Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories/Archive 8

Allegations of insider trading
There's a concise refutation of the allegations of insider trading indicating foreknowledge of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. It's cited and relevant. patsw 22:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Like with almost everything else on the page, people can check the link for themselves - there cannot be a different standard for information inclusion based on what position it supports. The quote is practically meaningless as it is and hardly worth wasting space on the page for.  The fact that you were having to boldface a line of it underscores how excessive it is. 198.207.168.65 00:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The quote isn't meaningless, it is a refutation specifically of claims that there was a conspiracy and insider trading, and provides an explanation for the correlation that conspiracy theorists point to as evidence. Thus it is relevant to the article. Instead of deleting the quote, provide some sources who had dissenting opinions.--DCAnderson 00:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

What is specific about it? Nothing. What figures can we look at? None. What firms did they contact? Don't know. We're supposed to 'just trust them.' Your comment about how I'm supposed to refute something that is pure handwaving is ridiculous - the evidence is apparently too 'top secret' to even see, so there is not way to respond. They act as though one firm's newsletter could account for worldwide trading activity -- idiotic at best. The fact that you are deleting as much CT as you can and are openly telling me not to delete a long and laborious quote that tells us nothing but attempts to defend an unseen and unknown 'investigation,' exposes how biased your position is with regard to the information -- one standard for the official story, another for anything that isn't that. 198.207.168.65 01:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The standard (which is applied equally to both sides) is No Original Research. The quote is not original research. What was deleted from the section was a bunch of links to primary sources with the Wikipedia article implying causation. Go find people who make these claims and link to them, but don't delete the arguments that hurt your case.--DCAnderson 01:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

You don't actually know anything about what the research is because you are not allowed to see the source information. It's just what the 9/11 decided, and you don't get to ask where they got their numbers. I'll take original research anyday over the 'word' of the Commission. Bov 00:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately that is your personal preference vs. the WikiPedia policy.
 * Also, just because you don't trust the 9/11 commision, doesn't mean they're not authoritative in the eyes of WikiPedia. Wikipedia can not accept a conspiratorial worldview, because it would be impossible to write an artice about anything, because all authorities on a subject would be assumed to be potentially lying.--DCAnderson 00:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia don't need to accept or reject worldviews: Wikipedia will (and should) cite all relevant sources specifing who say what and leaving to the reader the decision about what to believe.--Pokipsy76 18:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Which is why we have to cite the 9/11 commision.
 * Also, what I'm saying is not that Wikipedia shouldn't mention the claims of those with a conspiratorial worldview, what I'm saying is that Wikipedia itself can't adopt that worldview. (i.e. "the 9/11 commision isn't a valid authority because they're part of the conspiracy")--DCAnderson 18:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * What I'm saying is that Wikipedia cannot adopt *any* worldview and should never say what is a valid authority and what is not.--Pokipsy76 20:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia policy of Reliable sources would disagree with you on that point.--DCAnderson 20:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Obfuscation of Sources
I have noticed in this article statements like this have a tendency to crop up:


 * "Some theorists..."
 * "Some believe..."
 * "Others argue..."

These are Weasel words. Instead of giving vague statements like this, we need to give statements like:


 * "Joe Blow of the Institute for Studying Stuff believes..."

Also, I have managed to cull out many of the statements with primary source citations, but we need to also take a serious look at the secondary sources we have. Many of the sites like 911truth.org are seriously questionable when it comes to the Wikipedia policy of Reliable Sources. As near as I can tell, Steven E. Jones, AlJazeera, and the article the "HOP level" quote is from are the closest things we've really got.--DCAnderson 04:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Any assertion that relies upon 911truth.org should be removed as a matter of course, as it's a POV-pushing non-reviewed mouthpiece for the conspiracists. Morton devonshire 14:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The 9/11 Commission report isn't pushing the Pov that the govt suspects are innocent, by any chance? Yes, but it has been reviewed - and found to be full of Omissions and Distortions, in a published work by that name, by a distinguished academic, too.

Conspiracism

 * "Soon afterwards Fox pulled it from its website without explanation." Though 'pull it' is common industry terminology for initiating a controlled demolition, spokesmen for Fox News claim that they just removed the page from the website. John Doe of Fakeytown, Missouri maintains that his computer did in fact explode, a charge ignored by the Bush administration. Researchers note that there is no way the administration can prove that Doe's computer did not explode. Others point to Fox's relationship with members of the current administration as evidence at least suggestive of something funny going on.

How's that? Can I have my own website now? Tom Harrison Talk 13:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

You forgot to mention something that is unrelated, but imply that it is connected without coming right out and saying it:


 * The Internet was originally created by the US military.

Or even better:


 * Both George Bush and Ariel Sharon own computers with Internet access. They could have used these computers to view the Fox News article.--DCAnderson 20:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, of course you are right. Tell you what: We'll both set up websites, then we can cite each other as references. Tom Harrison Talk 00:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * And I'll claim to be a prestigious scientist at an Ivy League University that supports your findings because I did two summers of (published) undergraduate research there. Based on my deep training and publications in mathematics, I conclude that Doe's computer not exploding must have violated the conservation of mass. --Mmx1 14:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * And your conclusions have to be drawn from photographs and second hand accounts. No sense getting your hands dirty by leaving the comfort of your home office.--DCAnderson 18:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Balance and NPOV
Yikes! Could we all settle down for some reflection? If this is a page on 9/11 conspiracy theories, then we should give a fair NPOV exposition of the claims from the leading website articles and books, and then follow those claims with an equal amount of space for refutations. In both cases, we need to cite actual statements from actual people or groups. In either case, uncited claims and Original Research should be removed. 911truth.org may not be a peer review source, but it does represent a significant player in conspiracist circles.

How do we help readers become aware of the claims and the refutations in a way that gives them useful information for further research? I am a harsh critic of conspiracy theories, but as an encyclopedia editor where the consensus is to keep this page, my task is to improve the page and its contents.

At the same time, it would be constructive if those favoring conspiracy theories and "skeptics" would stop wasting all of our time by endlessly revisiting issues that have been debated at great length and voted on. Let's leave the page name alone for a few months, and please stop trying to insert conspiracy theories onto the main 9/11 pages. It's just tacky.

If we all make a serious attempt to improve this page, some claims will erode away, others will be stated in more clear and convincing language, the refutations will be paired with the claims, and a few issue will probably emerge as more worthy of serious attention as unanswered questions.--Cberlet 14:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Regarding "equal amount of space for refutations", I don't think this is necessary to maintain NPOV, since article is dedicated to the conspiracy theories. Refutations should be mentioned, but not necessarily equally. See WP:NPOV and WP:NPOV. The reverse, of course, would be true for the main 9/11 articles. -- MisterHand 14:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I hate to burst your bubble, but those two WikiPedia policies are not friendly to CTs. Those are the policies that are used to reign in the CTs, and they actually call for the exact opposite of what you said.
 * Undue Weight:"Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority). We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views.
 * Giving "equal validity: "Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them as encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory; from describing the strong moral repugnance that many people feel toward some morally repugnant views; and so forth."--DCAnderson 17:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You've obviously never seen any of wikipedia's articles on science or religion, where fringe views and "alternative theories" are mandatory, and every science-related-article is forced to carry a mandatory "alternative theory" section to appease the 2 or 3 people who think that the world is flat, and/or 6000 years old, or whatever...--152.163.100.69 20:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well yah, you have to present the other side. The policies just say you don't have to give them "undue weight" or "equal validity." I'm not saying we shouldn't present these theories (they do exist, and they're worth mentioning) I'm just saying we shouldn't bend over backwards when writing these articles so a bunch of cranks can use WikiPedia as a soapbox.--DCAnderson 20:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

>>"I hate to burst your bubble, but those two WikiPedia policies (See WP:NPOV and WP:NPOV)are not friendly to CTs"

