Talk:9/11 truth movement/Archive 3

YouTube video
I've brought the use of the YouTube video in the "Criticism" section to the attention of the Reliable Sources noticeboard. See Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Cs32en 17:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm just seeing that had asked for assistance regarding this issue previously, at Editor assistance/Requests  Cs32en  18:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Poor references in the lead
Five references have been added to the lead: If better references aren't provided, then these references and the associated text should be removed. Better references should not be opinion pieces, and they should directly address the intended topic (the 9/11 Truth movement). Such intense POV pushing, as exhibited by these edits, has no place being in an article lead. Wildbear (talk) 07:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Counterpunch: Opinion piece; does not mention the 9/11 Truth movement and thus constitutes original research.
 * CBS News: Opinion piece; does not directly mention the 9/11 Truth movement; it does mention the "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" group, which has been largely abandoned and disowned by the 9/11 Truth movement (as documented in this Wikipedia article).
 * NY Daily News: Opinion piece; does not mention the 9/11 Truth movement and thus constitutes original research.
 * Chicago Sun-Times: Whatever this is, it apparently can't be viewed without purchasing it; which makes a poor choice for a lead.
 * Toronto Star: Again, it apparently can't be viewed without purchasing it; which makes a poor choice for a lead.

"Conspiracy nuts": poorly sourced statement in the lead
We cannot state in the article that the term "conspiracy nuts" would be often used if we don't have a reliable source saying so. The last source given by Soxwon in his last edit seems to indicate that the author thinks it is used "too often" (in his view). Yet, this does not imply that the term would indeed be often used, and it also very much looks like the article is an opinion piece, thus not a valid source for opinion-related information. Looking at the large number of news sources that are included in the article, the large majority does not use this term.

We actually have sources that explicitly say that members of the truth movement are referred to as "Truthers" and are described as "conspiracy theorists". We don't have any comparable sources for the term "conspiracy nuts", and extrapolating the frequency of its use from a Google News search or some similar method is not an acceptable way of determining such information (unless we were dealing with determining what the preponderant term in reliable sources would be, but 5 out of thousands of possible hits does not put the term in that category).

To those editors who are always referring to the various policies when it comes to removing suspected or actual POV-based content: Are we going to apply equal standards to all such content, or is poor sourcing allowed as long as it somehow conforms to the "majority POV"? Cs32en  Talk to me  16:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Update: The Toronto Star source is a letter to the editor of the journal. I'm removing this reference, as it is clearly not acceptable as a source for the statement. Cs32en  Talk to me  16:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD:Reverse scientific method
Please have your say in the discussion Articles for deletion/Reverse scientific method! Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 12:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

9/11 Truth Movement page & Dr. Judy Wood
Seeing as Dr. Judy Wood is the only person to have filed her evidence with the courts in pursuit of truth and justice, and also considering that one of her court cases made it all the way to the Supreme Court, I think it is fairly obvious that the following information needs to be included in the 9/11 Truth Movement Wikipedia Page:

1. I think that Dr. Judy Wood's Journal of 9/11 Research & 9/11 Issues needs to be included in the external links section alongside the other Journals of 9/11 Research.

2. I also think that her name needs to be included in the Adherents of the 9/11 Truth Movement, especially considering she is the only person to actually take legal action, in addition to scientific research, in pursuit of 9/11 truth.

3. I also think that her legal efforts, especially the Supreme Court case, needs to be included in the History of the 9/11 Truth Movement, as it was the only court-case ever filed in pursuit of 9/11 Truth, and it made it all the way to the Supreme Court.

''In 2007, Dr. Judy Wood filed several legal cases against the National Institute of Standards & Technology's (NIST) contractors for science fraud, and legal requests that NIST’s fraudulent data gets reexamined. The filings in these legal cases included Requests For Corrections (RFC) based on the Data Quality Act, and Qui Tam whistle-blower cases. Dr. Wood is the only 9/11 researcher who has submitted evidence to the courts in pursuit of the truth.''

These are obviously supposed to be on this Wikipedia page, so I truly question the motives of those who are deleting this information. Her effort speaks for itself, and this information needs to be included in the 9/11 Truth Movement Wikipedia page for the sake of honesty and accuracy.

Please help.

Thank you,

-Abe

&#39;&#39;&#39;Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC).

"Q Group"?
Redirects here, but is not mentioned in the article. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 15:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Searching briefly, it appears that the sole source for the "Q Group" allegation may be Wayne Madsen.(ref) I didn't find any information linking Q Group directly to the 9/11 Truth movement.  As such, I would propose that it either link to the Wayne Madsen article, or have an article of its own.  I see that there has previously been an AfD discussion concerning Q Group, and that the result was to redirect to 9/11 Truth.(ref)  I don't understand the reasoning for that decision, but I won't try to override it. Wildbear (talk) 20:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd agree that Q Group should redirect to Wayne Madsen. A WP:RfD request would probably be the correct way to implement the change. Cs32en   Talk to me  21:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Immutable construction
I simplified the sentence "Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth is an organization of architectural and engineering professionals[75] who advocate September 11 conspiracy theories and are calling for a new investigation into the cause of the destruction of the Twin Towers and 7 WTC"

into

"Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth is an organization of architectural and engineering professionals[75] who are calling for a new investigation into the cause of the destruction of the Twin Towers and 7 WTC"

My edits, for which I have provided reasons, have been reverted without specifying a reason, except by saying that they are "against consensus". Is there really a consensus that "who advocate September 11 conspiracy theories and" must forever be included in that sentence, and if so, for what purpose? 88.192.44.135 (talk) 22:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Because it's false. They (at least the leadership, not necessarily that particular petition) claim that controlled demolition was responsible for the destruction of the towers, which is (according to consensus) a conspiracy theory.  If that claim were inaccurate, then your proposed revision might be appropriate.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If that is so, isn't the phrase quite superfluous and unnecessary, then? The sections dealing with all the other 9/11 groups in the article do not specifically underline that they advocate September 11 conspiracy theories. Why the special, pinpointing treatment for the architects and engineers? 88.192.44.135 (talk) 23:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * "They (at least the leadership, not necessarily that particular petition) claim that controlled demolition was responsible for the destruction of the towers, which is (according to consensus) a conspiracy theory."


