![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Not to suggest that I buy into this train of thought, but one notable theory is the concept that the planes were remotely controlled to their end result. A stunningly "foretelling" version of this would be the infamous pilot of The Lone Gunmen which displayed an airliner being operated via microchip and antenna devices - the same way in which cars may be remotely controlled. This is an idea that seems to be gaining more and more popularity and, frankly, I'd add a sub-category for it myself if the page weren't currently locked. Any users who feel up to adding it? --AWF
Yeh, I'll give it a go sometime. finding a detailed source might be hard though, most people just dip into the idea. Also, should we have a section for the twin towers missile theory? it's basically the same as the pentagon missile theory, but even weirder. there are ideas like that a hologram of a plane was used to disguise a missile and whatever... i'll try and find a source, and if i do and you guys think it's notable enough then i'll do a section on it. DanCrowter 11:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any technological impediments to remote access piloting. I'm sure aircraft have been designed with such controls as an antihijacking concept. In this case it is being used to hijack! Loose Change cites a known instance of the technology from the 70s in a US military project. There may be many tactical complicatins that need to be explored for realisability. Such as I'm guessing you'd want to immobalise the crew. Would you do it on the plane by installing hiding gassing tanks and what chemical would you use? Would you do it by ghosting the plane and blocking out all communications? What communications do we have from the planes? All four black-boxes were also said to have damaged recordings were they not? I think that all but Shanksville were said to be completely destroyed. Or were the passengers landed at one airport while a ghost plane took over their transponder and continued on to fullfill the mission masked as the originating plane?
But is there any actual evidence that this occurred? Etchalon 07:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely! The instructor who taught Hani Hanjour (the pentagon pilot) claimed that he was a terrible pilot, and that it was obvious he would never make it in aviation. However, the people in the control room on 911 said that they thought Flight 77 was a military plane, because of the moves it was doing in mid air. as well, flight 175 (second tower plane) appears to do a turn which is practically impossible. I'm gonna write a section on it soon, but i might need a hand with the sources. DanCrowter 15:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Heh, you guys forgot to mention these notable conspiracy theories. The Founder and Co-Chair of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, James H. Fetzer, thinks they're notable theories, so I think they should be included here. Take a look at this. Morton devonshire 23:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I think we should turn it into a sub-section into both the section on the contolled demolition hypothesis, and another, more deatailed, section in the full article on the same. This is because it is technically another part of the demolition idea. And about the radiation thing, yes, they proabably would. But most conspiracy theories are based on this kind of stuff. DanCrowter 13:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
It should go in the less common theories section. Yes a couple of notables have suggested this but at this time it is not a common theme in the public discussion of the matter. The developments in the 9/11 scholars for truth has the potential to change this but this defiantly has not happened yet. 69.114.117.103 06:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)
(Just picking up at the current state of the discussion to keep things in order. I've left these comments above as well.)
...Legge analyzed the "final" collapse sequence and just that. That seemed enough for him to state his assumptions about the cause. You find it not's enough, ok, let the readear decide for himself. I, for example, find his explanation much more plausible than wild theories about innards collapsing,ground shaking, outer walls standing. Anyway, apart from what you and I belive, there is no place for a hidden, false implication that Legge's analysis is in contradiction with FEMA's timing, as it is not ("apples and oranges" - it couldn't be said better). If you feel that 37s remark has to be there, then let's not put it in opposition to 7 seconds. My proposed edit would be to replace "according to conspiracy theorists the collapse took 7 seconds" with a statement of an easily observable fact that roof of the building collapsed in approx. 7 seconds to the ground. SalvNaut 21:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
(repeat over)
Everybody should look at the very interstingly different new link in the Debunking Conspiracies section "A study of the primary source evidence against conspiracy". If it stays it should be moved to the less common theories and renamed "An argument for for the accidental setting off of benign pre placed explosives”. He thinks they were put there because after ’93 the Port Authority knew the towers would be attacked again so they wanted to make the collapse less dangerous 69.114.117.103 04:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)
The result of the debate was no move. Points have been argued, and both sides have good points, but the clear consensus here is to keep the article where it is. — Mets501 ( talk) 03:06, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
" Conspiracy theory" is a highly contested term, but there can be little doubt that it is rarely, if ever, used to refer to a version of events the speaker believes to be true, except when it is used with a bitter sense of irony. Moreover the label "conspiracy theorist" is nearly always applied in a way that is condescending or even abusive. "Conspiracy theorists" as the conspiracy theory article tells us, are at best timid thinkers who are unwilling to face up to the compiexity and ambiguity of real life. At worst they are psychotic. In talk:conspiracy theory itself one finds a number of contributors who cannot conceal their contempt for the timewasting kooks they believe themselves to be dealing with.
In talk:conspiracy theory various other definitions turn up that are ostensibly neutral, for instance that "conspiracy theories" are "not falsifiable". But if we consider the two possible explanations of the death of Alexander Litvinenko we find that neither the theory that he was poisoned by Russian agents in order to silence him and to deter others, nor that he was poisoned by western agents in order to discredit the Putin regime, is falsifiable. All we can do in such a case is draw up a hypothetical balance sheet of political gains and losses for both sides and make an educated guess. Yet never have I heard the theory that Putin's people did it being called a "conspiracy theory". On the other hand can anyone doubt that the mainstream politician or journalist foolhardy enough to suggest that, say, MI6 did it would be pilloried into oblivion? Quite clearly the "conspiracy theorist" is simply anybody who holds the self-evidently false belief that people on "our" side can and do carry out the kinds of crimes the people on "their" side are generally believed to perpetrate.
Is it appropriate for Wikipedia to ridicule dissenting points of view based on such absurd criteria as this? If you think so then please oppose the name change. Ireneshusband 12:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
9/11 conspiracy theories are generally called 9/11 conspiracy theories. From Popular Mechanics' Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts ( ISBN 158816635X) to the Washington Post's 9/11 Conspiracy Theorist to Leave Brigham Young, [1] this is the accepted terminology. Tom Harrison Talk 03:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
It is true that 9/11 conspiracy theories are often called conspiracy theories, but this does not make it less of a value judgement. Popular Mechanics called them conspiracy theories because it intended to debunk them. Ditto just about everyone else who uses the term. The Popular Mechanics article in particular was a particularly dishonest piece of journalism and relied heavily on defamatory language to drive its lies home [2]. Very few people who believe so-called conspiracy theories use the term themselves. Derogatory naming is part of the debunking process.
The final insult to conspiracists is that when a conspiracy theory turns out to be true, it is hastily redefined by many people as investigative journalism. Watergate, Iran-Contra, and the like are just good stories. [3]
Please provide even one example of a mainstream news or current affairs story in which the writer or presenter explicity, and without reluctance or irony, uses the term "conspiracy theory" to describe something that s/he at that time holds to be true. If you cannot, then you must accept that to use the term in the title of an article is to prejudge the content.
To address a practical points raised by Wildnox, changing the name to "alternative theories" will have no detrimental effect on the functioning of the wiki because, after renaming, the old article name will redirect to the new one. The difference is simply that the title of the article, when you get to it, will be different.
As for Titanium Dragon' assertion that "conspiracy theory" is clearly defined in its own wikipedia article, a quick glance at the talk:conspiracy theory is enough to show that the direction of this article is highly contested. In any case, no reputable academic would ever cite Wikipedia as an authority on anything, so neither should we. Titanium Dragon says we shouldn't use "loaded terms", but "conspiracy theory" is undoubtedly a loaded term because it implies that the "theory" is false and the that person who believes it is a contemptible nutcase. Ireneshusband 10:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
While I think Ireneshusband's concerns are sound on one level, I think 9/11 CTs are a special case. Most of them have goodnaturedly taken the label upon themselves. Most playfully say that its a matter of which conspiracy theory you find more plausible. Michael Ruppert took issue, not with the word "conspiracy" but the word "theory" ("I deal in conspiracy fact," he said. Vanity Fair's coverage [4] was rather fair, I'd say. So I think I agree with those who say that "conspiracy theories" is what they're called--and this goes on both sides.-- Thomas Basboll 16:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
"Conspiracy theory" is, insofar as it is anything, a narrative genre. It is defined, according to the people who think it is a useful category, by its various qualities, such as the way it provides totalising simplistic explanations, appeals to people's paranoid urges, gets bogged down in technical details or is "unfalsifiable". "Alternative theory" is a much looser term implying little more than that what is thus labelled is not a view favoured by the "majority" (however you define that).
To call all dissenting interpretations of the 9/11 events "conspiracy theories" is to say that they all, without exception possess the defining qualities of a "conspiracy theory". This would mean that the view that "the Bush adminstration knew it was going to happen and did nothing to stop it" is a totalising, simplistic and technically convoluted view just as would be that the shape-shifting Illuminati space-lizards did it with holograms, bumble planes and mini-nukes. Has anyone actually demonstrated this? In what way is such a view totalising, simplistic and more technically convoluted than the official explanation? If this cannot be demonstrated then "conspiracy theory" cannot be an adequate container for all the non-standard accounts of 9/11 and must be abandoned.
And please do not respond to this challenge by redefining "conspiracy theory" to suit. Either it implies all the qualities ascribed to it or it doesn't. There is no inbetween. Anyone who makes scornful or contemptuous jibes at those they see as conspiracy theorists, as many of the contributors to discussions such as these do, is disqualified from asserting that "conspiracy theorist" is a relatively neutral term. Furthermore anyone who does this is also disqualified from asserting that the use of the term in the title of an article such as this is not profoundly offensive to people such as me who believe some of those "conspiracy theories".
That "conspiracy theorists" do sometimes try to work with that label, often to turn it back upon their accusers (hence "official conspiracy theory" etc.) does not justify its use. Consider, for example, the various African American uses of the word "nigger". This would in no way justify calling the African American article "Nigger" (I know that "nigger" would be inappropriate for other reasons as well, but that is beside the point). I'm not suggesting that "conspiracy theorist" is at all as offensive as "nigger", but highly offensive it is nonetheless.
Speaking for myself, I occasionally describe myself to people as a "conspiracy theorist", but the reason for this is simply to communicate how it feels, not only to hold beliefs about the way our world works that are sometimes overwhelmingly horrible, but to be marginalised and ridiculed for them to boot. With this in mind, if all those who oppose my proposal can convince me that they truly respect my views, and that they consider me to be an intelligent, fair-minded and thoughtful person, I will withdraw it. Ireneshusband 23:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep as is -- no endorsement for name change. We don't get to choose the name -- we just get to parrot what reputable sources call it, and they call it a conspiracy theory. That trumps all efforts to apply your original research.
Morton devonshire
01:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
"what reputable sources call it..."