Interesting and overt. Pretty much explains how biased wikipedia is, that the official story can receive no questioning on its own page, and any questioning of it which has managed to add up to it's own page has to be labelled pejoratively and immediately 'refuted.' Bov 23:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Encyclopedias do generally reflect the most commonly accepted version of the truth. This is not a debate site. 216.207.246.230 22:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Bipartisan title
What do you think about this possible new title:


 * 9/11 skepticism and conspiracy theories

It would mention both POV and leave the reader free to judge himself what in the article is a conspiracy theory and what is just sketpticism. What do you think?--Pokipsy76 08:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The word 'theory' implies that the information presented in the article is uncertain. Lx45803 14:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Conspiracy theories and legitimate criticisms are two separate topics; combining them into a signle article which fails to distinguish between the two would represent a loss of information. Peter Grey 15:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, but in the article we speak about a lot of point of views so there will be also "theories". The reader can make his opinion on what in the article is a "theory" and what is justified skepticism about the official account.--Pokipsy76 15:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This article is called "9/11 conspiracy theories" - it's not an accident that it contains conspiracy theories. Peter Grey 15:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It contains a lot of things. Some of them are conspiracy theories, other are facts.--Pokipsy76 16:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Conspiracy theories are by their very nature a collection of facts. (As a fact is an objective statement of reality.) The thing that makes them CTs is that they then imply causation between these facts.
 * Por examplo: all of the sales of stock that happened before 9/11 really happened, and can be verified.
 * It becomes a Conspiracy Theory when causation is implied, i.e "insider trading," "prior knowledge."
 * So yes, many of the statements on this page are "facts."--DCAnderson 16:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

A clarification regarding original research
OK. I have several questions, all of which relate to this article. First, when it comes to "original research", would the citation of facts that have not been cited before in this context count as original research? (I posted it earlier, though it was deleted. It was two contrasting statements (which contradicted each other...) regarding the release of Flight 93 info...) I haven't seen anyone else posting anything about it anywhere, and I am the only one who has put it together. That said, it is based on reliable sources, namely NTSB documents and statements by federal prosecutors. (I posted links to them too...) Oh, and the section regarding "no transcripts being released" needs to be changed in regards to the recordings being played at the Moussaoui trial. Orville Eastland 13:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess the relevant part of the OR policy would be "...any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position." Does that apply to what you are asking about? Tom Harrison Talk 13:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorists' reaction to Debunkers of PM and SA
In the article we say that


 * Some of these claims have been dismissed as conspiracy theories by a number of journalists and scientists in publications such as Scientific American[7] and Popular Mechanics[8]. However, some of the claims are being further supported by a minority of scientists [...]

I think it would be nice to mention why this "researchers" still support the claims given the "debunking" of PM and SA. So I added this


 * researchers as Jim Hoffman accused these articles to "misrepresent the skeptic point of view"

But it was deleted as a "poorly referenced statement". Well, it's not difficult to see that the opinions of other researchers about PM's article is more or less the Hoffman's opinion I quoted above (and it's not difficult to believe they had this reaction). You can look for example

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/reply_to_popular_mechanics.htm

http://www.oilempire.us/popular-mechanics.html

www.prisonplanet.tv/audio/090305alexresponds.htm

and surely google can give you many other opinion like that. Now what have I to do to make the statement "not poorly referenced"? Have I to mention all this websites and authors? How many of them? --Pokipsy76 15:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't object to the number of websites you listed but rather the quality of the source. There's a great article here called Reliable sources.  It turns out that personal webpages and partisan websites are not great references.  But I see your point of view.  You just wanted to show that some people disagree with the mainstream criticism of the conspiracy.  On the other hand, should we then add a statement that some people disagree with the some people who disagree with the debunking of the conspiracy theories?  We could link to blogs and personal webpages to prove that this is true also.--Bill 15:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) In the article we are saying that there have been some rebuttals BUT there are "researchers" that still support the (rubutted?) claims so I can't see any problem if we connect the two fact mentioning what these researchers said about the rebuttals.
 * 2) The source has enough quality to be considered the real POV of these researchers being it an article in the website of one of them and written by one of them (one that is enough important between them to have a wikipedia page). What's the problem about it?
 * 3) I didn't "wanted to show that some people disagree with the mainstream criticism of the conspiracy"!! I wasn't quoting the POV of some people, I was quoting the subject of the phrase (the "researchers questioning the official account...")!!--Pokipsy76 16:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the intro is fine the way it is now. It says there is support for these theories, and gives examples. Then it says that there are criticisms of these theories, and it gives examples. I don't think we really need to fit meta-arguments into the intro. Besides, some of those "rebuttals to the rebuttals" are allready linked to at the bottom of the page.--DCAnderson 17:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think so. I think that it would be fine to add the quote above. It is unclear at the beginning why the "researchers" still believe the claims and the links would give the motivation before one arrives to the end of the article. It would be a more balanced intro.--Pokipsy76 18:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The links are not to a reliable source, and they are cluttering up the into with a meta-argument. Also, it is allready clear from the intro that though "most" of the claims have been dismissed, "some" are still being supported. That part needs to get the axe.--DCAnderson 21:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) What's the problem if I cite as a source of a statement the web site of the author of the statement?
 * 2) What's the problem about "meta-arguments"?
 * 3) The word "most" and the phrase make the reader think that the dismissed claims are representative. This is POV. If You said "some" (as I tried to do) your argument could work. With "most" it become POV.
 * 4) "That part needs to get the axe" is your personal opinion.--Pokipsy76 14:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

By definition none of the CT websites can be considered a reliable source, so your logic doesn't work here. You are saying that the CT rebuttals are unreliable and cluttering, suggesting that the source that's used by the State Dept to demean the CTs is able to be there because it is reliable and does not add clutter. Allowing only links to rebuttals but not CTs themselves in the first paragraph doesn't make sense on a page about CTs. Linking to an internal McKinney page isn't going to provide a response to SciAm or PM. Bov 18:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Article Being Butchered
I added the citation for the term pull. Patsw, I hope adding just one is good enough for you. It was right on this talk page by the way. I am reposting a comment from above here as well.

"that's exactly because the content of the article was outdated and sometimes obsolete, that I first started to rewrite and update the content, hoping to eventually reach a minimum up-to-date quality article. But I gave up after my modification were reverted before I could even finish the job. Seems we have a case of "if they don't know, you can't tell 'em" here. for example people are still reinserting that there is doubt about pulling being a controlled demolition term for pulling a building down, even though it has been widely in use for decades.

(...) such as pre-cutting steel beams and attaching cables to certain columns to "pull" a structure in a given direction. excerpt from the 1960's chapter of "A History of Structural Demolition in America" by author Brent L. Blanchard, or you can hear it here or see it in the howstuffworks article explaining how building implosion works:Blasters may also secure steel cables to support columns in the building, so that they are pulled a certain way as they crumble..

Thanks to doctor9 and other this has been edited out at least twice before I even finished working on the WTC 7 section. There's not even a link to the building implosion article anymore. Why is it that one has to explain to clueless laymen who don't dare research or read by themselves to justify an inclusion in a wikipedia article ? Do anyone here know that absence of evidence is not evidence and absence and that in absence of evidence a wikipedian should research the evidence instead of deleting and reverting ASAP. izwalito"

Talk about an excercise in redundancy. Actually, I think this is the fourth time I had to edit in that spot. Just me. If anyone still has doubts about that term speak up NOW. --SkeenaR 19:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I suppose a citation is needed for common? Whatever. Everybody knows it is and if they have such a hard-on for citations about they should add it themselves or just put the article up for deletion. SkeenaR 19:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, the term "pull" has been used in demolition, and also in firefighting. It really is not fair to dispute that the term "pull" has been used in demolition when the cite documenting this keeps getting deleted. That is not fair.  At the same time, we need to point out that the term "pull" also refers to pulling firefighters out of a building to prevent injury or death.--Cberlet 19:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * And in skeet shooting!--Bill 19:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I spoke with experts at Controlled Demolition, Inc. just this morning and asked them about "pull" or "pull it" and they stated that they never use this terminology. Can someone point me to where this terminology is used?--MONGO 00:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Just because you claim that you were told by a particular company that they do not use that term doesn't mean it isn't used like in the other examples here. SkeenaR 03:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

"Gradually they began to develop techniques to increase the efficiency of explosive charges, such as pre-cutting steel beams and attaching cables to certain columns to "pull" a structure in a given direction." and hear it here I love redundancy. Mongo, answer me this-with the base of knowledge you have gained while editing these articles, you have never heard of this term being used? SkeenaR 01:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Look, call them yourself, they won't talk to you since you have no credentials, but you can try and email them......maybe someone from there will chime in at Wikipedia and help to qwell all this junk science.--MONGO 01:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Look, I don't think this really matters. The claim was made, we have a source for it. There is a response to it listed with a citation as well. "Pull" is a term that has been used in demolitions.