 * Your own formulation already implies that not all of the 1,200+ architects and engineers may feel certain that the three skyscrapers were demolished on 9/11. It is possible that many of the signatories are demanding a new investigation for reasons like (to quote NIST) "no steel was recovered from WTC 7", ie inadequacies in the official investigations. Therefore, it is not acceptable to claim that they all "advocate September 11 conspiracy theories". The only thing we know for certain, about all of them, is that all the signatories are demanding a new investigation. 88.192.44.135 (talk) 23:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's possible that not all the 1200+ "architects and engineers" know they are members; in fact, it's likely. Still, we can only go with what the organization says, and it says "controlled demolition".  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 02:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The wording on the petition provides, from a formal standpoint, the best representation of what the organization and its members stand for. The closest that the wording on the petition comes to "controlled demolition" is as follows:  "The new investigation must include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that might have been the actual cause of the destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Building 7."  Note that they are saying "possible use" and "might have been", recognizing that nothing is certain until a proper investigation has been conducted.  A dismissive and degrading attitude toward the possibility that explosives might have been involved in the destruction of the WTC buildings seems inappropriate for Wikipedia, since many reliable sources have provided strong evidence that explosives and/or incendiaries might have been involved in the destruction.  Examples of reliable sourcing follow.  The New York Times reported on the numerous accounts from first responders on sounds of explosions and flashes of light.  NASA provided aerial data on very high temperature hot spots at the WTC site.  Reliable sources documented fires which took months to put out, even with huge amounts of water and fire suppressant applied.  Reliable sources provided numerous accounts of "molten metal" and "molten steel" observed at the site.  Reliable sources described the pulverization of nearly all but heavy steel into fine dust.  USGS and RJ Lee documented iron-rich spheres in the dust.  FEMA documented "severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting" in a sample of WTC 7 steel.  NIST acknowledged a 2.25 second period of free-fall acceleration observed in building 7.  All of this reliably sourced evidence indicates the possible involvement of explosives or incendiaries.  Nothing certain; but it validates requests for further investigation.  In contrast, what do we have in support of the official story?  NIST, by their own admission, did not model the collapse of the twin towers.  They modeled up until the point at which the buildings were "poised for collapse".  NIST, or their subcontractors, attempted to model the collapse of building 7.  The results of their model showed a collapse which looked very unlike the actual collapse of the building; it showed much folding, bending, and structural resistance where little or none existed in the actual collapse.  Then there's the crush-down, crush-up hypothesis put forward by Bazant, et. al., in which the block above the impact zone supposedly crushed the entire building, before crushing itself.  This comes into immediate conflict with videos of the north tower which show the "upper block" disappearing almost entirely before any change is observed in the lower portion of the building.  Bazant's hypothesis would seem to be strongly contradicted by the video evidence.
 * With so much reliably sourced evidence suggesting the possibility of explosives or incendiaries being involved, and the reliably-sourced arguments for the official story appearing weak, Wikipedia, in accordance with its own policies on reliable sourcing, should not take a dismissive or derogatory position toward requests and petitions that the matter of the WTC destruction be further investigated, as such requests appear to be on well-founded, reliably-sourced footing. The use of the phrase "conspiracy theory" in association with these requests is dismissive, derogatory, and inappropriate for the encyclopedia.  I support the change proposed by 88.192.44.135.  Wildbear (talk) 08:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * All well said. Anyone should understand, eg, that destroying the research material before investigations begin is not the way to investigate unprecedented total skyscraper disasters, and as Firefighters for 9/11 Truth, among others, point out, was against investigation regulations and illegal. But the point most pertinent is this:


 * The wording on the petition provides, from a formal standpoint, the best representation of what the organization and its members stand for. The closest that the wording on the petition comes to "controlled demolition" is as follows:  "The new investigation must include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that might have been the actual cause of the destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Building 7."  Note that they are saying "possible use" and "might have been", recognizing that nothing is certain until a proper investigation has been conducted.