No name change. Please read what I write. I did NOT say we were to avoid usage of loaded terms. In fact, I said quite the opposite: "It isn't our job not to use loaded terms - its our job to present reality in a neutral manner." Calling these things anything other than conspiracy theories is to NOT present reality in a neutral manner. Some people are under the incredibly mistaken impression that NPOV gives equal credence to every viewpoint; in fact, it does nothing of the sort. NPOV is a neutral point of view. We use reputable sources. Our reputable sources call these 9/11 conspiracy theories. Ergo, we are required to use the term as it is the most common term for it, even among experts! The consensus of our sources is that these ARE conspiracy theories. We are to use the most common name for it. The most common name is 9/11 conspiracy theories. Not hoaxes, not "hypothesis", not "alternate theories for 9/11". All of these are POV. 9/11 conspiracy theories is not. According to the rules of Wikipedia, this article should be called 9/11 conspiracy theories. As I pointed out, they ARE conspiracy theories, and to label them anything else is disingenous. Before arguing for a name change, please read the rules of Wikipedia and understand them. They are clear on this point. And, as an aside, I've had numerous professors at a top 20 university cite Wikipedia as a reference. Titanium Dragon 10:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
It is important to note that these are conventions, not rules carved in stone. As Wikipedia grows and changes, some conventions that once made sense may become outdated, and there may be cases where a particular convention is "obviously" inappropriate. But when in doubt, follow convention. ( Wikipedia:Naming_conventions)
Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. ( Wikipedia:Naming_conventions)
Many older articles use the term Mormonism in reference to Latter Day Saint doctrines, belief systems, or cultures. For example:
* Mormonism and Christianity * Mormonism and Judaism
However, this term is now discouraged because it may been seen as inaccurate or offensive by members of several Latter Day Saint movement denominations, such as the Community of Christ. { wikipedia:Naming conventions (Latter Day Saints))
In other words, while going with what the majority of English speakers would recognise is the general guideline, this is not set in stone, and situations may arise where other considerations take prececence. That an article may cause offence has already been established as just such a case.
That said, the reason for the guideline about going with what the majority of speakers would recognise is in order to avoid ambiguity and make linking to the articles "second nature". Now even if "9/11 (alternative theories)" is not the term most familiar to English speakers, I fail to see how anyone could be confused by it. In any case, as I have said several times already, since the old title will redirect to the new title, there is absolutely no reason whatever for anybody to get confused of lost, any more than a person looking for "Mormonism" would be confused to find an article on "Latter Day Saints". Surely the fact that "Mormonism" is considered offensive is just the kind of information somebody would go to such an article to find out.
Descriptive names
Choose a descriptive name for an article that does not carry POV implications.
For instance, what do we call the controversy over Qur'an handling at Guantanamo Bay? The article is located at Qur'an desecration controversy of 2005. Note that the title makes no statement about who is the (more) guilty party: it does not "give away" that conclusion; in fact the article itself draws no conclusion. Similarly, the article on the September 11, 2001 attacks does not assign responsibility for the attacks in the article name. (from wikipedia:Naming conflict)
Clearly the guidelines favour titles that do not prejudge the conclusions. Since "conspiracy theories" does do so, it fails in this regard. "Alternative theories" on the other hand does not imply that the theories are right, wrong, methodologically sound, methodologically flawed or anything else beyond that those theories are not normally considered to be in the mainstream.
Equally, the prospects for achieving long-term consensus can be complicated by the fact that contributors change over time. At one point, a certain group of contributors may agree to use one name, but this group only represents the view of the particular sub-community of editors that exists at that time. When new contributors arrive, they are faced with the choice of reopening the discussion (thus diminishing the weight of the opinions of their predecessors), or sticking to the old consensus (which deprives the new contributors of a chance to have their say). In short, no consensus represents the voices of all the contributors to a given article. Following a permanently established objective procedure that does not rely on a fleeting consensus gets around this problem. ( wikipedia:Naming conflict)
This means, among other things, that it is unfair to blame newly arrived editors when the same naming debate comes up for the umpteenth time. The guidelines that exist to prevent this happening clearly favour names that are not offensive and that do not prejudge the various arguments and positions outlined within them. All I ask is that the article be renamed to something that is reasonably self-explanatory, that doesn't cause offense and that doesn't prejudge its content. Why is this so hard for so many of you? Ireneshusband 13:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep as is: We've had this discussion before, and no new arguements or evidence have been provided. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
* Replicability— The conclusions of the source can be reached using the information available and there is no indication of gaps in the thinking or process of derivation. Essentially, this criterion asks if there are any leaps of faith in the source: (from WP:RS)
Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory Tom Harrison Talk 16:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
The Google test has always been and very likely always will remain an extremely inconsistent tool, which does not measure notability. It is not and should never be considered definitive. ( wikipedia:Google test)
I have raised numerous pertinent points from the guidelines but no one who still opposes this motion is willing to address them. Instead we have seen tactics such as citation of non-existent guidelines, personal insults and so on. And behind it all is the slippery phrase "conspiracy theory" which no one who uses it is willing to define clearly. Ireneshusband 20:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok, let met state my exact view of this. Obviously from what I've said above I do not think the name should be changed. I do believe there is a very slight element of POV in the title, which would push us into the other areas of policy, but I do not believe that it is anywhere serious enough to warrant a change and is currently small subjective arguement entirely. I believe that this still falls under the "Policy in a nutshell" on WP:NC where yhe article name is simple the most common term in the english language. I believe we can cite multiple reliable sources using the term in reference to theories involving 9/11 (Per Popular Mechanics CBC ABC time CNN 9/11 Truth) and virtually none for the other(I belive that International Herald Tribune used it but I do not have a link to the article at this moment and I would, and 9/11 truth has most likely used it before aswell). I think that we can also use the google test to help reinforce which is more common. I think it's obvious which term is more common. Now, if there is a term, which I am obviously unaware of that is just a common as "conspiracy theories" to describe these theories I would support a change to that term. -- Wildnox (talk) 00:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Why don't each camp list below their own beliefs/reasons for change/no change. But list just each reason in one sentence, list more then 1 reason if you want, but do each as a seperate line. Having done this we can have a subsection for each point and debate a single point at a time. Instead of each side rambling on with paragraph after paragraph just arguing semantics and policy. Then we will see what each and everyones points are instead of having to read war & peace, then translate it into Greek, via russian, spanish and Swahili
Here is a list of differnt sources which could be used in the debate by either side. I'll add more later. Some were already mentioned above some are new. I just thought it would be nice if people actually had some reliable sources to use, since almost nobody had used any yet.
Popular Mechanics CBC ABC time CNN New York Times 9/11 Truth - All describe using "conspiracy"
U.S. Department of State Washington Post - Both using both terms in one article.
International Herald Tribune skeptic.com - Both describe using "alternative"
IL- has a picture with CNN using the term "alternative theories" in a poll
Denver post USA Today- Call the term derogatory
Feel free to add more-- Wildnox (talk) 04:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, Wildnox, for this very helpful research. I have the following to add:
Please I would like to remind everyone to be civil, calm down and avoid personal jibes at other editors. In particular the current round of discussion on the name proposed name change.
Like the 9/11 article, this corresponding CT article obviously invokes some anguish.
Can I ask all editors to make short replies about an individual point, rather than make a long reply that gets into different arguments, that will make thread following simpler for us all, and allow for single points to be discussed and reasoned on. Statements such as "Conspiracy theories are the intellectual toxic waste poisoning contemporary democratic civil society" do not help and only act to inflame a highly contentious issue. (In not making an example of any one editor in particular and apologise if using that statement suggests I am having a go). The article as a whole is very good, and of course can always be improved. Good Editing " Snorkel | Talk" 11:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I have been doing a lot of digging around into previous discussions related to the topic of changing the name of this article and similar articles. Similar discussions have been made before this. A good place to refer y'all to first is Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory. Take a look at the talk pages, including the archives. Especially look at Wikipedia_talk:Conspiracy_theory/archive2. The 1.0 proposal failed, and the newer 2.0 proposal is here User:Zen-master/Conspiracy theory titles. As far as this article goes, it seems that it has been moved once already, for slightly over 1 hour. [6] The edit summary here refers to the archive2 link I listed above. I haven't had the time to read through all of this yet, but many of the same arguments raised here are raised there also. Work on the 2.0 proposal seems to have died about a year ago. Perhaps it is time to resurrect it again. The value of the proposal is that it helps set guidelines for a larger range of articles and establishes a precedent in case a similar discussion happens again. Please note that there was no consensus on the 1.0 proposal and much of the debate is somewhat summarized there. I say somewhat because I haven't taken the time to peruse the archives more thoroughly. Umeboshi 01:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Following on from Snorkel's suggestion (above) to break the argument up into little bits, I think the place to start would be... Ireneshusband 05:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Without a decent working definition of "conspiracy theory" we will get nowhere. It is up to the opposers to agree on one because they are the ones who maintain it is an "accurate" name for whatever it is this article is supposed to be about.
Here are a few questions for starters: Add you replies to each one indivually and under each Q
21 December 2006 (UTC)
Ireneshusband 05:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
This policy in a nutshell:
There is (still) a consensus to keep the page name as it is. While it is in principle legitimate to try to change policy to not allow "conspiracy theory" in page titles, or to edit Wikipedia:Words to avoid to include 'conspiracy theory', or to change the definition of 'conspiracy theory' or otherwise edit conspiracy theory, or to do any of a dozen other things, forum shopping is frowned on and is rarely sucessful. Tom Harrison Talk 13:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Why are we re-visiting this issue again? Hasn't this been decided half-a-dozen-times? Isn't this continue rehashing of this very issue the reason that Zen-master was perma-banned? Morton devonshire 19:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I found the following on my talk page:
Hello, Ireneshusband. I realise that some of my remarks on the talk page of that 9/11 article may be a little biting. It is not my intention to cause personal upset, but I do believe strongly in shooting a straight arrow and not diluting my sincerity simply in order to get along. That being said, I apologise if you are insulted by my remarks — I shall be making the most Herculean of efforts to be more civil in future engagements. Rosenkreuz 22:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
So why didn't Rosenkreuz see fit to make his apology known on these talk pages? In fact this "apology" was only offered after another user reprimanded him ( user_talk:Rosenkreuz#Civility).
I have attempted, to the best of my ability, to assume good faith on the part of all contributors to this discussion, and in many case this has been reciprocated. However the conduct of several other editors, who have made repeated recourse to personal attacks and even veiled threats that I might be banned from wikipedia, has been nothing short of disgraceful.
Rosenkreuz made a barbed reference to my "chums", but the behaviour of the opponents of this motion comes across as rather chummy does it not?
Let me repeat, few of the core arguments I raised were challenged, and even those challenges that were raised were no more than either bare and unsupported assertions of personal opinion or empty tautologies. Nor have those points been challenged, by the looks of things, in previous incarnations of the debate. A proper, honest and thorough debate on changing the name of this article has never taken place. Ireneshusband 18:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I can tell you feel exasperated, and that is not my intention. Let me try to address the reasoning with Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia is not about my opinions or yours, but what reputable and verifiable sources of note have said about any given subject. See
WP:RS,
WP:Verify,
WP:NPOV,
WP:NOR, and
WP:EL as a starter. We choose the term "conspiracy theory", because that's the way these theories are described almost universally in reputable sources. They may be called "alternative theories" in advocacy journals and websites, but those sources don't count under our
WP:NPOV and
WP:RS rules and guidelines, because, well, they are advocacy sites. Keep in mind that there advocacy sites on the other side which use much more pejorative terms to describe the Truth Movement viewpoint, and nobody is suggesting that we start using those pejorative terms to describe the Truth Movement theories here, as those sources violate
WP:NPOV,
WP:RS, and
WP:NOR as well. Policy bottom line: If these theories were almost universally called "alternative theories" in reputable sources, that's what we would call them here, but they're not. Our job is to mimic and mirror reputable sources, not to try to advocate our own beliefs in an article. The foundation of Wikipedia is built upon
WP:NPOV,
WP:Verify, and
WP:NOR. For that reason, we have to call it what reputable sources call it: "conspiracy theories." Thank you for listening.
