don't the conspiracy theorists address this question. What happened to those tanks? If there was a big explosision at #7, wasn't this the cause?

Adam Holland 19:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The NIST report states that the diesel tanks remained intact. SkeenaR 20:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Can you cite the page? Is it available on the web?

Sorry, it's the FEMA report. I can't cite the page, but I have seen the excerpt. This might help if you are interested.  SkeenaR 23:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Can you cite where it says that the fuel tanks were a violation of building codes. Oh, and the NIST Report states that the two 6,000 gallon tanks were intact, but empty. Considering that the tanks are pressurized, its quite possible that 12,000 gallons of deisel fuel was pumped up to the 5th floor and fed the fires that eventually destroyed the building. Now of course this is actual scientific evidence and has no place in a conspiracy theory--BohicaTwentyTwo 14:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theory
I was just wondering how the official explanation can be considered anything other than a conspiracy theory. Is it not theorized that hijackers conspired with Bin Laden to carry out the attacks? I suggest people look up definitions of the words conspiracy and theory. This phrase has been turned into a label for any theories not released by what are considered official sources when it is simply a pair of words used to describe an idea that people planned an event.

I do not consider any of the explanations given by anyone to be beyond speculation...does this make me a conspiracy theorist? When questions are asked answers can be engineered. When answers are questioned, they are immediately placed into the same category as the wildest of speculations.

I would place the official theories in this article myself, but am far too lazy.

69.92.89.60 13:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)a boy with a dictionary

The question of conspiracy theory and its connotations is brought up in this article on a fairly regular basis. Often times this questioning is given in the same manner as you did in presenting the simple definitions of the individual words of conspiracy and theory.

What you mentioned is true in regards to the actual textbook definitions. However, as a society, we hold the two words together to provide us with a different interpretation.

Conspiracy theory conjures up images of JFK, Roswell, Majestic 12, the Illuminati, New World Order, little black helicopters, and Area 51. The events of September 11th were on such a scale that it would be abnormal to not have certain groups entertain alternative stories to the events. Conspiracy culture is an ever evolving group and its association with 9-11 is no different.

Conspiracy theory is defined not simply by a definition, but by the evolution of our recognition of its traits. For example, well over a hundred articles, reports, and studies have been done on the collapse of the Twin Towers presented in numerous peer reviewed scientific journals, the first of which was published within two weeks of the attacks by a former MIT professor. These studies are conducted by those with extensive training in structural and civil engineering with a sincere drive to get at the truth for what caused the buildings to fail with the idea of improving design and construction techniques. These abstracts are not ordered or requested by the US Government. On the other side, when we think of conspiracy theories, we attach to it the notion of a far greater and more sinister force at hand with the attempt to control our national destiny. This is where the cultural identification of the term comes into play. The controlled demolition theory better satisfies the mold for historical references to the conspiracy theory as the United States responded with military force and a readdress of its legislative ability to counter terrorism. This post event response lends itself to the development of a multitude of theories.

The official story does not belong in this article simply because the mass of society recognizes this to be the most plausible of events carried out by a very real and a very dangerous threat. Were there conspirators that collaborated to conduct a terrorist attack on the US? Yes. The difference in this account and those listed in the article is the burden of proof and the presentation of evidence.

Conspiracy theory will highlight firefighters that stated they heard explosions in the Twin Towers-evidence of demolitions…yet; those same firefighters mentioning Building 7 was severely damaged and raging with fire are looked at with skepticism.

Conspiracy theory will ignore structural engineers who can explain the collapses without the use of explosives while Steven E. Jones is promulgated as the brave and fearless professor in search of the truth.

Conspiracy theory will look at the insurance payouts to Silverstein Properties but ignore the financial burden and expense that continues to plague the real estate developer.

Conspiracy theory will dismiss the hundreds of witnesses that saw an airliner hit the Pentagon. It will overlook the fact that not one witness observing the crash of Flight 93 mentioned anything about the airplane trailing smoke behind it.

Conspiracy theory will attack the military training exercises that were occurring on the morning of September 11th, but will neglect to look into how many and what kind of exercises were conducted this very week. The US Air Force, in addition to the rest of the military, has a constant schedule of exercise and training; 9-11 was no different.

The list could go on, but the point is conspiracy theory is recognized on its own accord. Many of those who fall into the belief that bombs were in the buildings, or that a missile hit the Pentagon are placed into a culture that continues to modernize itself with the production of DVD’s, talk radio, and internet forums where theorist can find comfort in the notion they have awoken to a greater evil.--Doctor9 19:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not advocating any conspiracy theories, but the official story definitely qualifies as one in every sense of the definition. As well, it has so many inconsistencies and holes in it as to make it seem rather unbelievable. Hence the article.