 * First, it is clearly unacceptable to summarily state that all the petitioners "advocate 9/11 conspiracy theories". Second, it is redundant. Third, bullying about such a formulation with the argument that changing it is against the consensus is just plain wrong. There clearly is no such "consensus". 192.100.124.219 (talk) 16:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If you had bothered looking through the archives, you would know this had been discussed exhaustively. Consensus is to state the facts, that the vast majority of 9/11 truth movement figures advocate some sort of conspiracy theory. Soxwon (talk) 18:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It is also a fact that many of the 1,200+ signatories may not advocate a particular conspiracy theory. True, even they are *likely* to at least consider controlled demolition a plausible hypothesis, but that is not the same thing as "advocating a conspiracy theory". And there may be some who believe the official story but find the official investigations wanting and are therefore demanding a new investigation that actually investigates the towers' collapses and does not stop at the point of "collapse initiation", as NIST did. Wildbear's analysis stands. And again, why the special treatment for the Archtitects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth regarding this issue? 192.100.124.219 (talk) 15:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm with Arthur Rubin on this one. Soxwon (talk) 08:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * AE9/11 talks about controlled demolition, so let's just say they promote controlled demolition. They don't talk about conspiracy of 19 terrorist, nor do they speculate about conspiracy of Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld et.al. So let's not put that conspiracy theory link there since they do not talk about that. Especially as they insist on not speculating about the conspiracies, and only talking about their area of expertise. Juhobui (talk) 10:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Why thank you single purpose account who is almost certainly a meat/sock puppet. Your opinion will be considered and almost certainly discarded. Soxwon (talk) 11:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Soxwon, Wikipedia does not need your personal attacks, please leave this forum if you are not familiar with the code of conduct. If there are no better arguments, then we should remove that conspiracy theory link.Juhobui (talk) 19:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for reminding me of something that I have no doubt ignored during my 3 years and 5,000+ edits. The arguments you have made have already been answered in previous discussions. All explanations offered for explosives being used result in conspiracy theories, hence the label. As for Wildbear's comments, said theories are in a relatively vocal minority and thus are to be relegated to their proper place. Soxwon (talk) 19:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Unexplained image in article
There is currently an image of an "iron-rich sphere" in the article, with absolutely no context given. I'm removing it. If someone wants to add it back in, feel free, but please put in a sentence or two that explains what the heck it is. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I have expanded the description, to show how the "iron-rich spheres" are of significant relevance to the 9/11 Truth movement. Wildbear (talk) 06:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Unnecessary Citations?
While I don't know Wikipedia's standards on in-line citations all that well, I do however feel that they are being used far too much. I can't see the justification for citing 15 different sources merely TWO SENTENCES into the article. There are also few more spots in the article where a statement has 4 or more citations.

On a bit of a different note, I also question these sources, because the first 2 are blogs, while the last is simply a post on a forum.

97) hsgsj (February 27, 2007). "Dr. James Fetzer and his "Lying Eyes"". 911blogger.com.

98) Arabesque (February 28, 2007). "9/11 Truth and Disinformation: Definitions and Examples". 911blogger.com.

99) Dem Bruce Lee Stylez! (March 15, 2008). "ALERT: FETZER SPEAKING AT RON PAUL MARCH!! Von Kleist to MC". TruthAction.org. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mzxrules (talk • contribs) 18:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * In regards to the excessive number of citations, I am guilty in part of contributing to that. I learned early on that adding anything to Wikipedia which challenges the official dogma of 9/11 has to be very well sourced, otherwise it is likely to be thrown out as "non-notable".  Using lots of citations from reliable sources, all saying essentially the same thing (to avoid synthesis) is a blunt way of emphasizing notability.  Such overkill shouldn't be necessary; but 9/11 is a highly contentious topic which demands more careful and thorough attention to sourcing than most other topics. Wildbear (talk) 06:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree that using 15 references is an odd way to introduce readers to a topic presented on Wikipedia. This section of the talk page may explain some of the background of this phenomenon. Cs32en   Talk to me  17:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

NPOV / Protection
First, this page seems to be rather rich in Truther talking points. I had to pluck off a picture with a lengthy description amounting to "THIS IS WHY WE MUST BE RIGHT!" A lot of the 'facts' seem to try to be hinting at something, and there's a lot of "So and so who is a prominent truth blah said" (which is a common tactic of theirs). This page should be rewritten to make sure of an Neutral viewpoint, and protected to the highest degree to keep the emphatic truth zealots from throwing all of their counterscientific claims (apologies for the unNPOV)on this page like the desperate wannabe propagandists they are. Ftc08 (talk) 04:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Iron sphere caption
The text in the Iron Sphere caption should be moved to a section. Captions are not meant for paragraphs of text. - RoyBoy 01:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

So someone translated the article entirely into past tense
Quite hilarious, possibly somewhat insulting, and completely inappropriate.

I've notified the moderators. Please alert them again if this is not fixed in due time. --92.100.74.45 (talk) 13:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Aaaand someone reverts the article within a minute of me posting this. Well-played, Wikipedia, well-played. --92.100.74.45 (talk) 14:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Energetic material found claim
The wiki article states the Bentham Open Paper concludes that Nano thermitic material "should be" found in the dust.....it actually concludes that it in fact was found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.170.149.105 (talk) 15:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Websites
A couple of editors have persisently removed attempts to provide an actual list of well-established 9/11 truth websites under the reasoning "spam" or "no lists" or "these are random conspiracy sites" Such a listing makes this article a useful reference on which sites promote "911 truth", and which sites "dubunk" these theories as otherwise it is confusing which sites promote 911 truth or just "the truth". Are there any objections to listing the most important 9-11 truth websites, providing that they have been sourced to articles or organizations that consider them notable enough to have mentioned them? For example, the ADL has mentioned both Alex Jones and Rense as worth noting because of their content. Bachcell (talk) 22:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

A wide range of websites promote 9/11 truth theories, as well as alternative theories for other alleged terrorist incidents.