Though its use in that context is somewhat questionable, "pull" was used to mean literally "pull" the walls down with cables, and not to implode the building. I guess it could maybe be construed as a holdover like "bug in the system" or "pencil lead."

But the argument is kinda obviously silly and loses horribly to Occam's razor (What's more likely? Mr. Silverstein accidentaly mentioned his elaborate plan to blow up his own building or that he was talking about "pulling" the rescue attempt?)

In lieu of another good third party rebuttal to this argument, we have to let it stand. Anything else would be Original Research.--DCAnderson 01:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

From the PBS documentary: "''(unidentified construction worker): "Hello? Oh, we're getting ready to pull building six." Luis Mendes, NYC Dept of Design and Construction: "We had to be very careful how we demolished building six. We were worried about the building six coming down and then damaging the slurry walls, so we wanted that particular building to fall within a certain area.''" so it has been used in the context of implosions.SkeenaR 02:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, your right, it's beside the point because we are not trying to prove anything here, just that it is in the proper spot in the article. I don't understand the strong objections to it. SkeenaR 02:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Well I guess the real issue is whether "pull" is an industry term to talk about an implosion(you hear different things from different places) or if the guy in the article is only claiming it is. It's a subtle difference that requires us to word that section very carefully.

So far we have sources where they seem to imply it can be used to refer to an implosion and other sources that imply it is used to refer to literally "pulling" down a building. The problem is we don't have a reliable source that comes right out and says "Pull is a term to refer to an implosion."--DCAnderson 03:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Or to be more clear, I think we need a "Dictionary of Demolitions Terminology" entry or something. Or at least a glossary entry. Whatever, I say let it stand till we can get something better.--DCAnderson 03:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

To Bill
What's the need to specify that Jim Hoffman is a software engeneer? Is it some kind of trolling?--Pokipsy76 21:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It's called citing your sources.--DCAnderson 21:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Why? Don't you think a background in computer programming adds to his credibility on questions of structural engineering? Tom Harrison Talk 21:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think its highly valuable to know who the source is. There's nothing wrong with being a software engineer. Some of my best friends are software engineers.--Bill 21:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem is that it's (of course) not relevant in the context. However I know that you are not so stupid and your answer (and those of the other two guys) makes things much more clear: you definitely *are* trolling and in fact you are not here to make a democratic discussion, you are here just to preserve the POV of the article. Good luck.--Pokipsy76 21:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * When I first read the sentence, I didn't know who Jim Hoffman was and I'm sure most people won't either. His area of expertise is relevant because he is being cited as an expert.  I believe that I improved the article by saying who the source was.  You say its a POV edit, and now we are discussing it.--Bill 21:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Please stop being ridiculous.--Pokipsy76 07:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Pokipsy76, a troll is "someone who comes into an established community such as an online discussion forum, and posts inflammatory, rude or offensive messages designed to annoy and antagonize the existing members or disrupt the flow of discussion." I don't see how that applies here. Tom Harrison Talk 21:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe "persistent unconstructive sarcasm" and "disingenuous and redundant stalling tactics" should be added to the troll definition. SkeenaR 22:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe I should have said "vandal"? Thank you very much for your precious and smart contribution to the discussion, Tom. Now you can return to add some other POV to the article.--Pokipsy76 21:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I can see how it applies here ;) --DCAnderson 21:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The issue is this: Is 'software engineer' the expertise that Jim Hoffman's statements are based on? If he's an expert in a relevant area, then saying software engineer is a bad faith means of diminishing his credibility. If software engineering is his only area of expertise, then it is relevant because this is the background that the statements are based on, and not mentioning the fact would consitute trying to hide information prejudicial to his credibility. (And so far nothing in this discussion give me any clue as to the answer.) Peter Grey 08:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * See Jim Hoffman. However there's no so much to debate on, Bill's edit was very clearly a vandalish way to neutralize the quote without doing a revert (after his edit the phrase becamed completely ridiculous). Tom Harrison provided the revert deleting eventually some extra older statements he didn't like. This is the way this page is going on.--Pokipsy76 08:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Jim Hoffman is a software engineer who has been researching 9/11 since 2003. He has many publications in scientific journals related to mathematics.  His research into 9/11, according to Wikipedia, is described on his website .  He also co-authored a book about 9/11 with peace-activist Don Paul and has produced a DVD about 9/11.  The sentence written about his beliefs linked to two of his essays "Scientific American Lies for the Empire" and "Popular Mechanics Attacks the '9/11 LIES' Straw Man." It was obvious from the context of the sentence that he was a 9/11 researcher/essayist.  It was not obvious who he was.  Just as we would write "CIA whistleblower Jim Hoffman" or "former-DoD aide Jim Hoffman," we should state what he does.  Identifying his occupation didn't necessarily diminish his credibility and it didn't make the phrase "completely ridiculous."   It gave the reader a fact and, as has been pointed out numerous times on this page, the readers should be given the facts and allowed to make their own conclusions. I like Al Franken.  Al Franken has also written books and essays with specific agendas like Mr. Hoffman has.  But if I cite Al Franken, I will write "Comedian Al Franken," because that identifies his primary occupation.  You can call it "bad faith," "stupid," "ridiculous," "disingenous," or "vandalish" all you want, but nothing will change the fact that it identified the source of the statement.
 * In either case, the sentence is gone now because another editor removed it. Not because Hoffman is a software engineer but because the paragraph had already set-up the fact that there are two points of view.--Bill 14:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * But while it is said what the first POV thinks about the second it seems we are not allowed yo say what the second POV thinks about the first. (PS: your add about Hoffman *really* made the phrase ridiculous, don't try to defend it anymore, ask anyone not biased if you don't believe it. You had also to explain why we can say "publications as..." but we cannot say "researchers as..." but it's not important now that your bad faith has became more evident.)--Pokipsy76 16:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If just naming the source of an argument makes it seem ridiculous, it probably gives you a fairly good idea of how well it holds up to the policy of Reliable Sources.--DCAnderson 16:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * In fact nobody was contesting something like "naming the source". Please make relevant comments.--Pokipsy76 16:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The statement was attributed to Jim Hoffman. If we attribute it to Jim Hoffman we need to mention who he is and what his qualifications are. If the statement seems silly after you mention his qualifications it probably means he isn't really an authority on the subject at all and shouldn't have been mentioned in the first place.--DCAnderson 16:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I.e., Jim Hoffman is just another amateur. Peter Grey 04:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The phrase was "researchers as Jim Hoffman": nobody was hiding his activity of *researcher* (the only one that was relevant in the context). There are politicians that are lawyers but if you specify "lawyer" in a phrase about his political activity or if you specify politicians in a phrase about his trials the phrase can become ridiculous (unless the second activity is relevant in the context). These things are so obvious that you must be completely "one sided" to have so many difficulties in understanding.--Pokipsy76 13:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Jim Hoffman is a prominent figure in this field and the target of ad hominem attacks on Wikipedia. SkeenaR 04:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You can say "researchers such as..." In fact, that's the way the paragraph ends now, except that its more specific saying "scientists, government officials, military experts and some in the intelligence community" instead of "researchers."  Right now the paragraph is organized like this: 1)Some people believe this.  2)Some people dismiss these beliefs. 3)However, some experts still support the beliefs.  There is one sentence in the introduction that dismisses the conspiracy theories.  I think its unnecessary to add in another counter-argument in favor of the conspiracy theories.  But if we do add it in, at least explain who the source is.--Bill 16:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * So you are saying that you find it "unnecessary" to mention *in the intro* the reaserchers' POV about the debunkers while you find it necessary to mention *in the intro* the debunkers' POV about the researchers?--Pokipsy76 16:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Short answer: yes.
 * The intro says that there are two factions and they don't agree with each other. That's all we need.--DCAnderson 16:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * But it says it in a POV way making the reader believe that one of the faction include scientist that *debunked the claim of the other*. This is not NPOV because the skeptic "faction" says that the debunked claims are in fact not representative of the skeptics. If you don't say this in the intro the intro will never be NPOV.--Pokipsy76 17:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem is that when the intro say that the two factions "don't agree with each other" it is misleading about *what* is the matter of the disagreement. It seems to say that the disagreement is about the belief of some "dismissed claims", but this is the POV of PM, not that of the researchers (that thinks that the claims over which PM expressed disagreement are not representative of them). So the intro is not NPOV.--Pokipsy76 13:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I am saying that it already mentions their POV. Right now, the intro doesn't explain why the mainstream dismisses these theories. It just says that they do. And it doesn't explain why some people still believe these theories. It just says that they do. And the rest of the article goes into the details.--Bill 16:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You are assuming that "mainstreams dismissed the theories" (and this is what the intro seems to say) but this is disputed: researchers says that the dismissed claims are not relevant to their theory. You can't justify the intro on the base of POV assumptions.--Pokipsy76 17:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you misunderstand what is meant by "dismiss."
 * From Dictionary.com's definition of "Dismiss":
 * To stop considering; rid one's mind of; dispel: dismissed all thoughts of running for office.
 *  To refuse to accept or recognize; reject: dismissed the claim as highly improbable.
 * Just saying the theories were "dismissed" doesn't imply anything more than that their critics don't accept them. Which is true.
 * i.e. Dismised doesn't mean they proved them wrong, just they didn't accept them.
 * In the intro we don't even give an explanation why they're rejected, while we give a whole summary of the theories and their proponents.--DCAnderson 18:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * What you say is irrelevant if you understand what I'm saying. The ambiguity in the intro (that makes it POV) is between *what* is dismissed and *what* is supported by researchers. The intro seems to say that the dismissed claims are (substantially) *the* claims that are supported by the researchers. This is in fact what the article of PM say but this is not what the researchers say: they say that the theories considered by PM are not representative of the skeptic POV. Why should the intro have the POV of a specific part of the debate?--Pokipsy76 13:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Does Jim Hoffman represent all 9/11 researchers? The articles dismissed the most prevalent 9/11 claims. Just because Jim Hoffman makes some claims that aren't covered by SA and PM doesn't mean that they didn't address the major claims. And that is the way it is phrased now, "most" of these claims were dismissed by PM and SA, while "some" are supported.