It is to be expected that structural engineers would immediately attempt to explain the unprecedented circumstance of three steel framed buildings collapsing in one afternoon, including one that wasn't even hit by a plane. It seems to be a difficult proposition.

I find it inexplicable that so many people will unquestionably accept the official version of events from a media and government that are proven to lie repeatedly and often about crucial items. Crucial items that repeatedly and often result in needless death on a vast scale. Especially when none of them even attempt to explain things like living suicide hijackers.

There are real and proven conspiracies that first came to light as theories, but the term seems to have been hijacked. I believe that the conspiracy theory term is often used in bad faith attempts to discredit people, even when they are asking legitimate questions. That is especially if they are questions that the media or government have no good answers for. I believe people with legitimate questions are also discredited by being associated with items like Area 51, Roswell, and no plane theories.

The conclusion in Michael Shermers book "Why People Believe Weird Things" boils it down that most commonly and at the most basic level, people accept uncommon explanations for complex circumstances to simplify and give meaning and comfort. It's up to all of you to decide what is simpler and what gives you more comfort, or if that is what matters to you.

By the way, who the hell finds comfort in awakening to a greater evil? SkeenaR 23:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

After spending a few hours reading various sources that use the term I will agree that it is used to describe those who question or disagree with what the "mass of society recognizes...to be the most plausible of events" by both the mass of society and by many of the theorists themselves. I would simply suggest that since this is an article about theories that have countered official sources that it be titled similarly: maybe "9/11 Theories Being Debated" or "Official 9/11 Explanations Questioned".

I just think the term itself is used for the wrong purpose too often. For example, the claim that more than one person assassinated JFK is rightly called a conspiracy theory. It is a theory that conspiring was done before the act, but the theory that Oswald acted alone is not a conspiracy theory (conspiracy implies more than one person). This is a case where the phrase is properly used to describe one of the debating parties. The same goes for cases where people believe a natural disaster was conspired upon then carried out by human beings. I may not agree with anyone claiming a hurricane can be conjured up by evil doers but I do not call them conspiracy theories simply because I disagree but because that is truly what they are: theories that conspiracy, rather than nature or a lone assassin, took place.

For a theory about 9/11 to not be one of conspiracy, it would require that either the aircraft accidentally were crashed (I don't think anyone believes this), or that a single person guided all four planes to their destruction (again, something I doubt anyone believes).

I am not sure of this, but I believe the phrase was used in reference to assassinations (claims that multiple parties were involved) and some how became a phrase to describe any questioning of "official" sources. Anyone that sees no danger in this generalization should question their relationship to society. Are you a part of it, or a slave to it?

69.92.89.60 00:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)the guy with the dictionary (Justin)

I agree about there being danger in this generalization for the same reason, and it should be self evident. SkeenaR 02:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Attack on Prof. Jones
This line seems to be more of a personal attack on Jones, and biases the minisection:

Prof. Jones does not have a bachelor or advanced degree in engineering, is not a trained structural engineer, and has never worked as an engineer.

I believe that this should be changed or deleted. I've left it up for now, but want another's opinion on the subject. Flame0001 19:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * WP:RS says that sources we rely upon should have special training or education for the opinions they render. While Jones is a professor, he's a professor of physics, not engineering, yet he's rendering engineering opinions about the collapse.  That's why the info is relevant.  It's not an attack, it's simply the truth.  Morton devonshire 21:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * He's not rendering engineering opinions, he is discussing the physics of the collapses. Physics is ideally suited to this situation because the laws of physics are in question with aspects of the collapses.  Basic physics underlies all building engineering - it is required for all engineers.  One doesn't need to know what specification of gypsum board was used to make an observation and put forth a theory based on the speeds of the collapses.  Furthermore, Jones is also focusing on the molten metal, and metals are his area.  I think we should change it to reflect the truth - that yes, he is not an engineer, he is a physicist.  As it is now, it only says what he is not. 198.207.168.65 23:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I think I got it. SkeenaR 23:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. The fact that he's a physicist is factual, and probably also relevant as you describe it.  Morton devonshire 23:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Images
I'm just adding a couple of pictures. If someone thinks they are redundant or gratuitous let me know or remove some or something. I just figured they would be visually appealing and add to the article. If anyone still wants that one with the CNN logo changed let me know, otherwise I'll just leave it. SkeenaR 23:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for these. 198.207.168.65 01:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)