Morton Devonshire
Yo
01:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Am I the only user who thinks the external links section needs to be cleaned? I'm not sure what should go and what should stay, but I know there is no reason to have that many links in this article. -- Wildnox (talk) 22:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I changed "Flight 93 Never Crashed" to "Claims that Flight 93 never crashed" for two reasons.
Have a great day! :) Srose (talk) 04:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
According to the N.Y. Times The first President Bush recalled Mr. Ford’s service on the Warren Commission, which investigated the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. “And the conspiracy theorists can say what they will, but the Warren Commission report will always have the final, definitive say on this tragic matter,” Mr. Bush said. “Why? Because Jerry Ford put his name on it, and Jerry Ford’s word was always good.” [7] While not directly related to 9/11 conspiracies the remark touched off extended musings by Chris Matthews on MSNBC. Basically he was perplexed on where this remark came from. He and his guests theorized he was defending "the establishment" or defending the need for an elite. But you could tell that Matthews was only partially convinced of his own theories on why the remarks were in the eulogy. He said you should not believe conspiracy theories until they are proven which I have no problem with. The problem I have is that the Bush Bin Ladin family conspiracy theories did not jump to his mind immediately. This defiantly was one of those moments you want jump into the TV and shake his neck. He is not a stupid or naive man. Indeed a little latter there was an extended discussion on why Matthews and Evan Thomas of Newsweek thought there was a “wink” “wink” deal between Ford and Nixon on the pardon. I guess this is another demonstration how out of touch the Washington Media is with the audience they are reporting to. I know this is a rant that has no article worthy material but this "audience" seems the most knowlegible one to deliver it to. 69.114.117.103 19:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)
This article is crap, so how do I delete it?-- Beguiled 20:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I now see the hopw to page on article deletion, but don't understand it. Can someone help me get this article deleted?-- Beguiled 21:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Someone else pointed that out to me, but I imagine I will mess things up by trying to go through that lengthy process. Wikipedia is in serious trouble if these kinds of articles are becoming the norm.-- Beguiled 22:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I just think that the article makes Wikipedia look like something other than an encyclopedia.-- Beguiled 22:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I left Beguiled a note on her talk page about how deletion works. I think some of the disagreement comes from our different understandings. To me, this page is about a particular type of sociological phenomenon. Others I think see it as a vehicle to either get the truth out, or to spread lies about 9/11. A few I'm afraid see it as a promotional vehicle. These differing perspectives will continue to cause tension. The way to deal with it is to remember we are all human (except these guys) - take it as easy as we can and keep it civil, and nuke to oblivion any links that try to use the page to sell a dvd. Considering the material, we do okay most of the time. Tom Harrison Talk 01:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
With the the new congress all references relating to Rep. Curt Weldon should be changed to former Rep. Curt Weldon 69.114.117.103 06:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)
Wikipedia dislikes copyright violations to the extent that referncing one is also considered bad practice. There is a move currently to remove all references to Youtube, google video, etc precisely because these are, generally, copyvios. This means that several of the references in this article are likely to be removed by those unfamiliar with the content.
It would be far better if an editor who is active in the article removed them one by one and migrated the references where possible to non copyvio references. Fiddle Faddle 08:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Just a note, but there is no ban on linking to YouTube or Google Video. Take each link on a one by one basis. If it links to a site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Please add relevant material from YouTube and Google Video that is not in violation of the owners copyright. This site benefits greatly from that.
— Slipgrid 06:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I thought the latest work of federal authorities on Wikipedia would be of interest to editors of this article. That these feds do not allow sources from anyone outside the Bush administration has long been their policy by fiat. Now they refuse to even allow other views to be discussed on the article’s talk page. After entering into an edit war where authorities repeatedly blanked threads discussing "unofficial" sources. To end the edit war, authorities have now protected the page so that only sysops (mostly[?] federal agents) can edit the discussion. I'm not talking about the article being fully protected, I'm talking about the article’s associated discussion page.
The notation “edit=sysop:move=sysop” means that only sysops may edit or move this page. Semi-protection is when autoconfirmed accounts may edit the page.This is unprecedented on Wikipedia as far as I know. No one else is welcome there now. You're free to read what the sysops say (if you love boredom), but no one else can post their views or discuss the article. Nothing is working on Wikipedia the way we've been told. Something must be done. Please help address this infestation of Wikipedia by what Wikipedia now dubs Clowns. -- ScabbinOnTheAngels 08:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Seems ridiculous to now have TWO separate 9/11 CT templates. I'm removing the new one where I see it. Please do not create new templates which have no input -- at least delete the old template or we could just fill the pages will an ongoing series of "templates," each with partial lists of links to random "categories." bov 21:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:EricWithoutHat.jpg should it be included in the article that this person supports the 9/11 conspiracy?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.69.63.254 ( talk • contribs).
Reference 197, "
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/21/national/21OHIO.html" brings us to a login page. Should it be removed, or replaced with another source ?
FiP
Как вы думаете?
03:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
The current introduction reads:"The mainstream scientific community does not support the controlled demolition hypothesis and U.S. officials, mainstream journalists, and mainstream researchers have concluded that responsibility for the attacks rests solely with Al Qaeda." This is far too propagandist to be allowed to remain in the article which should be balanced in accord with standard editorial policy. Firstly, quoting a statement from NIST's Bush/Cheney advocates does not qualify as a valid assertion that the mainstream scientific community do not believe that WTC was brought down with demolition charges. If you want to put such a claim in the article you must provide evidence to prove that the majority of these 'specialists' - as the NIST authors characterise them - do not believe the demolition hypothesis to be credible. It is true that mainstream journalists have been rather uncritical in their reportage of 9/11 but as for 'mainstream researchers', it is unclear to whom the author of this sentence refers. Even a cursory look by the most modest intellect at the first-hand evidence in the public domain highlights major shortcomings and anomalies in the official propaganda. Every serious researcher I have encountered has concluded the Zelikow commission report to be utterly false and disingenuous avoiding all the important evidence which flatly contradicts the favoured official story. The belief that the attacks were committed by Al Qaeda is one that has been vigourously promoted and repeated but for which there is no evidence whatsoever, certainly none that would stand up in a court of law. It is therefore biased and, of course propagandist, that this sentence remain in the introduction. User:Langdell 23rd January 2007
It's not a case of not liking the source. It is rather that the NIST report does not represent the views of the scientific community as it claims to do. Anybody with a knowledge of elementary physics knows that those three buildings (especially WTC7) did not come down at free fall speed due to fire or structural damage caused by the impact of the aircraft (WTC7 received no impacts from anything at all). The NIST spokespeople who have authored the document to which the footnote refers have done an admirable job of mystification to persuade ordinary mortals who do not have degrees in structural engineering that they do not have the insiders' knowhow to make their own minds up. But many a schoolboy will tell you that buildings do not fall down in such a manner because the laws of physics will not permit them. The World Trade Centre was one of the most structurally robust buildings ever built - designed to withstand far more serious disasters than fire and aircraft collision. But all this is superfluous. Anybody with any sense knows that even less robust buildings do not fall at freefall speed without controlled demolition. Every account of the evidence which contradicts the official propaganda is called a 'conspiracy theory'. But the 9/11 Commission Report is also a conspiracy theory but nobody bothers to point this out. Actually, one does not need even to develop a theory about the events of September 11th 2001 to know that there is a policy of disinformation; one has only to check the primary sources (video footage, eyewitness testimony etc) to know that the Commission has deliberately faslsified evidence that is available in the public domain. But though this evidence is there for people to see, people do not bother to check for themselves. So, for example, the claim that the September 11th attacks were perpetrated by Al Qaeda is well-known and widely held but such a claim is not supported by any available evidence. Given this fact, claims that responsibility for the attacks lie 'solely with Al Qaeda' should be qualified by a statement that conveys this fact to the reader. Otherwise Wikipedia becomes an agent of state propaganda. Best wishes. User:Langdell Tuesday 23rd January
"Mainstream Researchers" is to vague a term. NIST did use many scientists knowledgeable in the field. The Academics that are skeptics or have alternative theories on the of the official theory have for the most part not been experts. So if "mainstream scientists" might be a bit strong a rewording of that phrase if it is to be accurate will not be a radical change. As for "mainstream media" I have argued why that description is dead accurate in earlier discussions. Indeed many conspiracy theorists have expressed repeated frustration at the mainstream worlds unwillingness to look at alternative theories. So the bottom line is while the the wording could use some tweaking its basic thrust is correct. 69.114.117.103 07:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)
Very funny.
The claim that the laws of physics somehow preclude a tall, skinny burning building from collapsing the way it did is a smokescreen. As is the veneer of sophistication adopted by those whose real purpose is to argue that the U.S. government conspired to secretly destroy the World Trade Center complex and attack itself. The "physics" claims are debunked here.-- Mr. Billion 18:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
There is a dispute over Template:911ct; it should be removed until we reach some sort of consensus. Lovelight 04:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I believe that [[Category:Alternative theories of September 11, 2001 attacks]] should be changed to [[Category:Alternative theories of September 11, 2001 attacks:*]], as this is clearly the main article of that category. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
In Trivia "mr" should be "Mr." and "...." between Muslims" and "naturally" should be a comma as "...." generally means that text is being skipped over.
I have very serious concirns about this artical, it piles together a whole series of non-notibal theorys which contradict each other, many of which are presented as near fact, with very little explanation as to the fact that EVERY one has been destroyed by evidence, and experts. I would have put on the NPOV tag, but i can't. -- Boris 1991 18:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Tom Harrison Talk 22:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
In the section "Pentagon not hit by an airplane" there is a "citation needed" tag for the statement:
The first person to suggest that a missile hit the Pentagon was Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in an interview on October 12, 2001
The citation for this is:
<ref>{{cite web|title=DoD News: Secretary Rumsfeld Interview with Parada Magazine |date=October 12, 2001 |publisher=Parade Magazine (republished by Defense Department) |url=http://web.archive.org/web/20011119092506/http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Nov2001/t11182001_t1012pm.html}}</ref>
Please input this, thank you. --
Nuclear
Zer0
00:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Thats more of a major edit, maybe together we can come up with a wording. How about expanding it to say:
Please also note the admin adding the citation is not endorsing, to have information added you should use the correct template. --
Nuclear
Zer0
14:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure I'm the millionth person to point this out, but the "official version" is the very definition of a conspiracy theory, involving as it does a plurality of people working together to bring about the attacks, the facts of which remain unproven. So this article should also have a section dedicated to the official version, linking to the main article. Or better still rename this one.