 * Look, I have said it once and I have said it again, the Conspiracy Theorists are not monolithic. Some of them don't support the theories covered by those articles, while some do. Saying that Jim Hoffman speaks for all 9/11 "researchers" when he says that PM and SA didn't cover "his" issues, is just plain preposterous.--DCAnderson 16:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) On what grounds can you say that "the article dismissed the most prevalent 9/11 claims" or the "major claims"? Are you deciding the POV of the article on the base of YOUR personal opinion about what are the "most prevalent claims"? PM say the claims are the most prevalent: it is his POV and you are not allowed to assume it as the POV of the artcile.
 * 2) The phrase was "researchers *AS* Jim Hoffman" so nobody was assuming that Jim Hoffman was representative of *all researchers* as you are trying to make me say.
 * 3) The quote of Jim Hoffman didn't "says that PM and SA didn't cover *his* issues": it say that they have choosen the claims between the least representative of researchers in general.
 * As you can see your reply completely miss the point in each single phrase.--Pokipsy76 08:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * 1)From Scientific American: 'All the "evidence" for a 9/11 conspiracy falls under the rubric of this fallacy. Such notions are easily refuted by noting that scientific theories are not built on single facts alone but on a convergence of evidence assembled from multiple lines of inquiry.' They just dismissed all the theories in two sentences.  They didn't debunk or disprove the theories; they dismissed them.
 * 2)Part of the problem with "researchers such as Jim Hoffman" is the fact that it was followed two citations, both leading to Jim Hoffman. It would have been better to point to two different researchers.
 * 3)Such a specific rebuttal does not belong in the Intro. The conspiracy theories are widely dismissed, and this should get a minor mention in the Intro. Dismiss does not mean disprove.  On the contrary, it means 'ignore', and doesn't even require a rebuttal.  And as I mentioned above, SA dismissed "all the 'evidence' for a 9/11 conspracy" out of hand, so the rebuttal isn't even appropriate.--Bill 16:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) Your quote allow you to say that "Michael Shermer in SA dismiss 'conspiracy theories' in general" but it don't allow to say that "most of this claims are dismissed" in the second formulation it seems that SA has addressed his attention to the specific claims while (according with your quote) it is speaking in general. So you can't use that quote to defend the phrase in the intro.
 * 1') It's not true that SA didn't debunk or disprove theories: they in fact try to do it (read all the article and read the article of PM).
 * 2) If you wanted some quotes from other people why did't you look for them?
 * 3) If you think that "dismissed" should be intended as "ignored" then you should try to explain why these pubblications need to pubblish an article to *ignore* something. In fact the articles linked to the phrase *have* rebuttals of what they say to be "representative claims" of the theories. So your way to intend "dismiss" in the phrase is wrong or it need to be changed because it don't say the truth or is not coherent with the links.--Pokipsy76 18:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * 1)The quote didn't dismiss most of the claims. It dismissed all of the them.
 * 1')Yes, but the intro doesn't say that so how does it improve the article to add a rebuttal to something not said?
 * 2)Because the sentence isn't necessary and the burden of proof is not on me and I assume that when someone complains about being asked for a citation it means they can't find one.
 * 3)No, the intro says that the claims are dismissed and those articles dismiss all the claims and debunk some of them. More importantly, how does it improve the article if we don't point out that these claims have been dismissed?  Should we change the sentence to read, "These views are widely held by everyone and have no detractors.  Although the government went to the trouble of fabricating an offical account, no one paid any attention.  Foreign governments have refused to cooperate into any investigations into Al Qaeda because of the obvious likelihood that the conspiracy theories are correct.  Not since Watergate has a governmental conspiracy been so accepted so quickly."  Or should we establish that these conspiracy theories are dismissed by most people?  Which is NPOV and which is a soapbox?  Which gives the reader a sense of reality?--Bill 19:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) I'v already pointed out what you say about the quote in much more depth then you pointing out its having low relation with the phrase in the intro.
 * 1') The intro doesn't clarify if the "dismission" is "a priori" or rather relies on some kind of rebuttal. The expression "most of these claims" seems to suggest that the dismission is based on analysis of the specific claims.
 * 2) I was not asked for a citation.
 * 3) You were expressing the position that "dismiss" has to be intended as "ignore", I have contested your (strange) interpretation with some arguments and now you have just written a reply that completely shift the point. This is not the way to have a discussion. By the way your writing is just an examples of a standard straw man argument.--Pokipsy76 15:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think that the parts about dismissal by sciam and pm as well as the parts about it being supported by scientists etc should both go as the paragraph explains the article fine without them. I guess it's as good as it will get for now, and I suppose the word dismissal is adequate. It does fit. SkeenaR 02:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think they help get across the message "these theories are controversial," without being so vague.--DCAnderson 16:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Another thought I've had. Right now it says:

"Most of these claims have been dismissed by a number of journalists and scientists in publications such as Scientific American[7] and Popular Mechanics[8];"

So right now it lists those as general examples of a larger body. So trying to include a specific rebuttal to those two examples is overkill. We don't specifically address anything else in that intro, so why should we specifically address the rebuttal to those two articles?