Some of the more noteworthy sites cited by the mainstream press or other organizations include:


 * emporer-clothes.com by Jared Israel
 * whatreallyhappened.com by Michael Rivero
 * standdown.net and 911timeline.net by Mark R. Elsis
 * www.infowarscom/ infowars.com] by Alex Jones
 * rense.com by Jeff Rense
 * thetruthseeker.co.uk
 * 9/11 Review
 * 9/11 Truth
 * Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth
 * Scholars for 9/11 Truth And Justice
 * Artists for 9/11 Truth
 * Muslims for 9/11 Truth

There are also sites which claim to debunk 9/11 truth theories (or myths)


 * 9-11 Loose Change Viewing Guide
 * 911myths.com
 * debunking911.com
 * jod911.com
 * Put some of them in External Links, but we don't need every single site that someone somewhere mentioned in some way or form. Soxwon (talk) 23:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * If the sites which you are attempting to add were representative of 9/11 Truth, I would run screaming in the other direction. 9/11 Truth is about call for proper investigation; it's about proper scientific and forensic analysis of the evidence; it's about concern for the views and needs of 9/11 family members and first responders, and it's about demand for accountability from government.  I examined these sites, and they do not appear to represent the core values of the 9/11 Truth movement very well at all.  They're more likely to appeal to people seeking entertaining conspiracy theories than people seeking truth, justice, and accountability.  If you feel that they are sufficiently notable within reliable sources to justify inclusion, then please provide references to demonstrate that this is the case.  And I agree with Soxwon — if you must add links, please do it in the External Links section. Wildbear (talk) 00:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The major point of inclusion is that the heart of the "truth" movement are the very people that would send rational people running the other way. That's why it is important to identify exactly which sites are the most visible ones with theories that Bush, Zionists and Israelis, not Arabs or Muslims are behind 9/11. The same authors appear on all these sites insisting that the towers were demolished, the hijackers are still alive, many directly quoting Bin Laden or his associates as saying that he was not involved. Many of these websites are hosted by the same person (Elsis for example runs a whole network of sites). The key to understanding the truth movement is to tie down specific claims to specific authors, and which websites host them. Otherwise you get statements that the "truth" movement isn't about remote controlled holographic planes that didn't bring down towers that were demolished by explosives that were put in when they were built into concrete pillars that aren't there, and weren't piloted by Islamic terrorists who are part of an Al Queda that does not exist, who are only patsies sent by a genocidal Israel to attack the US to make them invade Muslim nations, plus Cole Bombing, Fort Hood, underwear bomber and London bombings and the people on the Gaza flotilla who attacked the Israeli commandos are all false flag operations engineered by mi-6/Mossad and CIA when anytime you try to nail down a good example of a 9/11 truth outfit, that's what you get. These are the same people who say that Anwar al-Awlaki is not a terrorist, Islam has nothing to do with terrorism, and Bush/CIA/Israel/Zionists are the real terrorists.Bachcell (talk) 15:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Telling readers "which sites promote "911 truth", and which sites "dubunk" these theories" is a job for a web directory, not an encyclopedia. I guess I could see a justification for including a list of particularly notable websites, but for most of the sites on your list evidence of notability is exceedingly thin.Prezbo (talk) 03:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * We should only list websites that have been referred to by reliable sources. Otherwise, there would be a neverending list of websites, and a similarly endless sequence of disputes about the inclusion, exclusion, description, grouping, maintainance of changing URLs etc. Cs32en   Talk to me  19:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

i am less an editor here and more a simple frequent visitor. i just want to say that as a visitor and researcher, i was very disappointed that wikipedia fails to provide a comprehensive list of the many affiliates, approved or not, of the 911 truth movement: Magicians for 911 Truth, the Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth, Military Officers for 9/11 Truth, to name only three of many. instead, you list only three, and one of the three had been discredited and basically banished. please correct this error and provide a comprehensive list. this is an encyclopedia. that is what encyclopedias do. if your policies don't allow it, change the policies. if some committee can't arrive at a consensus on this question, throw the dissenters off the committee. i repeat: this in an encyclopedia. a comprehensive list is precisely what an encyclopedia should provide. thank you. -- Donovanbramwell (talk) 15:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)  donovan bramwell

Criticism
Since it first began the 9/11 Truth movement has been heavily criticized in the MSM. I think that the article should reflect this and the section should be expanded. Soxwon (talk) 17:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree that more is needed, however nearly all of the criticism there is not directed towards the 9/11 Truth movement itself, but 9/11 Conspiracy Theories in general, so I think more specific criticism should be found. KellanFabjance (talk) 14:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - This entire page is retarded and should be deleted to hide such a shameful thing in our country. Honestly, how do people even come to these conclusions?  9/11 was an inside job? Bush did it?  LOL get a life. --Silvrstridr (talk) 17:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Jesse Ventura: Showman, not Truther
Ever since I saw Jesse Ventura's "Conspiracy Theory" show, I have had doubts about his motives and methods in approaching the 9/11 topic. I have now been provided with some information which confirms my suspicions: Ventura was deceptive in his presentation, if not downright dishonest. He was provided with a demonstration of material alleged to be "super-thermite" on video.(ref) In his program, Ventura cuts off the conclusion to the demonstration and tries to steer his viewers to a very different conclusion.(ref)  Whatever his motivations, this presentation implies that Ventura is not truthful enough to constitute a representative personality for the 9/11 Truth movement. If this was the work of his editing crew and not Ventura himself, then he needs to make a public retraction. While Ventura has expressed questions about 9/11, no reference was provided in this article linking him to the 9/11 Truth movement. I have removed his name from the Adherents section. Wildbear (talk) 04:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this classic example of original research. Your objections have virtually no merit based on wikipedia policy. Soxwon (talk) 18:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The editor who added Ventura's name provided no sourced reason for the addition, and no reference.(ref) I provided my reason for removal (with references), and pointed out that the text in the article has no reference.  Granted, my statement is original research.  However, I feel that pointing out deceit is not a bad thing; especially when it is associated with an unsourced assertion.  Editors can decide the merit of the argument, and whether it should affect the content of the article.  There is nothing in Wikipedia policy which obligates it to carry any particular content.  Wildbear (talk) 20:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps he's a little of both. The man was a pro-wrestler. DanTD (talk) 15:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Link/ Citation 77
is pretty weak. Trying to say that Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth is made up of actual architects and engineers just points to a Slate article talking about an actor. Their own site is the only thing that shows names & licences. I don't see how this is a reliable source 67.171.132.76 (talk) 10:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * A valid observation. I have replaced the reference with a recent reliable source reference which refers to the group as "Nearly 1,500 architectural and engineering professionals".  Wildbear (talk) 05:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