Straussian 13:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
24.17.180.126 09:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I largely agree with that last remark. The question is: what would it mean to deal with these issues OUTSIDE this page? Until now, this page has served mainly as a lightning rod against "disruptions" of the September 11 attacks article and the collapse of the World Trade Center article (and some related pages). I'm beginning to think, however, that many of the facts that are only reported here would make useful contributions to the "main" (or mainstream) articles. That's the real challenge now. I.e., to get some of the close reading of the official record that is the preferred domain of conspiracy theorists into the articles where (and how) they belong. Reading the non-CT articles (at least until recently) one got the impression that the main thing that went wrong on 9/11 happened in the hearts of the terrorists.-- Thomas Basboll 10:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I would like to have someone add a link to these pages. Change the titles if you wish.
The South Park reference should be moved to the "Trivia" section, as it offers no real criticism.-- Harpakhrad11 21:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
It is my humble view that we should try to be objective. When doing this, we should ONLY focus on the EXISTENCE of the theories and their CONTENTS. Only by doing this can we avoid disputes about the truthness of the theories. In fact, we can rule them out. This is an article about opinions, and opnions ABOUT opinions have no place here.
This approach has been a success on the norwegian discussion page, and I ask for someone to take the same stand here. it is easy: Does something written in the article help with regard to the focus on EXISTENCE and CONTENTS of the theories? No? Rule it out. This is true objectivity!
It is of course important to take the same stand in both directions: existence and content...
Later, Norwegian user Torb255 :-)
I propose the above name change, of course with a redirect from the current title. I believe, looking at the ongoing discussion, that no one in good faith can deny that the current title, although maybe formally accurate, is pejorative in nature. And, I wish to add, modern semantics states that the "meaning" of a term should include not only its formal referent(s), but also its social, psychological and historical implications as defined by pragmatics. So, in this sense the current title is probably not accurate enough. On the other hand, please refrain from presenting polls showing that, in some region/state/city, opposing views are actually held by a majority. Here, "minority view" is meant in the broadest possible sense, i.e. worldwide, or "a minority of in principle reliable sources and/or researchers". But meanwhile, it avoids the post hoc refutation that a source is labeled as unreliable because of the very fact that it supports a "conspiracy theory". I believe that this term is neutral, informative and accurate.
I am unaware of whether this suggestion has been made in the past. Even if so, this is probably irrelevant because 1) it was probably done using different arguments and 2) the 9/11 events are the most important single event of the first decade of the XXI century, as almost all history from then on can be said to originate one way or another from it. Its significance is probably starting to fade about now or in a couple of years from now. So, it will be studied for centuries and many different interpretations will be given. And therefore, use of language regarding it will change, gradually losing its emotional and ideological aspects and becoming more and more scientific. So, even if this term was proposed and rejected say 2 years ago, which I do not know, I ask you please to write a rational rebuttal here and now and not refer to past discussions, even if your views on the title have remained identical. Massimamanno 10:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Agree The phrase 'Conspiracy theory' carries strong connotative meanings of unreasonable paranoia on the part of the theorists, despite the fact that the denotative definitions of the separate words lack those meanings.
When name change is considered in a cost-benefit analysis, the article wins neutrality and loses no audience because the current "conspiracy theory" title can be redirected, with cost so small that it can be considered zero for all practical purposes. The price of change is that someone must expend the effort.
If the status quo is kept, no one needs to spend the energy of change. However, the title will retain non-neutrality.
Are there any costs or benefits I have missed? If not, the only decision to be made is:
By this standard, it should be done by someone, but for me, the cost of changing it myself is too high, as I am new to wiki editing. I don't know that I could do it correctly, or that I've even got authority to do it on a subject of such important controversy. Though I would be bold and do it if "bravery" is all that is required. Still, it is prudent to wait and see if anyone can show this cost-benefit analysis is incomplete. If not, I will try to change the article myself next month.
Once changed, the cost-benefit of reversion would balance an editors effort cost vs. the benefit of a loss of neutrality, which makes no sense, so it is probable that the article would stay named "alternative theories". -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ace Frahm ( talk • contribs). 14:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone feel like the article places too much emphasis on MIHOP theories, like controlled demolition, and too little on LIHOP theories, such as surrounding Bush's earlier orders to the Civil Air Patrol. In fact, there are very few people who believe MIHOP theories, but the Zogby polls shows that quite a lot of people tacitly suppose LIHOP theories, so LIHOP its much more notable than MIHOP and should not be drowned out. I don't know how to fix this, but the MIHOP types will always write more, so maybe the article can be split or else long MIHOP parts moved off into their own article?
For example, controlled demolition already has its own article so surely we can shorten its section here. And surely theories about nukes or energy weapons don't deserve more than one sentence here (as they are part of that other article and quite a fringe thing).
Now most other MIHOP sections don't have their own article already, but they are long enough to survive as independent article. Seperating some of the longer stranger ones will make the LIHOP stuff far more readable. What do peopel think? JeffBurdges 19:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
My point was that these sections really are long enough. Even the stuff on controlled demolition here is long enough for its own article, and it already has its own article! It really should be trimmed down. Otoh, LIHOP stuff, like around the Civil Air Patrol, doesn't even get mentioned. JeffBurdges 02:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
With regards to the Silverstein's slip of the tongue and building 7: The FEMA report (May, 2002) states that: "no manual firefighting operations were taken by FDNY." Therefore the man couldn't have "Rescue Me" on the mind, now could he? And about Flight 93, why is there no reference to the Rumsfelds (mis)fortunate flow of thoughts? The man said: "the people who… …shot down the plane over Pennsylvania". Don't you think that such takes deserve to be enlisted in the article? Lovelight 19:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
The citation used for that statement in this wiki article does not seem to contain that 'fact'. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.170.96.119 ( talk • contribs) 06:46, 15 February 2007.
Since there is no quote I am not sure what this is reffering to, but since you reverted me I would also like an explanation for this one
[8]. Thank you. PS do not move this, MONGO states its the proper place for this question since its about the article and he will only answer it here =) --
Nuclear
Zer0
13:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Dear Tom Harrison,
As I am not clever enough to use a talk page to correct the "9/11 Conspiracy Theories" article, I am appealing to you to correct what it says about me
In a Wikipedia article on “9/11 Conspiracy Theories,” the following false statement is made about me.
"Peter Dale Scott points out what he says are similarities between the assassination of JFK and the events of 9/11. Among many arguments he makes is that on September 11, at 9:59 the FBI already had names of 3 out of the 4 hijackers of Flight 93, at which time NORAD, according to the 9/11 Commission, wasn't yet aware that Flight 93 had been hijacked. (This Scott finds similar to the situation when Oswald's description was released immediately after the JFK assassination).[32]"
(“9/11 conspiracy theories,” Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories)
I accept full responsibility for having originated this error, because I did make this claim in an hour-long talk on 18 November 2007. However, as I no longer trust the source I used for the claim, I no longer make it. On the contrary, in my edited text of my remarks (posted on December 20, 2006) I restated my remarks about the FBI’s identifications on 9/11, to eliminate the reference to the Flight 93 hijackers:
"Now the parallel to that for 9/11 is, I have to say, even more astounding, because of Richard Clarke, who was director for counter-terrorism activities in the White House, and a very important eyewitness. His book Against All Enemies is almost totally ignored by the 9/11 Commission, and it had to be ignored by the Commission because it is at odds, in many important respects, with what the 9/11 Report says (which I will get back to). But he tells us that at 9:59 am on September 11, which is the time when the second tower collapses, the North Tower, the FBI already had a list of the alleged hijackers. [5] "This is extraordinary in the first place because the FBI always says about itself that it doesn’t do much intelligence in the field of terrorism; its specialty is criminal investigation afterwards. They had the names of hijackers at 9:59; at 9:59 am Flight 93 had not yet crashed. And even more astonishingly, if we believe the 9/11 Report (which of course on this point I do not believe), NORAD, which was searching for the hijacked planes, wasn’t aware that Flight 93 had been hijacked until 10:08, which is nine minutes later." (“JFK and 9/11: Insights Gained from Studying Both,” by Dr. Peter Dale Scott, Global Research, December 20, 2006, http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=SCO20061220&articleId=4207) It is clear that I am not now making the claim which the Wikipedia article attributes to me in the present tense, citing my original talk as given, but not my corrected text.
I would like to say that in general I am admirer of Wikipedia’s concept and process, and have belatedly come to use it as a research resource. I would say the same of the article on “9/11 Conspiracy Theories.” Even though there are many details in the article I disagree with, I would commend the article on the whole as a conscientious collective effort to grope towards a consensus view.
But I do not now make the claim about the three hijackers on Flight 93 which the article attributes to me in the present tense. More importantly, I do not now believe the claim. I would therefore be grateful to have the entire paragraph removed, as it is a disservice to the truth. I trust I will not need to seek legal assistance towards this end.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.131.180.192 ( talk • contribs).
BBC are making a programme called 9/11: The Conspiracy Files to be shown on Sunday 18 February 9pm British time. It's receiving first page coverage on the website as well so might lead to wider interest. 80.47.81.214 15:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
We could add an external link, unless people object. Tom Harrison Talk 15:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Will this program be downloadable or eventually air on BBC America? 69.114.117.103 14:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)
Yep, seen it on google videos, not very good i thought but hey. just search 911 conspiracy files on google videos and it comes up. DanCrowter 14:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
This page has been protected for a while (since January 25). Editing warring was over the template, but think/hope we are beyond that and we can try going back to semi-protection? -- Aude ( talk) 19:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
The contended UFO-reference offend obviously against the policy of No original research. Where is the context to 9/11? Please cite authors who try to debunk 9/11 conspiracy theories and who cite this poll as an argument. Otherwise we have a context implicated by wiki-authors, which is undoubtedly irregular!-- 87.78.80.234 18:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
It's time to wind up this curiously paranoid phenomenon in the civil discourse of our times. The conspiracy stories are all wrong. All of them. The government is not out to get you. Never was. Never will be. There are sometimes things which happen which are particularly sad, and particularly hurtful to people who have already been victimized by tragedy, and so some of the saddest particulars are not necessarily discussed by responsible people, out of respect or general understanding that it is not their job to bring it up or go on about it. They leave it for another time, for someone else to deal with when the time is right. 9/11 did, in fact, contain some of those sad elements. None of them, however, involved government plans to do wrong. Most of the conspiracy stories are simply paranoid, or at best total misinterpretations of the evidence. One story, for example, which has been making the rounds is the Russo fright about the new identity cards. If you are reading this, you are using a computer. That means the government already has the means to do everything Russo says the identity cards will introduce as some sort of new threat to your personal security. Has the government censored you, erased you, taken away your bank accounts, or otherwise done anything to interfere with your life? No. And they're not going to. It's your government, for heaven's sake. The only thing new about the identity card is this: it is hard to counterfeit, and should slow down identity theft and slow down counterfeit identity crimes. That's about all. The people who have believed in conspiracy stories will wake up one day and realize that they have been a bit crazy and made fools of themselves. They have also scared a few people unnecessarily, at a time when we are all trying to overcome a real scary thing, which is the cult of radical religious violence. Pull yourselves together and give your heads a shake... you've got a great country, and the many efforts your government has made, and is making, to establish your greater security, or prepare for possibly large sudden problems like 9/11 presented, may not be the most brilliant or may never be required, but at least they're trying to be a little bit ready for anything. I agree with the girl who said this discussion should be erased... a simple and direct suggestion from somebody with plain old common sense. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.216.236.248 ( talk • contribs) 17:35, 21 February 2007.