I would sugest that including specific attacks to a general example in an intro, would in and of itself be an attempt to PUSH A POV.

i.e it would be saying right off the bat "here are a couple of examples, but here is why they're crap. So don't bother with what the other side has to say."--DCAnderson 16:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * But the intro *as it is now* IS POV because it lead the reader to think that the most prevalent claims of the "conspiracy theory" literature has been dismissed by PM and SA but this is disputed. Do you like POV just when it is on a specific side?--Pokipsy76 08:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Are there any claims not yet disputed that are prevalent? Peter Grey 16:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * "Conspiracy theorists" says that PM and SA adressed their rebuttals to claims that are not prevalent in the "conspiracy theory" literature. The intro makes the reader believe the contrary. -> The intro is not NPOV because there are two different POV and it show one of them.--Pokipsy76 16:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Wording
"some of the claims are being further supported" I don't understand exactly what this means. Tom Harrison Talk 21:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess we could write it "some of these claims are being supported"--DCAnderson 21:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

This part of the sentence is kind of weird too: "Most of these claims have been dismissed as conspiracy theories by a number of journalists and scientists in the publications Scientific American[7] and Popular Mechanics[8],"

There are two weird things about it.

First it implies that the claims were dismissed "as conspiracy theories." Wern't they dismissed as "not being true?" I think it would work fine as "Most of these claims have been dismissed by..."

Second it imples that Scientific American and Popular Mechanics are the only places where they have been dismissed, while I'm fairly certain there are more places, and those those two are only being used as examples.--DCAnderson 22:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that's right. They didn't say (as I recall), "Those are conspiracy theories, and therefore unworthy of our attention." They examined the assetions of the theories popular at the time, and found them lacking. Of course, the proponents of the theories say they were not found lacking, but weren't fully understood, or were misrepresented. I think it could be better expressed. Tom Harrison Talk 22:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe that the change from "publications such as..." to "the publications" was done as retaliation for my edit of "researchers such as Jim Hoffman" to "software engineer Jim Hoffman." --Bill 22:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Assume good faith, Bill.--DCAnderson 22:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I changed it to "publications such as" to demonstrate that they are not the only ones disputing the conspiracy theories. SkeenaR 22:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Citation request
Whoever put a request for a citation that most researchers question the put options, a google search shows that this is unnecessary - Results 1 - 10 of about 91,000 for 9/11 and "put options". If you want to cite all the CT websites then go do the work, but it's ridiculous. 24.4.180.197 02:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Well it's not important that we list them all, but we should list the most prominent proponents. Otherwise we are using Weasel Words.--DCAnderson 02:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Millions of people did question the put options when this pattern was first disclosed by the Chicago Board Options Exchange on September 18, 2001. A lazy Google search will continue to find many references to the suspicion the trades were made with foreknowledge until the end of time.


 * Unless this article is History of 9/11 conspiracy theories, the question for this article in 2006, is how many researchers now dispute the conclusion of the 9/11 Commission that the trades were not connected to anyone with foreknowledge of the September 11, 2001 /11terrorist attacks -- and if these researchers have an explanation for how and why the different organizations (investment banks, the CBOE, the Options Clearing Corporation, SEC, Department of the Treasury, and the FBI) would coordinate a lie to deceive the world.


 * I've looked for such a researcher but only found those who have looked at the data and conclude that the conclusion of the 9/11 Commission that the trading was innocuous was correct. So, as a matter of fact, I am interested in learning of researchers who after August 2004, continue to hold that there is more than merely suspicion and coincidence, but evidence beyond the question why a graph has a spike in the middle. patsw 03:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

In 2006, we are talking about conspiracy theories. A good place to find out what they are is conspiracy theory sites. Many of them have lots of links too! Or just delete the article, or call it "9/11 Conspiracy Theories All Bullshit". Actually, create that article or another blog and then you can put anything you want.SkeenaR 03:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * But they're primary sources of unverified notability - if I put up a webpage saying the sky is green, should you cite me? We need more stuff like the New York Metro article - articles in the press ABOUT the conspiracy theorists. That's a secondary source about these theories. These conspiracy sites, no. --Mmx1 04:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, look people. These claims have to come from somewhere. Someone has to have made them. We have to name a source for them, because the Conspiracy Theorists have a lot of different views on this, and they are not a united front on these issues.--DCAnderson 03:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The burden to provide a citation is on the editor who adds "Many theorists view..." and provides only external links to a news articles from October 2001 and some commentary from 2001 giving the common reasons for suspicion.
 * But do these theorists believe this in May 2006? Has any theorist disputed the data made available by the CBOE or and Options Clearing Corporation the conclusion reached by the 9/11 Commission in 2004 and published a refutation of them?  If not, the accurate statement becomes "Many theorists viewed..."? patsw

Yeah, it's still disputed Patsw. I'm surprised you are unable to contribute any good material instead of just deleting stuff. I guess I'll have to do it again. SkeenaR 04:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Please add a citation indicating a dispute refuting the findings of the August 2004 9/11 Commission Report to support "Many theorists view..." with regard to the options trading. patsw 04:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah sure.  Now do your wordplay thing. SkeenaR 05:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Not only that, but the whole Commission Report is seen by almost all theorists as a completely bogus whitewash, so in this context it's irrelevant what the report says anyway. Do you want a citation for that? Just trying to get this article NPOV.SkeenaR 05:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The linked article "Revealing 9-11 Stock Trades Could Expose The Terrorist Masterminds" on www.globalresearch.ca does nothing more than repeat the suspicion of September and October 2001.


 * No conspiracy researcher is mentioned in that article refuting the data presented by the groups I mentioned above in 2004, 2005, or 2006. It isn't so much that the 9/11 Commission Report got it wrong but that hundreds or thousands of employees with access to records of different sorts with respect to the questioned options trades and accounts could be brought into a conspiracy to deceive the world regarding who was behind the trades. patsw 05:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Pat, it is fine the way it is. We mention what these theories are, and then we have the rebuttal from the 9/11 commision. It is not our place to judge these theories, just to present them, and present what the critics have said about them. Anything else is Original Research.--DCAnderson 05:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The Report isn't irrelevant to this part of the article (go read my posts above in the section about insider trading). In order to remain NPOV, we need to list a couple of major proponents of the theory i.e. "John Doe of the John Smith foundation says..." and it would probably be best if we listed some quotes along with it. As Skeena pointed out there are plenty of sources still making that claim. The tricky part is trying to figure who is the most prominent and/or reliable of the people making this claim.--DCAnderson 05:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Really, DCAnderson and SkeenaR, I'm looking for a source that is currently making the claim of foreknowledge of 9/11 based on specific evidence other than:


 * "The pattern of trading is suspicious." (i.e. what we learned on September 18, 2001)
 * "We (i.e. almost all conspiracy theorists) know the 9/11 Commission Report was a whitewash." patsw 05:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * There isn't one. That's the nature of a Conspiracy Theory: these facts I have selected seem to imply a suspicious correlation, and anything that disagrees is "lies" put out by "them."
 * That's why the title of the page is 9/11 conspiracy theories.--DCAnderson 05:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not clear to me why this issue of a citations for many theorists on the insider trading is such an issue. Why are people who have no idea of what goes on in the movement, now or historically, deleting information on the page that doesn't fit with their worldview and then insisting on citations but won't look up any information themselves? Bov 17:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't have said it better myself Bov. It almost seems like a method to keep people who would contribute to the article busy running around in circles with frivolous tasks while at the same time calling into question anything else they "don't like"-all without contributing to the article or doing any work themselves. Of course I'm not saying that this is the case. SkeenaR 20:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

pull is industry jargon for planned demolition
Here's two versions of the Paul Watson's theory linked to www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2006/050106silversteinanswers.htm prison planet]


 * 1 On prisonplanet.com, Paul Watson has written the term "pull is industry jargon for planned demolition" and that Silverstein made a reference to his order to destroy 7 World Trade Center by controlled demolition in the above interview.


