User:Roy McCoy/sandbox4

General consensus > mainstream account
I thanked Slatersteven for reverting to "general consensus" rather than to "general and proven consensus", but I had doubts about "general consensus" itself. I was unaware of such a consensus and doubted that it existed. Having been made aware that arguments are to be made in accordance with approved sources, I knew that I couldn't simply express my aversion to the doubted expression, nor could I change it without consensus. Looking at the lead paragraph, I noticed the eight references lined up at its end and was interested enough to consult them. Unsurprisingly to me, none of them contained the word "consensus", meaning that neither "consensus" nor "general consensus" was supported by the sources. I was, however, met with an unexpected surprise. I had found that none of the sources mentioned a consensus, but this didn't seem particularly strong or meaningful and I decided not to post on it. Since I had the tabs open in a browser window, however, I decided to read the articles to see what they said. The surprise was that they all indicated that there wasn't a general consensus.

1. New York Times

It would even seem the Truthers are not alone in believing the whole truth has not come out. A poll released last month by Zogby International found that 42 percent of all Americans believe the 9/11 Commission "concealed or refused to investigate critical evidence" in the attacks. This is in addition to the Zogby poll two years ago that found that 49 percent of New York City residents agreed with the idea that some leaders "knew in advance" that the attacks were planned and failed to act.

2. BBC

Opinion polls in the US have picked up widespread doubts among the American people. A New York Times/CBS News poll in 2006 found that 53% of those questioned thought the Bush administration was hiding something. Another US poll found a third of those questioned thought government officials either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or allowed them to happen.

(This article speaks of "official bodies", the "official explanation", and, in a comment, of the "official story". This suggests that the phrase I proposed, "official narrative", is more supported by the sources than "general consensus", but as I clarify below I am not arguing for that.)

3. Financial Times

Last winter, “Investigate 9/11” banners seemed to be popping up all over the place. Bill Clinton was heckled by “truthers” in Denver while campaigning for his wife. Truthers picketed the Academy Awards in LA – despite this year’s winner of the best actress Oscar, Marion Cotillard, reportedly being one of them. But then, she’s French. Literature lovers in that country pushed Thierry Meyssan’s L’Effroyable imposture (The Appalling Fraud) – which asserts that 9/11 was a government plot to justify invading Iraq and Afghanistan and increase military spending – to the top of the bestseller list in 2002. Country music star Willie Nelson is assuredly not French, but a week or so before the Oscars he described as naive the notion that the “implosion” of the Twin Towers was caused by crashing jets. Meanwhile the European Parliament screened the Italian documentary Zero, in which Gore Vidal, Italian playwright Dario Fo, and Italian MEP Giulietto Chiesa blame the US government, not al-Qaeda, for 9/11. The following month, Japanese MP Yukihisa Fujita raised his own doubts about the official story at a seminar in Sydney. A busy season for the “9/11 Truth” movement. [...] There is some evidence that the truthers are swaying the rest of us. A New York Times/CBS News poll in 2006 revealed that only 16 per cent of Americans polled believed the Bush administration was telling the truth about 9/11. More than half thought it was “hiding something”. This is not the same as believing the government actually launched the attacks, but a Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll the same year found that more than a third of those questioned suspected that federal officials assisted in the attacks or took no action to stop them so that the US could go to war.

4. Washington Post

There are few more startling measures of American distrust of leaders than the widespread belief that the Bush administration had a hand in the attacks of Sept. 11 in order to spark an invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. A recent Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll of 1,010 Americans found that 36 percent suspect the U.S. government promoted the attacks or intentionally sat on its hands.

5. Los Angeles Times

Polls show that many Americans distrust the government on the subject of Sept. 11. A Zogby International poll taken in May found that 42% believed the government concealed evidence that contradicts official accounts. A Scripps Howard-Ohio University poll taken in August found that 36% believed it “very likely” or “somewhat likely” that federal officials allowed the attacks to occur because “they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East.”

6. Daily Telegraph

Thanks to the power of the web and live broadcasts on television, the conspiracy theories surrounding the events of 9/11 - when terrorists attacked the World Trade Centre in New York and the Pentagon in Washington - have surpassed those of Roswell and JFK in traction. Despite repeated claims by al-Qaeda that it planned, organised and orchestrated the attacks, several official and unofficial investigations into the collapse of the Twin Towers which concluded that structural failure was responsible and footage of the events themselves, the conspiracy theories continue to grow in strength. A large group of people – collectively called the 9/11 Truth Movement – cite evidence that an airliner did not hit the Pentagon and that the World Trade Centre could not have been brought down by airliner impacts and burning aviation fuel alone.

7. Financial Post

As radical as Gage's theory may sound to readers, it's surprisingly popular. The "9/11 Truth Movement," as it is now commonly called, has millions of adherents across the world. Many believe that the World Trade Center was destroyed on Sept. 11 through controlled demolition set in motion by officials within America's own government and military. In a 2006 Scripps Howard poll of 1,010 U.S. citizens, 36% of respondents said it was "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that the U.S. government was in on the 9/11 plot. According to another poll conducted in Canada, 39% of respondents said they either disagree, or are unsure, that Al Qaeda was responsible for 9/11. Even architects and engineers who've never heard of Richard Gage will concede they aren't quite sure why WTC7, a fairly typical tube-frame structure located about a football field away from WTC1, would be struck down by localized fires and random debris.

8. Montreal Gazette

[A presentation] will demonstrate "the real reasons why the 9/11 truth movement continues to grow worldwide".

The word "official" recurs at several other points in these articles than those mentioned in relation to the BBC article, and I would still go for "official narrative". I noticed when looking at the article history, however, that "mainstream account" was the expression used for the longest time, changed by ItsPugle only in August of last year and then without actual consensus. The only person who replied to his proposal was Slatersteven, who saw no issue with the then-current wording and did not actually approve the change. ("Not fussed either way.") "Official", though supported by the sources, suggests that the story/narrative is only official, while "mainstream" includes the mainstream public and not just the mainstream media. It thus seems more neutral, between "official narrative" on the one hand and "general consensus" (?) on the other – so I propose returning to "mainstream account". "General consensus" in any event needs to be changed, as it is not only not supported by the sources but is contradicted by them. –Roy McCoy (talk) 04:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)