Any suggestions?
Tomandlu 09:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the new title, with capital letters, is consistent with Wikipedia:Naming conventions. I plan to move it back. Tom Harrison Talk 13:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
This is a double post intended to increase the visibility of this talk. I hope you don't mind I really want answers to this.
I didn't believe the conspiracy theories at first; but now I don't know.
I was hoping some of you experienced wikipedians can try to figure out why no one is questioning the passenger manifest.
The passenger manifest must be compiled before a plane takes off; yet the official passenger manifest fluctuated for over a month after 9/11.
What's more, the majority of the dead "passengers" have no family members coming forward to either accept government compensation or saying anything to the media, the blogosphere, and various other 'internets'. The people related to those dead at ground zero are very vocal in comparison.
Also, there are no arabic names on the passenger manifest. 19 arabic "hijackers" could not have snuck onboard all these planes.
Also, can somebody verify if two people who were reported dead on the plane (and their families recieved mysteriously undamaged id and credit cards) but weren't on the passenger manifest actually existed?
Please I think this is the most telling piece of evidence against the corrupt Bush administration.
Surely you've noticed, like I have, that the relative dearth of passenger relatives indicates a fabricated list of passengers!
http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm
Why does the nose of a commercial airliner look like the thin sliver of a nose that is more indicative of a small plane or missile?
The 9/11 mysteries one.
How could you watch that and dismiss the so-called "conspiracy theories"
Hey ho.
I know that the article is already very long, so maybe this detail won't make the cut. But there is a new (to me) allegation that the BBC had foreknowledge about 9/11 or at least the demolition of WTC7. There is a video allegedly showing a BBC reporter discussing the collapse of WTC7 twenty minutes before it occurred and with a standing WTC7 in the background.
See www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/260207building7.htm]. Phiwum 13:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
We're up to 114k, 72 seconds to download the total page over a 56K modem [9]. We might want to start thinking of logical places to start splitting data out. Ronabop 06:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Someone should take every name on the passenger lists and try to confirm their existence.
It would be a lot harder for the conspiracy to be true if everyone on the list actually existed and died at that time; and has relatives to confirm this.
As far as I'm aware only a few relatives are known (especially the pilots wives odd enough).
I dunno I just want to find something to help bring Bush down and the only way I can think is to plunge into the internets.
What is the issue with the inclusion of this refuation of the space beams?
"physicist Greg Jenkins has written a refutation of the energy beam claims in a letter [1] to the Journal of 9/11 Studies."
What is the violation? Please explain. bov 02:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
It is self-evident that the title is POV and a smear, since the word is a smear by definition. Although Al Qaeda terrorists did indeed plot to attack the U.S.(although they would not have succeeded without Administration complicity), saying this is so is not called "conspiracy theory," because "conspiracy theory" is a loaded smear to surreptiotiously call a claim false. This is obviously and heavily POV, and the issue was avoided in the debate through equivocation and side-stepping.
71.221.89.250 06:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
This is more egregious and more undeniably POV. Calling those who claim complicity "conspiracy theorists" is going far beyond merely titling the article "9/11 Conspiracy Theories." To label the claimants themselves as "conspiracy theorists" is to imply that anyone who claims complicity in the attacks, even when based on sound factual evidence, has at best a wild imagination or is at worst schizophrenic. It labels complicity claimants, who are actually a large proportion of the population, as commonly engaged in inducing "conspiracy theories," when this claim has not support whatsoever. It would thus be far more NPOV to call them "those who suggest Administration complicity" or "those who suggest Pakistani and Administration complicity," etc, whatever the case may be.
The article is even written in a way that (intentionally?) repeatedly refers to the "conspiracy theorists," ramming it into the reader's mind that claims of complicity are paranoid nonsense, rather than simply stating the case as it is made.
71.221.89.250 06:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
In the "Basic Argument" section, the article mentions a "government employee by the name of O'Neill". Does he have a first name? I thought it was John P. O'Neill at first, which would have made for a hell of a conspiracy theory. SuperToad64 20:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that would indeed be strange if it were John O'Neill, the FBI Al Qaeda expert who resigned shortly before 9/11, citing repeated blocking of his investigations into Al Qaeda by his superiors, because he was then offered a job in the WTC, where he was killed. Dead men tell no tales...
71.221.89.250 00:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
The article intro does not make a distinction between the conclusions arrived at by alternate-conspiracy theorists, and the underlying factual assertions upon which those conclusions are based. The distinction is relevant and should be made clear. A non-mainstream factual interpretation does not necessarily invalidate a mainstream conclusion as to the ultimate responsibility for the attacks. dr.ef.tymac 02:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Some of these conspiracy theories depend on alternate factual conclusions from public documents, documentary evidence and official statements of the events. Other conclusions originate from speculation and unsubstantiated inference, which is sometimes claimed as necessary since some information has not been made available to the public.
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Not to suggest that I buy into this train of thought, but one notable theory is the concept that the planes were remotely controlled to their end result. A stunningly "foretelling" version of this would be the infamous pilot of The Lone Gunmen which displayed an airliner being operated via microchip and antenna devices - the same way in which cars may be remotely controlled. This is an idea that seems to be gaining more and more popularity and, frankly, I'd add a sub-category for it myself if the page weren't currently locked. Any users who feel up to adding it? --AWF
Yeh, I'll give it a go sometime. finding a detailed source might be hard though, most people just dip into the idea. Also, should we have a section for the twin towers missile theory? it's basically the same as the pentagon missile theory, but even weirder. there are ideas like that a hologram of a plane was used to disguise a missile and whatever... i'll try and find a source, and if i do and you guys think it's notable enough then i'll do a section on it. DanCrowter 11:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any technological impediments to remote access piloting. I'm sure aircraft have been designed with such controls as an antihijacking concept. In this case it is being used to hijack! Loose Change cites a known instance of the technology from the 70s in a US military project. There may be many tactical complicatins that need to be explored for realisability. Such as I'm guessing you'd want to immobalise the crew. Would you do it on the plane by installing hiding gassing tanks and what chemical would you use? Would you do it by ghosting the plane and blocking out all communications? What communications do we have from the planes? All four black-boxes were also said to have damaged recordings were they not? I think that all but Shanksville were said to be completely destroyed. Or were the passengers landed at one airport while a ghost plane took over their transponder and continued on to fullfill the mission masked as the originating plane?
But is there any actual evidence that this occurred? Etchalon 07:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely! The instructor who taught Hani Hanjour (the pentagon pilot) claimed that he was a terrible pilot, and that it was obvious he would never make it in aviation. However, the people in the control room on 911 said that they thought Flight 77 was a military plane, because of the moves it was doing in mid air. as well, flight 175 (second tower plane) appears to do a turn which is practically impossible. I'm gonna write a section on it soon, but i might need a hand with the sources. DanCrowter 15:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Heh, you guys forgot to mention these notable conspiracy theories. The Founder and Co-Chair of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, James H. Fetzer, thinks they're notable theories, so I think they should be included here. Take a look at this. Morton devonshire 23:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I think we should turn it into a sub-section into both the section on the contolled demolition hypothesis, and another, more deatailed, section in the full article on the same. This is because it is technically another part of the demolition idea. And about the radiation thing, yes, they proabably would. But most conspiracy theories are based on this kind of stuff. DanCrowter 13:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
It should go in the less common theories section. Yes a couple of notables have suggested this but at this time it is not a common theme in the public discussion of the matter. The developments in the 9/11 scholars for truth has the potential to change this but this defiantly has not happened yet. 69.114.117.103 06:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)
(Just picking up at the current state of the discussion to keep things in order. I've left these comments above as well.)
...Legge analyzed the "final" collapse sequence and just that. That seemed enough for him to state his assumptions about the cause. You find it not's enough, ok, let the readear decide for himself. I, for example, find his explanation much more plausible than wild theories about innards collapsing,ground shaking, outer walls standing. Anyway, apart from what you and I belive, there is no place for a hidden, false implication that Legge's analysis is in contradiction with FEMA's timing, as it is not ("apples and oranges" - it couldn't be said better). If you feel that 37s remark has to be there, then let's not put it in opposition to 7 seconds. My proposed edit would be to replace "according to conspiracy theorists the collapse took 7 seconds" with a statement of an easily observable fact that roof of the building collapsed in approx. 7 seconds to the ground. SalvNaut 21:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
(repeat over)
Everybody should look at the very interstingly different new link in the Debunking Conspiracies section "A study of the primary source evidence against conspiracy". If it stays it should be moved to the less common theories and renamed "An argument for for the accidental setting off of benign pre placed explosives”. He thinks they were put there because after ’93 the Port Authority knew the towers would be attacked again so they wanted to make the collapse less dangerous 69.114.117.103 04:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)
The result of the debate was no move. Points have been argued, and both sides have good points, but the clear consensus here is to keep the article where it is. — Mets501 ( talk) 03:06, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
" Conspiracy theory" is a highly contested term, but there can be little doubt that it is rarely, if ever, used to refer to a version of events the speaker believes to be true, except when it is used with a bitter sense of irony. Moreover the label "conspiracy theorist" is nearly always applied in a way that is condescending or even abusive. "Conspiracy theorists" as the conspiracy theory article tells us, are at best timid thinkers who are unwilling to face up to the compiexity and ambiguity of real life. At worst they are psychotic. In talk:conspiracy theory itself one finds a number of contributors who cannot conceal their contempt for the timewasting kooks they believe themselves to be dealing with.
In talk:conspiracy theory various other definitions turn up that are ostensibly neutral, for instance that "conspiracy theories" are "not falsifiable". But if we consider the two possible explanations of the death of Alexander Litvinenko we find that neither the theory that he was poisoned by Russian agents in order to silence him and to deter others, nor that he was poisoned by western agents in order to discredit the Putin regime, is falsifiable. All we can do in such a case is draw up a hypothetical balance sheet of political gains and losses for both sides and make an educated guess. Yet never have I heard the theory that Putin's people did it being called a "conspiracy theory". On the other hand can anyone doubt that the mainstream politician or journalist foolhardy enough to suggest that, say, MI6 did it would be pilloried into oblivion? Quite clearly the "conspiracy theorist" is simply anybody who holds the self-evidently false belief that people on "our" side can and do carry out the kinds of crimes the people on "their" side are generally believed to perpetrate.