 * 2 On prisonplanet.com, Paul Watson has suggested that this statement was a Freudian slip where Mr. Silverstein mentioned an order to collapse the building. He suggests because "pull" is a common industry term used at the moment a collapse is triggered

I wrote the first version because Paul Watson doesn't have a cite for "pull is industry jargon for planned demolition." A cite is necessary because I wasn't able to verify Paul Watson's assertion to be factual.

In the meantime it can't be asserted as fact and instead is cited it as his own writing. Note I have quoted his own words from the article. The article doesn't refer to "pull" as "the moment a collapse is triggered".

I wonder what sort of research Watson did on this article. For example, the New York City Fire Deparment is not organized into "brigades" but "companies".

I don't know if "pull is industry jargon for planned demolition." As I wrote in an edit summary adding the template, request citation for "pull" as a standard industry term to demonstate its usage prior to 9/11/2001 in this manner.

According to Watson, Silverstein made a reference (in Watson's words "an apparent admission") to an order to destroy 7 World Trade Center by controlled demolition (that is a "planned demolition" or "pull").

The second version is not an accurate summary of Watson's article: Watson doesn't suggest it was a Freudian slip, slip of the tongue, or carelessness on Silverstein's part. From watching the clip one can see that Silverstein is careful and not careless in recalling this conversation with the FDNY chief on the site.

The second version is ambiguous: "collapse the building" is not Watson's claim at all, it is that Silverstein destroyed the building by ordering its controlled demolition at 5:20 p.m. on Septemer 11, 2001. patsw 02:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

There are enough references where you can easily find them yourself. Some of them are on this page. You can also fix the semantics if you like, but we are not here to verify the credibility of Paul Watson's research into the organizational structure of the FDNY. Change it again if you like and I'll proof-read it for you. SkeenaR 03:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really into how to this works but I just wanted to add some information. There is a (non-conspiracy) documentary about 9/11 where they demolish WTC 6 and the demolition team uses the term "pull".

Another thing that is missing is the WTC North tower fire in 1975 when the building burned for 3 hours.

This is what you are refering to: From the PBS documentary: "''(unidentified construction worker): "Hello? Oh, we're getting ready to pull building six." Luis Mendes, NYC Dept of Design and Construction: "We had to be very careful how we demolished building six. We were worried about the building six coming down and then damaging the slurry walls, so we wanted that particular building to fall within a certain area.''" so it has been used in the context of implosions. It is in their own words while performing the operation. Is this clear enough?SkeenaR 03:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Page Protection
I missed what vandalism prompted this protection, but it's been up for a while now and I'm requesting it be unprotected. BTW, what was the vandalism? SkeenaR 01:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:VAN--MONGO 02:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I remember it being by a sock puppet of some dude who has been banned, and was trying to edit the "Zionist Lies" that Jayjg had put in.(He even mentioned Jayjg by name in his edit summary and called him a Zionist) As near as I can tell, he's had it in for Jayjg for awhile now.--DCAnderson 02:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

How about we fix it now? SkeenaR 03:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the protection is very good for this sort of subject. Registered users can edit, and such a controvercial topic is in lots of danger of being screwed up by anon crack-pots and anti-conspiracy believers alike. Fresheneesz 11:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Unforunately Wikipedia's policy on this is that the only thing that can justify locking a page is vandalism that is actually occuring on an ongoig basis or to protect the page from sockpuppets of a banned user. You can't lock a page just because it is controversial. We did have a banned user try to edit, but he only made 2 edits and they seemed to be part of a larger wave of editing across multiple pages. This is an isolated incident, and as near as I can tell doesn't really justify the lock. If he comes back and does it again later, I suppose it will be justified, until then I say we should remove the lock.--DCAnderson 15:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * placed the block to deal with edits by a banned user working from an IP address. You could ask him to unprotect, or you could request unprotection. I expect Jayjg will remove the protection as soon as it's safe to do so. Tom Harrison Talk 16:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Is it safe yet? Bov 17:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

He's pretty persistent. What's the rush in unprotecting? Are there any IPs that really need to edit this article right now? Jayjg (talk) 22:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm assuming for example editors like 198.207.168.65 are unable to contribute. He should not be required to register and this article and others will suffer as a result. The protection is a hindrance and I think probably unnecessary as we can kick the troll out any old time if we need to. Perhaps you are right about leaving the protection up though, but for how long? SkeenaR 03:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I've removed the semi-protection. Please keep an eye out for any further edits by banned users.  Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 03:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * BTW, the page was vandalized 54 minutes after the unprotection... Jayjg (talk) 04:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Was it the same guy? Thanks to Tom for being so prompt on that. SkeenaR 04:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * No, someone else, but the valuable contributions to this page by IP editors has, as far as I can tell, been nil. Jayjg (talk) 05:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Bad Sections
I'm not really sure how to go about fixing it, but as they stand now, the sections "Intelligence Issues" and "Suggested Motives or Hidden Warnings" are just a recounting of erroneous facts without mention of anyone implying that these facts meant anything.--DCAnderson 20:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Just delete them. SkeenaR 20:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Done.--DCAnderson 20:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Guess not. --DCAnderson 20:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I would say bring them to the talk page and try to get them verified and/or attributed. Or put { { fact } } tags on them. Kevin Baastalk 21:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not that they aren't verified, it's just that they're basically "random crap." What I mean by that is, they aren't being mentioned by any source as "evidence of a conspiracy," they're just presented as "interesting trivia." (Hmm, That's a lot of quotation marks.)--DCAnderson 21:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

P.S. One of the problems with this article is how long it is, and one of the reasons given for this is the large amount of Original Research it contains.--DCAnderson 21:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If there's anything in the article that is not properly attributed and referenced, then a cite tag should be put on it. regarding how long the article is, i agree, and other here agree, which is why the article was split before. but others disagree that the article is too long, and merge the splits - so we're kind of at a stand-off there. Kevin Baastalk 21:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

This is complete bullshit. I have a job and a life so I can't sit here and look for citations 24/7 but you don't seem to have anything better to do other than sit around and ask for them while deleting material. And as an example, the allegations about building 7 are completely pervasive among the theorists literature and it would have taken you about 2 seconds to google something good up but you obviously were not interested. Unless I can get some kind of good explanation from you which I highly doubt, I will no longer be able to assume good faith and I will report you to whoever deals with this kind of bullshit. SkeenaR 21:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * A little FYI from Wikipedia: Verifiability:
 * "3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it. "--DCAnderson 21:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

You think I don't know that? I think you need to slow down. SkeenaR 21:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well you're always basically saying, "you guys are lazy, 'cause you don't want to google this stuff up." I'm telling you what the policy is. And look, I asked what to do about the section, you said "delete it," so I did. Then Kevin reverted it, so now we're talking about it. You do need to calm down dude. I can promise you I'm not doing anyhting out of "bad faith."--DCAnderson 21:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

You know, the same quote about "pull" in the PBS documentary had to be repeated 3 or 4 times before it finally began to sink in with you and Pat. I've looked up lots of stuff and cited it for this article. What's your problem with doing that? SkeenaR 21:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Looks to me to be very on-topic. Nothing in there is trivial to the conspiracy theories - to the contrary it's material to the theories; it substantiates them. "we hypothesise this because of the following observables..."  perhaps the organization of those sections could use some work, but they contain information that, far from being trivial, is valuable to the article. Kevin Baastalk 21:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yah, but the problem is, "who's hypothesising?"