If a source uses all caps - is it proper to fix it?
If a source uses all caps - is it proper to fix it?I added a speech from John Buchanan from his own campaign web site. Practice has been that a person's own words on a campaign web site are citable as fact for what he said, and not for anything else. The problem is that his web site uses all caps. Should the quote be "fixed"? Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:44, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

this should be merged with 9/11 conspiracy theories.
The entire page is badly infested with weasel words, POV, and in general unreliable, as below:

"Some of the organizations state that there is evidence that individuals within the United States government may have been either responsible for or knowingly complicit in the September 11 attacks."

Considering that 9/11 Conspiracy theories covers the same grounds and without these problems, redirecting makes more sense than rewriting the entire page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.75.23.11 (talk) 10:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC) &#8203; ▲ SomeHuman 2011-09-09 08:37 (UTC)
 * "9/11 conspiracy theories" is to a large extend a term for ridiculous fantasies by half-witted lunatics. The 9/11 Truth movement often distanciates itself from such and NPOV does not allow the association by mixing the two. There is a difference between coming up with a so-called "theory" (often merely a hypothesis), and demands to find (more) truth by serious investigation. Partial overlap will be unavoidable but it should by the respective articles be avoided as much as possible, instead of being thrown on a same heap. And even the article on the first should be more carefully distincting the wildest suggestions with little backup by scientists from what became supported by research by renown experts published in papers that do not allow being off-handedly dismissed.
 * The IP-user who had forgotten to sign, abusively quotes 'weaselry': The quoted sentence is followed by an entire article that clearly names a number of the "some" with the required references.

Adherents section needs rewriting.
Take a look at this clumsy snippet:
 * A 2010 study of Facebook users affiliated with a 9/11 Truth group known as "We Are Change" found that most members of this group are males in their late 20s. Most members of this group are involved in right-wing politics, particularly with libertarianism and Ron Paul.[26]

Phrasing implies that Ron Paul is a truther, which is not true. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Rejection_of_9.2F11_conspiracy_theory for details). If the goal were to state that members of the truther movement themselves involved with Ron Paul, then this needs to be completely reworded to be clear. Because as it stands it implies that Ron Paul is a truther, which he has strongly denied many times.

If there are no complaints to this (I cannot see why), then I'll make the changes accordingly within the next week or so.Tgm1024 (talk) 01:00, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

&#8203; ▲ SomeHuman 2011-09-09 09:49-11:01 (UTC)
 * Moreover, since when are "Facebook users" noteworthy? (Oops, I'm going to have a lot of enemies soon.) Unless that '2010 study' is referred to by a proper source (referenced directly), that entire sentence would need to be eliminated. But in fact, I assume the referenced article in Skeptic Magazine may have published that study. In that case, in this sentence, the claim must not be attributed to the derogatively vague "Facebook users" but to the magazine's article.
 * Or, in case the study of the Fb users was not done by (which sub group of) the Fb users themselves, the '2010 study' definitely needs to be attributed to its author(s). I can't verify the Skeptic Magazine article, but It appears to me that a study of Facebook users "affiliated" with "We Are Change" is worthless unless it can be proven that these Facebook users are representative for the entire 9/11 Truth group. Without clear proof, the study and certainly its mentioning on WP are a highly POV association in order to (dis)credit the movement.


 * My guess is that most facebook members that reveal their age are like to be in their late 20s (or an adjacent age group), regardless of whether they are friends of a 9/11 Truth group or not. Cs32en   Talk to me  00:35, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Red/Grey Chips
I added a picture and caption of the red grey chips that Harrit et al. characterized as "thermitic" as well as appropriate sources. Earlier, Arthur Rubin deleted this edit because of lack of sourcing, but I have now added sources, so hopefully the edits are now in line with wikipedia standards. Let me know if they are not; I am a fairly new user. Mr.Johnson1982 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC).
 * All sources tagged. Harrit has been called incredible (I mean, not reliable) in previous discussions.  I can't read Danish, so I don't know if any of the remaining URLs for that sources are reliable and relate to the picture, and the live link for the second sentence may relate to the spheres, but not the chips.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 08:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

&#8203; ▲ SomeHuman 2011-09-20 02:01 (UTC)
 * The image may disappear because of licensing issues, (a part of) the caption text and its sources might remain relevant. So, I checked this talk page and Harrit's credibility/reliability has not been questioned; in an archive only you, Arthur, had a very small minority view in the only discussion at which Harrit's name was mentioned. And then still, your sentence here above is my first encounter anywhere with respect to Harrit's credibility.
 * I assume WP to put the burden of translating (from a reasonably known language) onto who wishes to question a properly referenced source, and not to allow tagging simply because one is not willing to go through the effort of asking for a translation (perhaps of the essential sections only): WP editors may be willing to provide that service and can be found by looking into the Categories.
 * Please point me towards a consensus by a significant number of editors, a guideline, or a policy, relating to my possibly erroneous assumption(s).