Is it appropriate for Wikipedia to ridicule dissenting points of view based on such absurd criteria as this? If you think so then please oppose the name change. Ireneshusband 12:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
9/11 conspiracy theories are generally called 9/11 conspiracy theories. From Popular Mechanics' Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts ( ISBN 158816635X) to the Washington Post's 9/11 Conspiracy Theorist to Leave Brigham Young, [1] this is the accepted terminology. Tom Harrison Talk 03:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
It is true that 9/11 conspiracy theories are often called conspiracy theories, but this does not make it less of a value judgement. Popular Mechanics called them conspiracy theories because it intended to debunk them. Ditto just about everyone else who uses the term. The Popular Mechanics article in particular was a particularly dishonest piece of journalism and relied heavily on defamatory language to drive its lies home [2]. Very few people who believe so-called conspiracy theories use the term themselves. Derogatory naming is part of the debunking process.
The final insult to conspiracists is that when a conspiracy theory turns out to be true, it is hastily redefined by many people as investigative journalism. Watergate, Iran-Contra, and the like are just good stories. [3]
Please provide even one example of a mainstream news or current affairs story in which the writer or presenter explicity, and without reluctance or irony, uses the term "conspiracy theory" to describe something that s/he at that time holds to be true. If you cannot, then you must accept that to use the term in the title of an article is to prejudge the content.
To address a practical points raised by Wildnox, changing the name to "alternative theories" will have no detrimental effect on the functioning of the wiki because, after renaming, the old article name will redirect to the new one. The difference is simply that the title of the article, when you get to it, will be different.
As for Titanium Dragon' assertion that "conspiracy theory" is clearly defined in its own wikipedia article, a quick glance at the talk:conspiracy theory is enough to show that the direction of this article is highly contested. In any case, no reputable academic would ever cite Wikipedia as an authority on anything, so neither should we. Titanium Dragon says we shouldn't use "loaded terms", but "conspiracy theory" is undoubtedly a loaded term because it implies that the "theory" is false and the that person who believes it is a contemptible nutcase. Ireneshusband 10:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
While I think Ireneshusband's concerns are sound on one level, I think 9/11 CTs are a special case. Most of them have goodnaturedly taken the label upon themselves. Most playfully say that its a matter of which conspiracy theory you find more plausible. Michael Ruppert took issue, not with the word "conspiracy" but the word "theory" ("I deal in conspiracy fact," he said. Vanity Fair's coverage [4] was rather fair, I'd say. So I think I agree with those who say that "conspiracy theories" is what they're called--and this goes on both sides.-- Thomas Basboll 16:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
"Conspiracy theory" is, insofar as it is anything, a narrative genre. It is defined, according to the people who think it is a useful category, by its various qualities, such as the way it provides totalising simplistic explanations, appeals to people's paranoid urges, gets bogged down in technical details or is "unfalsifiable". "Alternative theory" is a much looser term implying little more than that what is thus labelled is not a view favoured by the "majority" (however you define that).
To call all dissenting interpretations of the 9/11 events "conspiracy theories" is to say that they all, without exception possess the defining qualities of a "conspiracy theory". This would mean that the view that "the Bush adminstration knew it was going to happen and did nothing to stop it" is a totalising, simplistic and technically convoluted view just as would be that the shape-shifting Illuminati space-lizards did it with holograms, bumble planes and mini-nukes. Has anyone actually demonstrated this? In what way is such a view totalising, simplistic and more technically convoluted than the official explanation? If this cannot be demonstrated then "conspiracy theory" cannot be an adequate container for all the non-standard accounts of 9/11 and must be abandoned.
And please do not respond to this challenge by redefining "conspiracy theory" to suit. Either it implies all the qualities ascribed to it or it doesn't. There is no inbetween. Anyone who makes scornful or contemptuous jibes at those they see as conspiracy theorists, as many of the contributors to discussions such as these do, is disqualified from asserting that "conspiracy theorist" is a relatively neutral term. Furthermore anyone who does this is also disqualified from asserting that the use of the term in the title of an article such as this is not profoundly offensive to people such as me who believe some of those "conspiracy theories".
That "conspiracy theorists" do sometimes try to work with that label, often to turn it back upon their accusers (hence "official conspiracy theory" etc.) does not justify its use. Consider, for example, the various African American uses of the word "nigger". This would in no way justify calling the African American article "Nigger" (I know that "nigger" would be inappropriate for other reasons as well, but that is beside the point). I'm not suggesting that "conspiracy theorist" is at all as offensive as "nigger", but highly offensive it is nonetheless.
Speaking for myself, I occasionally describe myself to people as a "conspiracy theorist", but the reason for this is simply to communicate how it feels, not only to hold beliefs about the way our world works that are sometimes overwhelmingly horrible, but to be marginalised and ridiculed for them to boot. With this in mind, if all those who oppose my proposal can convince me that they truly respect my views, and that they consider me to be an intelligent, fair-minded and thoughtful person, I will withdraw it. Ireneshusband 23:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep as is -- no endorsement for name change. We don't get to choose the name -- we just get to parrot what reputable sources call it, and they call it a conspiracy theory. That trumps all efforts to apply your original research.
Morton devonshire
01:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
"what reputable sources call it..."
No name change. Please read what I write. I did NOT say we were to avoid usage of loaded terms. In fact, I said quite the opposite: "It isn't our job not to use loaded terms - its our job to present reality in a neutral manner." Calling these things anything other than conspiracy theories is to NOT present reality in a neutral manner. Some people are under the incredibly mistaken impression that NPOV gives equal credence to every viewpoint; in fact, it does nothing of the sort. NPOV is a neutral point of view. We use reputable sources. Our reputable sources call these 9/11 conspiracy theories. Ergo, we are required to use the term as it is the most common term for it, even among experts! The consensus of our sources is that these ARE conspiracy theories. We are to use the most common name for it. The most common name is 9/11 conspiracy theories. Not hoaxes, not "hypothesis", not "alternate theories for 9/11". All of these are POV. 9/11 conspiracy theories is not. According to the rules of Wikipedia, this article should be called 9/11 conspiracy theories. As I pointed out, they ARE conspiracy theories, and to label them anything else is disingenous. Before arguing for a name change, please read the rules of Wikipedia and understand them. They are clear on this point. And, as an aside, I've had numerous professors at a top 20 university cite Wikipedia as a reference. Titanium Dragon 10:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
It is important to note that these are conventions, not rules carved in stone. As Wikipedia grows and changes, some conventions that once made sense may become outdated, and there may be cases where a particular convention is "obviously" inappropriate. But when in doubt, follow convention. ( Wikipedia:Naming_conventions)
Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. ( Wikipedia:Naming_conventions)
Many older articles use the term Mormonism in reference to Latter Day Saint doctrines, belief systems, or cultures. For example:
* Mormonism and Christianity * Mormonism and Judaism
However, this term is now discouraged because it may been seen as inaccurate or offensive by members of several Latter Day Saint movement denominations, such as the Community of Christ. { wikipedia:Naming conventions (Latter Day Saints))
In other words, while going with what the majority of English speakers would recognise is the general guideline, this is not set in stone, and situations may arise where other considerations take prececence. That an article may cause offence has already been established as just such a case.
That said, the reason for the guideline about going with what the majority of speakers would recognise is in order to avoid ambiguity and make linking to the articles "second nature". Now even if "9/11 (alternative theories)" is not the term most familiar to English speakers, I fail to see how anyone could be confused by it. In any case, as I have said several times already, since the old title will redirect to the new title, there is absolutely no reason whatever for anybody to get confused of lost, any more than a person looking for "Mormonism" would be confused to find an article on "Latter Day Saints". Surely the fact that "Mormonism" is considered offensive is just the kind of information somebody would go to such an article to find out.
Descriptive names
Choose a descriptive name for an article that does not carry POV implications.
For instance, what do we call the controversy over Qur'an handling at Guantanamo Bay? The article is located at Qur'an desecration controversy of 2005. Note that the title makes no statement about who is the (more) guilty party: it does not "give away" that conclusion; in fact the article itself draws no conclusion. Similarly, the article on the September 11, 2001 attacks does not assign responsibility for the attacks in the article name. (from wikipedia:Naming conflict)
Clearly the guidelines favour titles that do not prejudge the conclusions. Since "conspiracy theories" does do so, it fails in this regard. "Alternative theories" on the other hand does not imply that the theories are right, wrong, methodologically sound, methodologically flawed or anything else beyond that those theories are not normally considered to be in the mainstream.
Equally, the prospects for achieving long-term consensus can be complicated by the fact that contributors change over time. At one point, a certain group of contributors may agree to use one name, but this group only represents the view of the particular sub-community of editors that exists at that time. When new contributors arrive, they are faced with the choice of reopening the discussion (thus diminishing the weight of the opinions of their predecessors), or sticking to the old consensus (which deprives the new contributors of a chance to have their say). In short, no consensus represents the voices of all the contributors to a given article. Following a permanently established objective procedure that does not rely on a fleeting consensus gets around this problem. ( wikipedia:Naming conflict)
This means, among other things, that it is unfair to blame newly arrived editors when the same naming debate comes up for the umpteenth time. The guidelines that exist to prevent this happening clearly favour names that are not offensive and that do not prejudge the various arguments and positions outlined within them. All I ask is that the article be renamed to something that is reasonably self-explanatory, that doesn't cause offense and that doesn't prejudge its content. Why is this so hard for so many of you? Ireneshusband 13:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep as is: We've had this discussion before, and no new arguements or evidence have been provided. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
* Replicability— The conclusions of the source can be reached using the information available and there is no indication of gaps in the thinking or process of derivation. Essentially, this criterion asks if there are any leaps of faith in the source: (from WP:RS)
Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory Tom Harrison Talk 16:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
The Google test has always been and very likely always will remain an extremely inconsistent tool, which does not measure notability. It is not and should never be considered definitive. ( wikipedia:Google test)
I have raised numerous pertinent points from the guidelines but no one who still opposes this motion is willing to address them. Instead we have seen tactics such as citation of non-existent guidelines, personal insults and so on. And behind it all is the slippery phrase "conspiracy theory" which no one who uses it is willing to define clearly. Ireneshusband 20:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok, let met state my exact view of this. Obviously from what I've said above I do not think the name should be changed. I do believe there is a very slight element of POV in the title, which would push us into the other areas of policy, but I do not believe that it is anywhere serious enough to warrant a change and is currently small subjective arguement entirely. I believe that this still falls under the "Policy in a nutshell" on WP:NC where yhe article name is simple the most common term in the english language. I believe we can cite multiple reliable sources using the term in reference to theories involving 9/11 (Per Popular Mechanics CBC ABC time CNN 9/11 Truth) and virtually none for the other(I belive that International Herald Tribune used it but I do not have a link to the article at this moment and I would, and 9/11 truth has most likely used it before aswell). I think that we can also use the google test to help reinforce which is more common. I think it's obvious which term is more common. Now, if there is a term, which I am obviously unaware of that is just a common as "conspiracy theories" to describe these theories I would support a change to that term. -- Wildnox (talk) 00:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Why don't each camp list below their own beliefs/reasons for change/no change. But list just each reason in one sentence, list more then 1 reason if you want, but do each as a seperate line. Having done this we can have a subsection for each point and debate a single point at a time. Instead of each side rambling on with paragraph after paragraph just arguing semantics and policy. Then we will see what each and everyones points are instead of having to read war & peace, then translate it into Greek, via russian, spanish and Swahili
Here is a list of differnt sources which could be used in the debate by either side. I'll add more later. Some were already mentioned above some are new. I just thought it would be nice if people actually had some reliable sources to use, since almost nobody had used any yet.