(Talking to Skeena) Apparently if I have a problem with this though it's "bad faith," and the onus is on me to support the unatributed claims. Ahh well.--DCAnderson 21:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you quit playing games and just nominate the article for deletion? I don't see any improvements. SkeenaR 21:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Because I don't think the article needs to be deleted. I believe the article should be on Wikipedia, I just think there are a lot of problems with it that need to be addressed.--DCAnderson 21:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

You are going to have to slow down. SkeenaR 21:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think DCAnderson is doing just fine. He asked first on this page, got no objection, was bold and made the edit, and on first revert of it, he left it reverted and started to discussion.  he was even so kind as to leave me a note on my talk page.  This is certainly MUCH better behavior than I've seen from too many users.  In fact, as I have seen so far, his conduct has been perfect. (according to my personal rules of engagement) Kevin Baastalk 21:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Not only did he get no objection, but he was told to "delete it" by the same editor who then said it was done in bad faith. In retrospect, the 'delete it' comment must have been sarcasm, but on the other hand the same editor suggested above that sarcasm be added to the definition of trolling.--Bill 21:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

We need more smart guys like you here. SkeenaR 22:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe it is a matter of relevancy. i believe that, in general, the inclusion/exclusion of material should be judged on four grounds: interesting,important,verifiable,relevant.  The material being discussed meets all four criteria. SkeenaR, if I has some tea, I'd make you some. Kevin Baastalk 21:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. SkeenaR 21:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * One editor disputing the verifiability of something and asking another to provide verifiability in the form of a citation is the process that improves the Wikipedia. The burden to provide verifiability is always on the person who wants to add to the Wikipedia.


 * If it does take "about two seconds", it is clear whose two seconds it is to spend -- it is the person who adds, not the person who is skeptical of its accuracy.


 * There's a point where demands for verifiability can be very numerous and trivialize the editing process, but this article is nowhere near that point.


 * My take on what belongs in this article is different from User:DCAnderson. It is the appropriate place for conspiracy theories to appear as conspiracy theories.  By that I mean that the "conspiracy" aspect of the theory doesn't have to be verified, it simply is a conspiracy theory.  In other articles I ask "how does the theory explain a lie coordinated and maintained for years by hundreds or thousands of people?"  The conspiracy question doesn't need to be answered here, only conspiracy presented and correctly attributed. patsw 21:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

It wouldn't be so bad if there were more people to look stuff up and a few less to ask for citations. It seems like the ones who ask are here solely for that purpose. And what is the policy for the amount of time allowed to find them? SkeenaR 22:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

And for the record, we never have actually proven that "pull" is an industry term for what was being discussed. We had some examples of it, that indicated that it might be used that way, but we never proved it. That's why it says:
 * "On prisonplanet.com, Paul Watson has written [61] the term "pull is industry jargon for planned demolition" and that Silverstein made a reference to his order to destroy 7 World Trade Center by controlled demolition in the above interview."--DCAnderson 22:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

It wouldn't be so bad if there were more people to look stuff up and a few less to ask for citations. It seems like the ones who ask are here solely for that purpose. And what is the policy for the amount of time allowed to find them? SkeenaR 22:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no policy on the amount of time allowed to find them that I know of. The only reason I would see not to wait is if you search for a citation and find that the theory is non-existent or comes from a completely unimportant source (e.g. one blog by someone with no recognition in the field).--Bill 22:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

''It seems like the ones who ask are here solely for that purpose' So what? "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." That's the skeptics motto.

And what is the policy for the amount of time allowed to find them? I don't think there is one. However, I'm not in a big rush to delete, so you can relax.--DCAnderson 22:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

And the door is never closed, if someone has written Demolition for Dummies and in it is written "pull is industry jargon for planned demolition", then let it be so cited. patsw 22:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't have "demolition for dummies", I know of no online books about demolition, but we heard them say it while performing it, it is in this dictionary here under "pull" and "pull down"


 * To demolish; destroy: pull down an old office building.
 * To reduce to a lower level.
 * To depress, as in spirits or health.
 * Informal. To draw (money) as wages: pulls down a hefty salary.


 * and it is in this dictionary here


 * 14: PULL


 * 1) Exertion of force in order to bring an object nearer. Opposite of Push
 * 2) Possessing the ability to have things accomplished by others in your favor
 * 3) To remove merchandise from the selling floor
 * 4) Controlled demolition


 * From the PBS documentary: "(unidentified construction worker): "Hello? Oh, we're getting ready to pull building six." Luis Mendes, NYC Dept of Design and Construction: "We had to be very careful how we demolished building six. We were worried about the building six coming down and then damaging the slurry walls, so we wanted that particular building to fall within a certain area."


 * But I'm sure that someone will still going to be a problem with it. Sorry about some of my earlier comments. I've probably spent enough time on this stupid word to write a whole other article. SkeenaR 00:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Striver started a page called Pull it on 24 March. He thought better of it, I guess, and twelve hours later he asked that it be deleted. Tom Harrison Talk 00:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

That's funny. But what do you mean he thought better of it? Why did he ask that it be deleted, was he having a hard time finding good material for it or something? SkeenaR 00:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * He had the same references everyone else is citing. It's hard to tell by picking through the deleted versions, but MONGO put it up for AfD as a dictionary definition, and it looks like Striver agreed and asked as the author to have it deleted. Just to put in my two cents, I think 'pull it' is pretty much generic guy-speak for dozens of different things. It wouldn't suprise me to learn that demolition crews used it, though I've never heard it myself. Neither would it surprise me to learn that firemen, mechanics, or plumbers used it. If conspiracy theorists think Silverstein's saying it proves he blew up the building, then that's what they think. If we had a video of Osama hollering "Fire in the hole," and cranking the handle himself, conspiracy theorists would think the video was faked by the CIA, and then we would report that as what they think. Tom Harrison Talk 01:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you serious in suggesting Urban Dictionary as a source for the jargon of the demolition industry?  The PBS documentary is the same work which has the Silverstein statement.  It's a self-reference, not evidence of prior usage.


 * If the word were standard industry jargon, and I assume good faith on your part to find usage prior to 9/11, then why has it been so far impossible to find? patsw 00:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a dictionary isn't it? like I said I don't have any demolition books. When the guy in the video says "pull" he is talking about demolishing a building and thats that. It's not Silverstein talking to himself or whatever you are suggesting. I'm not going to spend anymore time on this. Do whatever you want. SkeenaR 00:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

So anyway...
What can we do to improve those sections?--DCAnderson 22:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it needs reorganization. from a bullets to a chronoligical narrative, and we should look for attributable counter-arguments for balance. Kevin Baastalk 22:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The section about martial law doesn't do a good job of explaining what the conspiracy theory is. Do they think that martial law was declared in Florida?  Why did no one in Florida notice?  And what did the conspirators get out of declaring martial law?  Right now it doesn't read like a conspiracy theory.  It should be better explained


 * I like the "intelligence issues" section although some of the bullet points demonstrate the "negligence/incompetency" view of the government's actions, which is the offical account and not a conspiracy theory. The points in the section should only be included if they involve the goverment intentionally allowing the attack to happen.--Bill 22:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yah, I think that's part of the problem with this article, is a tendency to shift away from LIHOP and MIHOP, which are the actual "conspiracy theories."
 * Also, a little bit of expert opinion: as a Floridian living under "martial law," I havn't noticed much of a difference from "normal law." I don't know how much that adds, buts that my observation.--DCAnderson 23:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That you are not under "martial law" is fortunate for you but if I understand what you are trying to do here the only thing that should matter is that people cited this order. Again we have the issue of the websites laying this out with the purpose of making the user believe the Jeb Bush had foreknowlage without explicitly claiming this.             03:02, 9 May 2006 (Ed Kollin)
 * Well that is one of the things that makes this article dificult to edit, is the way that Conspiracy Theorists spend a lot of time insinuating things, but not always coming out and making a claim. (See the section titled "Conspiracism" above.)--DCAnderson 16:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Not sure where to put this in discussion. How much does Wikipedia care about links to external sites? http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/conspiracy.htm doesn't seem like a good external link. There's no contact info for the author, and the site asserts things like ''Real conspiracies have very little players and even then they are usually exposed. Enron, Watergate, Iran/Contra and the rest have few people involved and someone always comes out to blow the whistle.'' "someone always comes out to blow the whistle" seems impossible to verify.