Jones had not published his research in peer-reviewed mainstream journals
The statement does need a source; enumerating the peer-reviewed mainstream journals and noting that Jones hasn't published in them would be WP:OR. However, the anon is absolutely wrong that the statement is disproved. "Bentham Open" journals, regardless of whether they are peer-reviewed (which, I believe, the Wikipedia consensus is, not), they are not mainstream. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Where do you find "Wikipedia consensus" for 'not peer-reviewed'? And even if there were such consensus about that qualification, that WP editors' point of view would certainly not be a widely and generally accepted viewpoint and therefore still a POV that is not allowed for the text of an article. And where do you see a generally accepted view of the open journal as 'not mainstream' in any other way than what your edit summary undisputably wrongly calls "personal attacks"? Apart from my failing to see where the plural came from, a personal attack is supposed to be personal. Against who then? Fox News? As I read its well referenced WP article, its reputation as friendly to a conservative government is confirmed by many mainstream sources, while its bias appears mainly denied by... Fox News. Referring to a wellknown reputation is not an 'attack', it can be no worse than expressing a POV and it was not presented as part of the article text but as giving an (of course, POV) reason for asking the needed reference.


 * A qualification as "mainstream" does appear to be subjective. It is not highly unusual to call anything that contests one's own POV 'non-mainstream', in particular when it does not confirm the point of view of the (assumed) majority or of the government. In a democracy however, 'mainstream' does not mean 'conservative', or 'official', and includes much more than a simple 'majority': it refers to the broad and diverse group that is not radical or extreme. For scientifical journals etc, I would assume (and hope) that 'mainstream' refers to an objectively gained reputation amongst scientists, regardless of politics, and then such journal still remains mainstream when it publishes a non-mainstream article. As far as I know, amongst scientists there is no largely accepted consensus about the open journal being non-mainstream. Which makes the denial of such qualification, in a WP article text, inadmissable WP:POV.

&#8203; ▲ SomeHuman 2011-09-09 18:42 (UTC)
 * Your edit is not acceptable: not only did it commit a personal attack against the IP editor (indeed a fully recognized person as WP regards WP:ATTACK, and an unexplained accusation of WP:ATTACK is by itself considered a such attack), it also created an unintelligable "reason" while eliminating the originally given reason. Your disagreement with the latter is duly noted, my agreement with that reason can be noted as well.
 * Nonsense. The unnamed IP editor was making a personal attack against those who correctly note that Jones has not published in a peer-reviewed mainstream journal, by claiming that they will not accept a source not vetted by Fox.  The claim that the (consensus) editors have not accepted a source not vetted by Fox is a verifiable attack (although easily falsified), but the claim that they would not accept something not vetted by Fox is simply an attack.
 * Your modification to " article uses 'mainstream journal' as synonym for 'at all times fully corroborating what FOX and such mainstream media like'" is pretty much what Wikipedia calls a "mainstream journal", ignoring the reference to Fox, so I would have no objection to agreeing that's my policy, as well, so there's no attack, even if an attack was were intended.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * To be precise, a mainstream journal is what mainstream news sources (including Fox) call a mainstream journal. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 23:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as I see, there is no source given for the claim that Jones would not have published in peer reviewed journals. I also don't know of any reliable source for that claim. Editors that are claiming that the review process would have been poor are - by referring to the review process - actually confirming that the journal is peer reviewed. I also haven't seen any reliable sources stating that Bentham's Open journals are not mainstream. The journal now apparently has a new chief editor, and we cannot accept the reasons given by the former chief editor as a truthful description of what actually happened, but would have to refer to them as statements of that particular person. I would support the removal of the sentence if no appropriate source could be found in the coming days. Cs32en   Talk to me  00:44, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen any reliable sources which state that Bentham's Open journals are mainstream, or peer-reviewed. (We've seen that Betham's pages say they are peer-reviewed, but that's a self-serving statement.)  However, the sentence has to go, unless a reliable source can be found.  And it's difficult to find reliable sources about the Truth movement.  However, WP:UNDUE and possibly WP:FRINGE imply we shouldn't report on Jones's publication in fringe journals of any sort, unless that publication is mentioned in reliable sources.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 04:44, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * So, does everything on WP need to be in Fox News after all? Its referenced article covers just about all that is said about Jones. If at any stage Fox might chose not to report on some of Jones' publications, would his notability suddenly drop so as not to allow reporting on those on WP?


 * About that 'citation needed' in which I can't see any personal attack: Not agreeing with a sentence by whichever editor(s) is never an 'attack', and the given 'reason' names peer reviewed journals, calling these "scientifically 'mainstream' enough unless this WP article uses 'mainstream journal' as synonym for 'at all times fully corroborating what FOX and such mainstream media like'." — That means: The journals are 'mainstream'; these would not be mainstream only in case one would accept a definition of 'mainstream' that is considered unacceptable. That expresses an interpretation and an opinion, wich is not an attack against adherers of another opinion.

&#8203; ▲ SomeHuman 2011-09-10 05:30-06:11 (UTC)
 * I don't know 'what Wikipedia calls a "mainstream journal"', but an ascertion of 'mainstream' coming solely from 'mainstream news' might only, and still arguably, refer to a newspaper, not to the kind of journal that mainly publishes scientists' papers. I don't consider news media as highly valued measuring sticks for the latter kind. Anything given attention by mainstream news media is thereby proven to have a certain notability and relative weight, but not having been given attention by those media does not disprove these aspects.