Motive of destroying incriminating evidence in WTC
There is a citation request for the fact that conspiracy theorists believe a possible motive for the destruction of the WTC is the removal of incriminating materials. I tried to find a citation for this but could not. None of the major 9/11 conspiracy sites that I looked at seem to believe this is a motive. However, I am stupid and lazy and can not perform a 2-sec. google search, so I was wondering if someone else knew where to look for this belief. All I found was an explanation from an editor on this talk page saying that he was adding that motive to the list because he had been inspired by a Village Voice article. He cited the article both on the talk page and the main page but the article does not describe this motive. I am guessing that he saw that the WTC housed the CIA and Secret Service in the Village Voice article and then, through the powers of Original Research, attributed a motive to the government. I suppose it managed to stay in the article for 5 months because of all the anger about needing to cite sources. Anyway, that sentence needs to go unless its a real conspiracy theory. Please let me know what the correct citation is and then call me stupid and lazy.--Bill 00:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * So, couldn't the webmaster at any of the well-known sites (prisonplanet, oilempire, etc.) sit down right now and write a page that says, "a possible motive for the destruction of the WTC was the removal of incriminating materials?" Tom Harrison Talk 00:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't be too hard on yourself Bill. www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2006/210406runattack.htm] There are many articles about that actually. Search prisonplanet if you like. I think Von Buelow makes that claim in the interview and I know that Alex jones says that they blew up 7 to cover up the evidence in his video Martial Law. SkeenaR 00:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah man, you mean I actually have to listen to interviews and watch videos! Why couldn't they write it down on a website?  They're just trying to make me work.--Bill 00:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

No, there are a lot of print articles on it and I remember reading about that alleged demolition being a cover-up on PP more than once. If you've got the time, why don't you watch 9/11 Martial Law for free on Google video, it's fun to watch. And you can throw things at your monitor while debunking him. SkeenaR 00:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Bill, if they wrote it down in a website, the information would be out there -- but then there would be less incentive to pull out a credit card to buy their DVD.


 * This is the sort of conspiracy that can be asserted without any evidence. All that's needed is to identify a secondary source and the suggestion of the nature of the incriminating materials, and then you've got a conspiracy theory reference.  I'd just be careful that the source is current if you write in the present tense. patsw 00:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

No, it's free actually. If you think this is not a current accusation then you really are out of touch with what these theorists are saying. SkeenaR 01:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Former Helmut Schmidt cabinet member, 25-year German Parliamentarian and global intelligence expert Andreas Von Bülow says that the 9/11 attack was run by the highest levels of the US intelligence apparatus using WTC Building 7 as a command bunker which was later demolished in order to destroy the crime scene. www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2006/210406runattack.htm] Why do I always have to repeat myself to Pat? SkeenaR 01:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Now I understand why I couldn't find the citation. The article here suggests that the purpose of 9/11 was to eliminate incriminating evidence in the WTC (similar to the opening scenes of the X-Files movie, if that helps). The citation you listed is the motive for demolishing WTC after the attack. So is there really a conspiracy theory for what is suggested in the Wikipedia article?--Bill 01:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I think I see what you mean. Maybe I misunderstood. It says the motive to "pull" : ) Building 7 was to cover up evidence. It does not say that was the motive for the whole operation. I have heard there is stuff in the towers "they" wanted gone but I don't think that is too commonly discussed, if at all anymore. Another thing I remember reading is that is that the Twin Towers were going to have to be dismantled at great expense, and that this was going to eliminate that cost. I'm pretty sure that the towers were supposed to come down at some point in the near future, but I don't really know about it.SkeenaR 01:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Because the editor who put it there said it was his original research and its not a conspiracy theory with any source other than the Wikipedia editor, I'm removing it. Ideas about covering up the evidence of the 9/11 attacks would belong in a different section anyway, and it obviously wasn't the editors intent.--04:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I am the editor that put that in. Many people have been subscribing motives to me so let me tell you what they were. My entry was consistent with how the article was being written at that time. In fact many entries to that “motives” section had no ciitations. I looked at the motives section as a summary section which meant it was summarizing information from the links at the bottom of the article. My purpose was to relay that alternative theorists were saying that one of the motives for a conspiracy was to destroy “embarrassing” or “incriminating” evidence of those particular companies or agencies in general. It was not meant to relay a specific conspiracy theory. I did not even know of The ex German Defense ministers theory at the time. As for my mentioning the Village Voice article in the discussion page the motives were in no particular order 1. To mention the changes and where they came from  2. To announce that a new source for the purpose of all to use as they saw fit. In looking at the main sites so far I have found nobody explicitly saying 9/11 was a conspiracy to destroy evidence. But most of the main sites do mention the companies that were located in that building thereby inviting readers to come to that conclusion. This style of persuasion is used often by these sites. In many 9/11 conspiracy threads posters do come to that conclusion. But threads are not considered legitimate sources to use for citations.

My motives are the small picture. The big picture is that this article is trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. As I mentioned earlier conspiracy or alternative theories are just that theories. An encyclopedia is based on fact. There are two general ways to go here. The first is the purely factual. The article would open with a summation of the “official theory” based on the 9/11 report. Mention that there are numerous alternative theories and motives for them. Then the footer would be similar to what we have now with links to main web pages etc. If we are strictly going on facts trying to say what the “leading theories” are is original research in a way. The other way and preferable in my opinion is to recognize that the Wikipedia guidelines are just that guidelines. And to come to an understanding that due to the nature of this topic this article has to be a little more messy then we would like and the adherence to standards has to be less then we like. The above is not at all saying that the article before the recent edits was close to being acceptable. 12:56, 8 May 2006 (Ed Kollin)


 * Ed Kollin, the existance of these theories ARE facts. No one can deny that these theories exist.

TruthSeeker1234 21:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The earth is round is a fact. Writing a Wikipidia article about that is straightforward .That the WTC was taken down by means of controlled demolition is a maybe. You can not at this time write a Wikipidia article saying this. That people believe the WTC was taken down by means of controlled demolition is factual and if my post implied anything else I am sorry about that. Writing a Wikipidia article about that is not as straightforward because while factual it is not of the same nature as saying the earth is flat. My first option which I misnamed as factual option would just tell the user this is the official theory there are many different alternatives views please check the links below. Many a Wikipidia article use this general idea. If you are listing theories in the article you are making judgments about what theories are less common, how they should be categorized and so on. This is a bit of Original Research. If you do this and I believe you should all I am saying you have to do it with an understanding this is not of the same nature as the earth is round type article. If you continue the way we are going using the strictest standards for this article I believe in one years time we will still be having the same type of arguments and edit wars as we do today. 02:49, 9 May 2006 (Ed Kollin)

Weasel Words in section on the Pentagon
The section on the Pentagon seems to do a good job of citing secondary sources.

The problem is, is that it seems to have a large number of claims and statements attributed to an unspecified group of nebulous "9/11 Researchers."--DCAnderson 16:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

How can web pages written in 2001 dispute the Commission's report issued in 2004?
How can web pages written in 2001 dispute the 9/11 Commission's report issued in August 2004?
 * Numerous researchers questioning the official account of 9/11 express doubts that the Commission was actually able to explain worldwide trading patterns around the 9/11 attacks
 * http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/stockputs.html This is undated, but since the last footnote is dated October, 2001, it can be dated to that approximate time
 * http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/12_06_01_death_profits_pt1.html This is dated December 6,2001

The above can be removed immediately as uncited since the references are not supporting the text.

And as far as I can tell there is no researcher that continues to dispute the findings that the UAL and AMR options were innocuous based on a claim other than a generic "the Commission lied about everything". patsw 04:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * "The commision lied about everything" is all the explanation that you need for a Conspiracy theory. The lack of falsifiability is what makes it keep going.--DCAnderson 16:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Except their proof can be resumed as: They have no links with Al Qaeda therefore are innocent. Circular reference does not make a good proof.