&#8203; ▲ SomeHuman 2011-09-10 10:33 (UTC)
 * The "self-serving statement" was widely seen (including in the intro of Jones' 1hr27' long presentation in Sacramento on YouTube) and noted. In particular about as controversial a paper, if this statement of having been peer reviewed were incorrect, it is unthinkable that it would not have been disputed; your not finding anything rather proves mainstream as well as other observers to have accepted the peer review aspect.
 * It has been disputed. Just not in reliable sources.  Yet.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 13:52, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It should also be noted that we do have a WP:CONSENSUS that that Bentham open journal is not a reliable source, whether or not "peer-reviewed". I made a serious mistake in saying that there is consensus that it is not peer-reviewed, but there is certainly no consensus that it is peer-reviewed.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 14:05, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

&#8203; ▲ SomeHuman 2011-09-10 17:58 (UTC) &#8203; ▲ SomeHuman 2011-09-12 19:44 (UTC) &#8203; ▲ SomeHuman 2011-09-15 00:53-01:36 (UTC) &#8203; ▲ SomeHuman 2011-10-02 09:02 (UTC)
 * I'm curious to see to whom that "we" refers. For the second time: where did you find WP consensus against mainstream and reliable? On this talk page, 2 independent editors see that a published article is peer reviewed, and no-one could demonstrate that it would not have been.
 * We have to start somewhere. The only source that the Bentham Open journals are peer-reviewed are their own statements.  No person admits to being a peer-reviewer for them, and a number of scientists have stated they were invited to be peer-reviewers outside their subject of expertise.  That's not enough to say that it isn't peer-reviewed, but it's not enough to say that it is.
 * And consensus against "reliable" is in the archives of WP:RSN. It could be revisited if more data is found, but it would need to be revisited there.
 * As for "mainstream" &mdash; they claim not to be "mainstream", so why should we argue with them. Some _mainstream_ evidence that they were mainstream would need to be provided.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 20:03, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You have no source at all for not peer reviewed. You have scientists that were contacted to peer review. As User:Cs32en had pointed out: a potentially sub standard reviewing method or practice still confirms that it is peer reviewed. There is also very serious criticism about the more conventional anonymous peer reviewing method.
 * I'm not the one who claims there is consensus. If you maintain that claim, do link to the relevant archive page and section, please. Are you sure that 1. "they" is representative for the precise journal in which Jones' work was published; 2. that the claim not to be mainstream referred to that journal. What do you see as "mainstream evidence"? Surely, there is no need for some "mainstream source" declaring that another source is "mainstream". Reliable sources do not need to be mainstream for WP. The disputed sentence puts undue weight on the "mainstream" only to permit making a highly disputable statement by erroneously insinuating that no peer reviewed article was published: It is entirely irrelevant whether the journal was 'mainstream' because the article has been spotted and its content has become widely known nd open for discussion amongst scientists.
 * In order for the statement "Jones has not been published in peer-reviewed mainstream journals" to be falsified, we would need an example of a peer-reviewed, mainstream in which he was published. Assuming that Bentham Open was peer-reviewed (and, to be more precise, that Jones' paper was reviewed), you will still need to demonstrate that it's mainstream.  As it clearly says it isn't that would be difficult.
 * As for reliable sources, Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 37 is the last reference; I see a strong consensus that the particular paper should not be considered reliable or peer-reviewed, and a majority of the editors stating opinions &mdash; in fact, all editors except a few sock puppets, said that the journal should not be considered peer-reviewed for the purpose of determining if papers are reliable sources. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 22:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see a such clear consensus there, especially not for as specific an aspect as you have explicitly formulated. Thanks for the link, though. I'm not asking for the WP article to claim that Jones' article was peer reviewed, but simply that it must not claim that had not been peer reviewed. Stating that it was not published in a mainstream peer reviewed journal is untolerably misleading because that suggests much more than what is supported by sources. A journal being "mainstream" or not, is not the essential aspect to determine the quality or reliability of an article; thus, putting it in the article constitutes WP:UNDUE WEIGHT. It is also ridiculous because the article is about a non-mainstream movement and that is clearly shown in the article. Then putting all that weight on the journal's assumed non-mainstream characterization, creates a logical fallacy: what is already accepted as the present perception of the hypothesis, is used to prove that this perception should be maintained.
 * I agree with SomeHuman that there is no consensus. The burden of proof is on those who claim that Bentham Open was not peer-reviewed.  To accuse an entire publishing venue, composed of more than 230 journals, which calls itself peer reviewed, of not being peer reviewed is a very serious accusation which requires more than a few isolated incidents.  It is not fair to judge such a large organization by a few isolated incidents and to call it not peer reviewed would require proof of of a system-wide lack of peer-review not merely one or two incidents. Mr.Johnson1982 (talk)
 * Deleting that sentence "As of September 2009, Jones had not published his research in peer-reviewed mainstream journals." (which occurred behind "This paper garnered some mainstream media attention, including an appearance by Jones on MSNBC. This was the first such programming on a major cable news station."): Tagged citation needed since 2011-09-09. On that same day, the statement's only defender here above, User:Arthur Rubin, had agreed with the need of a reference, and such has not become delivered. Further, per User:Cs32en, User:Mr.Johnson1982 and myself.

I thought we went over this months ago and the consensus then was that BO was not peer reviewed. Remember that the BO journal that Jones published to saw its editor resign in disgust just weeks later, saying that she had never had any oversight over the publication of his paper. Also remember the computer-generated, nonsense article that Davis and Anderson published to Bentham’s Open Information Science Journal. — TheHerbalGerbil (TALK, 10:07, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * A statement in a WP article needs a proper reference, not some "consensus" between a few of its editors: WP can not be its own source. Furthermore, a consensus at one moment in time (if such would indeed have occurred and if it would have been relevant), could merely question whether BO is a sufficient source for supporting some statement, and could not be considered permanent - especially as the above shows a consensus to the contrary.


 * The resignation of the responsible person you refer to, did not deny any peer reviews to have occurred for the article she had missed oversighting.

&#8203; ▲ SomeHuman 2011-10-03 08:15-09:59 (UTC)
 * The computer generated nonsense article had been a deliberate betrayal of the peer review process, which is normally based on the assumption of good faith on behalve of a submitting party (since scientists do not eagerly throw away their good name), and BO stated that the one paper had slipped through accidentally. The same conspiring purpetrators' earlier attempt to betray using the same means, had not slipped through and had not led to publication. In each of the hundreds of BO journals, many articles become published. Amongst a such vaste number, a hick-up in the publication process is bound to happen sooner or later, and despite the closer inspection by non-BO parties since the discovery of the slipped-through article, no other glitches have become noticed in earlier or meanwhile published articles. A very large bank does not become untrustworthy just because in one of its branches a single client at one occasion manages to obtain a small loan under false pretences. WP editors commit WP:OR and slaunder BO if they would publish that any BO journal (let alone all BO journals) would not be reliable in general: such claim needs to be supported by a very proper external source. Proper sources claim that only one article had been compromised, and it had nothing to do with the Jones' article or its topic.

The Q Group
They are a supposed wing of the NSA in the US that prosecutes anyone trying to make a link between 9/11 and the US government. I was sent a youtube link by a 9/11 conspiracist friend who I know I'm never going to persuade to think rationally, but I like to at least answer the whacky stuff he sends me. When I tried to look up the q group, I get redirected here but this page makes no mention of either q group or the NSA. Wikipedia obviously knows about q group, as I only have to type 'q g' into the search bar for it to be offered as the third option. This is the sort of thing the crazies will take as evidence that Wikipedia is just a part of the plot ;) Adagio67 (talk) 11:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * "Q Group" redirects here. It was nominated for deletion at Articles for deletion/Q Group, and as a result made into a redirect here. You can examine the page history here. To save money the NSA laid off the guy who used to expunge this stuff. They realized there was no point, because the very absence of information was taken as evidence of the conspiracy. See for example Secret Department 3312, about which we have no imformation at all. The knowledge had even been scrubbed from my brain, to the point that I had to implement a stochastic mental process to come up with the name. Tom Harrison Talk 12:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, funny. my point was the 'the q group' was something I, as a relatively sane person, wanted to know about. Even I found it odd that I was redirected to a page that made no mention of it. Surely if searches for it are to be redirected here it deserves at least a mention, even if it just says that there is no evidence for it's existence. Wouldn't redirection here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories be more appropriate (and it being mentioned on that page, where it also isn't) Adagio67 (talk) 16:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I did some Google searching and found that essentially all references to "Q Group" trace to Wayne Madsen. As far as I can determine from my relatively brief search, no one else but Madsen seems to know (or acknowledge) anything about Q Group.  Thus I would think that the link should point to the Wayne Madsen article.  The Madsen article mentions Q Group, and wikilinks to it; so if the link is changed, caution should be taken to avoid a circular redirect.  In any case, I don't think that "Q Group" should link to 9/11 Truth movement.  Linking it to 9/11 Conspiracy theories, maybe; but reliable sources for that are probably scarce or nonexistent.  Wildbear (talk) 19:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * any redirect to a page where it's actually mentioned would seem more sensible than the current situation Adagio67 (talk) 22:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed, per Wildbear's suggestion. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 23:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * thanks Adagio67 (talk) 12:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

why did my change not show up?
I made a change on Nov. 4 to this article. It was a simple grammatical correction, changing "contain" to "contains" in the first paragraph so the subject and verb match in number. It appeared on my computer at the time. Checking on another computer it did not show up. Now, 5 days later, it is not there. Why not? Is there an editor for this page who has to approve changes? If so, why was my change not approved? Moreover, it's not even listed in the "history" section! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.65.86.118 (talk) 17:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You made the change on November 5 here and the "contains" is in the current version of the article. Thanks for the correction.   Acroterion   (talk)   17:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Poll Data
This article really needs some data on the number of people in the US and abroad that are suspicious of the 911 events. It is definitely "main stream" in Germany. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psychicattorney (talk • contribs) 03:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Criticism section
I noticed the criticism section is very weak.

The first sentence is vague and only suggests that there is no factual basis in conspiracy theories in general. It doesn't refer to the movement. The second sentence is not a criticism of the movement. The third sentence is about name-calling for people with alternate beliefs. Noam Chomsky mentions nothing on the movement, just dismisses alternative theories without explanation. Then an engineering scientist, incorrectly described as a professor, is mentioned who criticises a researcher's method. Bill Clinton is quoted as reaffirming what the 9/11 truth movement denies. The next paragraph is about a 2008 paper, which in the abstract linked as a reference, is referring to conspiracy theories in general and is not a specific criticism of the 9/11 truth movement.

The only statements which are a criticism of the truth movement are incorrectly assigned quotes attributed to Bill Moyers who was actually quoting independent journalist Robert Parry.

If there is to be a section like this it should be titled Opponents or similar together with a Supporters section, listing statements of support towards the movement and its aims. - Shiftchange (talk) 13:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

verification required
Can statement like this "Adherents also call themselves "9/11 Truthers",[23] "9/11 skeptics"[24] or "truth activists",[25] while generally rejecting the term "conspiracy theorists".[16][25]" be verified completely and does it matter what the adherents do or do not think themselves of? ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 0police (talk • contribs) 19:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)