Popular Mechanics CBC ABC time CNN New York Times 9/11 Truth - All describe using "conspiracy"
U.S. Department of State Washington Post - Both using both terms in one article.
International Herald Tribune skeptic.com - Both describe using "alternative"
IL- has a picture with CNN using the term "alternative theories" in a poll
Denver post USA Today- Call the term derogatory
Feel free to add more-- Wildnox (talk) 04:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, Wildnox, for this very helpful research. I have the following to add:
Please I would like to remind everyone to be civil, calm down and avoid personal jibes at other editors. In particular the current round of discussion on the name proposed name change.
Like the 9/11 article, this corresponding CT article obviously invokes some anguish.
Can I ask all editors to make short replies about an individual point, rather than make a long reply that gets into different arguments, that will make thread following simpler for us all, and allow for single points to be discussed and reasoned on. Statements such as "Conspiracy theories are the intellectual toxic waste poisoning contemporary democratic civil society" do not help and only act to inflame a highly contentious issue. (In not making an example of any one editor in particular and apologise if using that statement suggests I am having a go). The article as a whole is very good, and of course can always be improved. Good Editing " Snorkel | Talk" 11:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I have been doing a lot of digging around into previous discussions related to the topic of changing the name of this article and similar articles. Similar discussions have been made before this. A good place to refer y'all to first is Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory. Take a look at the talk pages, including the archives. Especially look at Wikipedia_talk:Conspiracy_theory/archive2. The 1.0 proposal failed, and the newer 2.0 proposal is here User:Zen-master/Conspiracy theory titles. As far as this article goes, it seems that it has been moved once already, for slightly over 1 hour. [6] The edit summary here refers to the archive2 link I listed above. I haven't had the time to read through all of this yet, but many of the same arguments raised here are raised there also. Work on the 2.0 proposal seems to have died about a year ago. Perhaps it is time to resurrect it again. The value of the proposal is that it helps set guidelines for a larger range of articles and establishes a precedent in case a similar discussion happens again. Please note that there was no consensus on the 1.0 proposal and much of the debate is somewhat summarized there. I say somewhat because I haven't taken the time to peruse the archives more thoroughly. Umeboshi 01:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Following on from Snorkel's suggestion (above) to break the argument up into little bits, I think the place to start would be... Ireneshusband 05:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Without a decent working definition of "conspiracy theory" we will get nowhere. It is up to the opposers to agree on one because they are the ones who maintain it is an "accurate" name for whatever it is this article is supposed to be about.
Here are a few questions for starters: Add you replies to each one indivually and under each Q
21 December 2006 (UTC)
Ireneshusband 05:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
This policy in a nutshell:
There is (still) a consensus to keep the page name as it is. While it is in principle legitimate to try to change policy to not allow "conspiracy theory" in page titles, or to edit Wikipedia:Words to avoid to include 'conspiracy theory', or to change the definition of 'conspiracy theory' or otherwise edit conspiracy theory, or to do any of a dozen other things, forum shopping is frowned on and is rarely sucessful. Tom Harrison Talk 13:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Why are we re-visiting this issue again? Hasn't this been decided half-a-dozen-times? Isn't this continue rehashing of this very issue the reason that Zen-master was perma-banned? Morton devonshire 19:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I found the following on my talk page:
Hello, Ireneshusband. I realise that some of my remarks on the talk page of that 9/11 article may be a little biting. It is not my intention to cause personal upset, but I do believe strongly in shooting a straight arrow and not diluting my sincerity simply in order to get along. That being said, I apologise if you are insulted by my remarks — I shall be making the most Herculean of efforts to be more civil in future engagements. Rosenkreuz 22:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
So why didn't Rosenkreuz see fit to make his apology known on these talk pages? In fact this "apology" was only offered after another user reprimanded him ( user_talk:Rosenkreuz#Civility).
I have attempted, to the best of my ability, to assume good faith on the part of all contributors to this discussion, and in many case this has been reciprocated. However the conduct of several other editors, who have made repeated recourse to personal attacks and even veiled threats that I might be banned from wikipedia, has been nothing short of disgraceful.
Rosenkreuz made a barbed reference to my "chums", but the behaviour of the opponents of this motion comes across as rather chummy does it not?
Let me repeat, few of the core arguments I raised were challenged, and even those challenges that were raised were no more than either bare and unsupported assertions of personal opinion or empty tautologies. Nor have those points been challenged, by the looks of things, in previous incarnations of the debate. A proper, honest and thorough debate on changing the name of this article has never taken place. Ireneshusband 18:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I can tell you feel exasperated, and that is not my intention. Let me try to address the reasoning with Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia is not about my opinions or yours, but what reputable and verifiable sources of note have said about any given subject. See
WP:RS,
WP:Verify,
WP:NPOV,
WP:NOR, and
WP:EL as a starter. We choose the term "conspiracy theory", because that's the way these theories are described almost universally in reputable sources. They may be called "alternative theories" in advocacy journals and websites, but those sources don't count under our
WP:NPOV and
WP:RS rules and guidelines, because, well, they are advocacy sites. Keep in mind that there advocacy sites on the other side which use much more pejorative terms to describe the Truth Movement viewpoint, and nobody is suggesting that we start using those pejorative terms to describe the Truth Movement theories here, as those sources violate
WP:NPOV,
WP:RS, and
WP:NOR as well. Policy bottom line: If these theories were almost universally called "alternative theories" in reputable sources, that's what we would call them here, but they're not. Our job is to mimic and mirror reputable sources, not to try to advocate our own beliefs in an article. The foundation of Wikipedia is built upon
WP:NPOV,
WP:Verify, and
WP:NOR. For that reason, we have to call it what reputable sources call it: "conspiracy theories." Thank you for listening.
Morton Devonshire
Yo
01:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Am I the only user who thinks the external links section needs to be cleaned? I'm not sure what should go and what should stay, but I know there is no reason to have that many links in this article. -- Wildnox (talk) 22:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I changed "Flight 93 Never Crashed" to "Claims that Flight 93 never crashed" for two reasons.
Have a great day! :) Srose (talk) 04:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
According to the N.Y. Times The first President Bush recalled Mr. Ford’s service on the Warren Commission, which investigated the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. “And the conspiracy theorists can say what they will, but the Warren Commission report will always have the final, definitive say on this tragic matter,” Mr. Bush said. “Why? Because Jerry Ford put his name on it, and Jerry Ford’s word was always good.” [7] While not directly related to 9/11 conspiracies the remark touched off extended musings by Chris Matthews on MSNBC. Basically he was perplexed on where this remark came from. He and his guests theorized he was defending "the establishment" or defending the need for an elite. But you could tell that Matthews was only partially convinced of his own theories on why the remarks were in the eulogy. He said you should not believe conspiracy theories until they are proven which I have no problem with. The problem I have is that the Bush Bin Ladin family conspiracy theories did not jump to his mind immediately. This defiantly was one of those moments you want jump into the TV and shake his neck. He is not a stupid or naive man. Indeed a little latter there was an extended discussion on why Matthews and Evan Thomas of Newsweek thought there was a “wink” “wink” deal between Ford and Nixon on the pardon. I guess this is another demonstration how out of touch the Washington Media is with the audience they are reporting to. I know this is a rant that has no article worthy material but this "audience" seems the most knowlegible one to deliver it to. 69.114.117.103 19:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)
This article is crap, so how do I delete it?-- Beguiled 20:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I now see the hopw to page on article deletion, but don't understand it. Can someone help me get this article deleted?-- Beguiled 21:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Someone else pointed that out to me, but I imagine I will mess things up by trying to go through that lengthy process. Wikipedia is in serious trouble if these kinds of articles are becoming the norm.-- Beguiled 22:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I just think that the article makes Wikipedia look like something other than an encyclopedia.-- Beguiled 22:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I left Beguiled a note on her talk page about how deletion works. I think some of the disagreement comes from our different understandings. To me, this page is about a particular type of sociological phenomenon. Others I think see it as a vehicle to either get the truth out, or to spread lies about 9/11. A few I'm afraid see it as a promotional vehicle. These differing perspectives will continue to cause tension. The way to deal with it is to remember we are all human (except these guys) - take it as easy as we can and keep it civil, and nuke to oblivion any links that try to use the page to sell a dvd. Considering the material, we do okay most of the time. Tom Harrison Talk 01:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
With the the new congress all references relating to Rep. Curt Weldon should be changed to former Rep. Curt Weldon 69.114.117.103 06:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)
Wikipedia dislikes copyright violations to the extent that referncing one is also considered bad practice. There is a move currently to remove all references to Youtube, google video, etc precisely because these are, generally, copyvios. This means that several of the references in this article are likely to be removed by those unfamiliar with the content.
It would be far better if an editor who is active in the article removed them one by one and migrated the references where possible to non copyvio references. Fiddle Faddle 08:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Just a note, but there is no ban on linking to YouTube or Google Video. Take each link on a one by one basis. If it links to a site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Please add relevant material from YouTube and Google Video that is not in violation of the owners copyright. This site benefits greatly from that.
— Slipgrid 06:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I thought the latest work of federal authorities on Wikipedia would be of interest to editors of this article. That these feds do not allow sources from anyone outside the Bush administration has long been their policy by fiat. Now they refuse to even allow other views to be discussed on the article’s talk page. After entering into an edit war where authorities repeatedly blanked threads discussing "unofficial" sources. To end the edit war, authorities have now protected the page so that only sysops (mostly[?] federal agents) can edit the discussion. I'm not talking about the article being fully protected, I'm talking about the article’s associated discussion page.
The notation “edit=sysop:move=sysop” means that only sysops may edit or move this page. Semi-protection is when autoconfirmed accounts may edit the page.This is unprecedented on Wikipedia as far as I know. No one else is welcome there now. You're free to read what the sysops say (if you love boredom), but no one else can post their views or discuss the article. Nothing is working on Wikipedia the way we've been told. Something must be done. Please help address this infestation of Wikipedia by what Wikipedia now dubs Clowns. -- ScabbinOnTheAngels 08:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Seems ridiculous to now have TWO separate 9/11 CT templates. I'm removing the new one where I see it. Please do not create new templates which have no input -- at least delete the old template or we could just fill the pages will an ongoing series of "templates," each with partial lists of links to random "categories." bov 21:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Image:EricWithoutHat.jpg should it be included in the article that this person supports the 9/11 conspiracy?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.69.63.254 ( talk • contribs).
Reference 197, "
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/21/national/21OHIO.html" brings us to a login page. Should it be removed, or replaced with another source ?
FiP
Как вы думаете?
03:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
The current introduction reads:"The mainstream scientific community does not support the controlled demolition hypothesis and U.S. officials, mainstream journalists, and mainstream researchers have concluded that responsibility for the attacks rests solely with Al Qaeda." This is far too propagandist to be allowed to remain in the article which should be balanced in accord with standard editorial policy. Firstly, quoting a statement from NIST's Bush/Cheney advocates does not qualify as a valid assertion that the mainstream scientific community do not believe that WTC was brought down with demolition charges. If you want to put such a claim in the article you must provide evidence to prove that the majority of these 'specialists' - as the NIST authors characterise them - do not believe the demolition hypothesis to be credible. It is true that mainstream journalists have been rather uncritical in their reportage of 9/11 but as for 'mainstream researchers', it is unclear to whom the author of this sentence refers. Even a cursory look by the most modest intellect at the first-hand evidence in the public domain highlights major shortcomings and anomalies in the official propaganda. Every serious researcher I have encountered has concluded the Zelikow commission report to be utterly false and disingenuous avoiding all the important evidence which flatly contradicts the favoured official story. The belief that the attacks were committed by Al Qaeda is one that has been vigourously promoted and repeated but for which there is no evidence whatsoever, certainly none that would stand up in a court of law. It is therefore biased and, of course propagandist, that this sentence remain in the introduction. User:Langdell 23rd January 2007
It's not a case of not liking the source. It is rather that the NIST report does not represent the views of the scientific community as it claims to do. Anybody with a knowledge of elementary physics knows that those three buildings (especially WTC7) did not come down at free fall speed due to fire or structural damage caused by the impact of the aircraft (WTC7 received no impacts from anything at all). The NIST spokespeople who have authored the document to which the footnote refers have done an admirable job of mystification to persuade ordinary mortals who do not have degrees in structural engineering that they do not have the insiders' knowhow to make their own minds up. But many a schoolboy will tell you that buildings do not fall down in such a manner because the laws of physics will not permit them. The World Trade Centre was one of the most structurally robust buildings ever built - designed to withstand far more serious disasters than fire and aircraft collision. But all this is superfluous. Anybody with any sense knows that even less robust buildings do not fall at freefall speed without controlled demolition. Every account of the evidence which contradicts the official propaganda is called a 'conspiracy theory'. But the 9/11 Commission Report is also a conspiracy theory but nobody bothers to point this out. Actually, one does not need even to develop a theory about the events of September 11th 2001 to know that there is a policy of disinformation; one has only to check the primary sources (video footage, eyewitness testimony etc) to know that the Commission has deliberately faslsified evidence that is available in the public domain. But though this evidence is there for people to see, people do not bother to check for themselves. So, for example, the claim that the September 11th attacks were perpetrated by Al Qaeda is well-known and widely held but such a claim is not supported by any available evidence. Given this fact, claims that responsibility for the attacks lie 'solely with Al Qaeda' should be qualified by a statement that conveys this fact to the reader. Otherwise Wikipedia becomes an agent of state propaganda. Best wishes. User:Langdell Tuesday 23rd January
"Mainstream Researchers" is to vague a term. NIST did use many scientists knowledgeable in the field. The Academics that are skeptics or have alternative theories on the of the official theory have for the most part not been experts. So if "mainstream scientists" might be a bit strong a rewording of that phrase if it is to be accurate will not be a radical change. As for "mainstream media" I have argued why that description is dead accurate in earlier discussions. Indeed many conspiracy theorists have expressed repeated frustration at the mainstream worlds unwillingness to look at alternative theories. So the bottom line is while the the wording could use some tweaking its basic thrust is correct. 69.114.117.103 07:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)
Very funny.
The claim that the laws of physics somehow preclude a tall, skinny burning building from collapsing the way it did is a smokescreen. As is the veneer of sophistication adopted by those whose real purpose is to argue that the U.S. government conspired to secretly destroy the World Trade Center complex and attack itself. The "physics" claims are debunked here.-- Mr. Billion 18:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
There is a dispute over Template:911ct; it should be removed until we reach some sort of consensus. Lovelight 04:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I believe that [[Category:Alternative theories of September 11, 2001 attacks]] should be changed to [[Category:Alternative theories of September 11, 2001 attacks:*]], as this is clearly the main article of that category. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
In Trivia "mr" should be "Mr." and "...." between Muslims" and "naturally" should be a comma as "...." generally means that text is being skipped over.
I have very serious concirns about this artical, it piles together a whole series of non-notibal theorys which contradict each other, many of which are presented as near fact, with very little explanation as to the fact that EVERY one has been destroyed by evidence, and experts. I would have put on the NPOV tag, but i can't. -- Boris 1991 18:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Tom Harrison Talk 22:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
In the section "Pentagon not hit by an airplane" there is a "citation needed" tag for the statement:
The first person to suggest that a missile hit the Pentagon was Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in an interview on October 12, 2001
The citation for this is:
<ref>{{cite web|title=DoD News: Secretary Rumsfeld Interview with Parada Magazine |date=October 12, 2001 |publisher=Parade Magazine (republished by Defense Department) |url=http://web.archive.org/web/20011119092506/http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Nov2001/t11182001_t1012pm.html}}</ref>
Please input this, thank you. --
Nuclear
Zer0
00:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Thats more of a major edit, maybe together we can come up with a wording. How about expanding it to say:
Please also note the admin adding the citation is not endorsing, to have information added you should use the correct template. --
Nuclear
Zer0
14:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure I'm the millionth person to point this out, but the "official version" is the very definition of a conspiracy theory, involving as it does a plurality of people working together to bring about the attacks, the facts of which remain unproven. So this article should also have a section dedicated to the official version, linking to the main article. Or better still rename this one.
Straussian 13:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
24.17.180.126 09:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I largely agree with that last remark. The question is: what would it mean to deal with these issues OUTSIDE this page? Until now, this page has served mainly as a lightning rod against "disruptions" of the September 11 attacks article and the collapse of the World Trade Center article (and some related pages). I'm beginning to think, however, that many of the facts that are only reported here would make useful contributions to the "main" (or mainstream) articles. That's the real challenge now. I.e., to get some of the close reading of the official record that is the preferred domain of conspiracy theorists into the articles where (and how) they belong. Reading the non-CT articles (at least until recently) one got the impression that the main thing that went wrong on 9/11 happened in the hearts of the terrorists.-- Thomas Basboll 10:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I would like to have someone add a link to these pages. Change the titles if you wish.
The South Park reference should be moved to the "Trivia" section, as it offers no real criticism.-- Harpakhrad11 21:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
It is my humble view that we should try to be objective. When doing this, we should ONLY focus on the EXISTENCE of the theories and their CONTENTS. Only by doing this can we avoid disputes about the truthness of the theories. In fact, we can rule them out. This is an article about opinions, and opnions ABOUT opinions have no place here.
This approach has been a success on the norwegian discussion page, and I ask for someone to take the same stand here. it is easy: Does something written in the article help with regard to the focus on EXISTENCE and CONTENTS of the theories? No? Rule it out. This is true objectivity!
It is of course important to take the same stand in both directions: existence and content...
Later, Norwegian user Torb255 :-)
I propose the above name change, of course with a redirect from the current title. I believe, looking at the ongoing discussion, that no one in good faith can deny that the current title, although maybe formally accurate, is pejorative in nature. And, I wish to add, modern semantics states that the "meaning" of a term should include not only its formal referent(s), but also its social, psychological and historical implications as defined by pragmatics. So, in this sense the current title is probably not accurate enough. On the other hand, please refrain from presenting polls showing that, in some region/state/city, opposing views are actually held by a majority. Here, "minority view" is meant in the broadest possible sense, i.e. worldwide, or "a minority of in principle reliable sources and/or researchers". But meanwhile, it avoids the post hoc refutation that a source is labeled as unreliable because of the very fact that it supports a "conspiracy theory". I believe that this term is neutral, informative and accurate.
I am unaware of whether this suggestion has been made in the past. Even if so, this is probably irrelevant because 1) it was probably done using different arguments and 2) the 9/11 events are the most important single event of the first decade of the XXI century, as almost all history from then on can be said to originate one way or another from it. Its significance is probably starting to fade about now or in a couple of years from now. So, it will be studied for centuries and many different interpretations will be given. And therefore, use of language regarding it will change, gradually losing its emotional and ideological aspects and becoming more and more scientific. So, even if this term was proposed and rejected say 2 years ago, which I do not know, I ask you please to write a rational rebuttal here and now and not refer to past discussions, even if your views on the title have remained identical. Massimamanno 10:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Agree The phrase 'Conspiracy theory' carries strong connotative meanings of unreasonable paranoia on the part of the theorists, despite the fact that the denotative definitions of the separate words lack those meanings.
When name change is considered in a cost-benefit analysis, the article wins neutrality and loses no audience because the current "conspiracy theory" title can be redirected, with cost so small that it can be considered zero for all practical purposes. The price of change is that someone must expend the effort.
If the status quo is kept, no one needs to spend the energy of change. However, the title will retain non-neutrality.
Are there any costs or benefits I have missed? If not, the only decision to be made is:
By this standard, it should be done by someone, but for me, the cost of changing it myself is too high, as I am new to wiki editing. I don't know that I could do it correctly, or that I've even got authority to do it on a subject of such important controversy. Though I would be bold and do it if "bravery" is all that is required. Still, it is prudent to wait and see if anyone can show this cost-benefit analysis is incomplete. If not, I will try to change the article myself next month.
Once changed, the cost-benefit of reversion would balance an editors effort cost vs. the benefit of a loss of neutrality, which makes no sense, so it is probable that the article would stay named "alternative theories". -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ace Frahm ( talk • contribs). 14:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone feel like the article places too much emphasis on MIHOP theories, like controlled demolition, and too little on LIHOP theories, such as surrounding Bush's earlier orders to the Civil Air Patrol. In fact, there are very few people who believe MIHOP theories, but the Zogby polls shows that quite a lot of people tacitly suppose LIHOP theories, so LIHOP its much more notable than MIHOP and should not be drowned out. I don't know how to fix this, but the MIHOP types will always write more, so maybe the article can be split or else long MIHOP parts moved off into their own article?
For example, controlled demolition already has its own article so surely we can shorten its section here. And surely theories about nukes or energy weapons don't deserve more than one sentence here (as they are part of that other article and quite a fringe thing).
Now most other MIHOP sections don't have their own article already, but they are long enough to survive as independent article. Seperating some of the longer stranger ones will make the LIHOP stuff far more readable. What do peopel think? JeffBurdges 19:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
My point was that these sections really are long enough. Even the stuff on controlled demolition here is long enough for its own article, and it already has its own article! It really should be trimmed down. Otoh, LIHOP stuff, like around the Civil Air Patrol, doesn't even get mentioned. JeffBurdges 02:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
With regards to the Silverstein's slip of the tongue and building 7: The FEMA report (May, 2002) states that: "no manual firefighting operations were taken by FDNY." Therefore the man couldn't have "Rescue Me" on the mind, now could he? And about Flight 93, why is there no reference to the Rumsfelds (mis)fortunate flow of thoughts? The man said: "the people who… …shot down the plane over Pennsylvania". Don't you think that such takes deserve to be enlisted in the article? Lovelight 19:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
The citation used for that statement in this wiki article does not seem to contain that 'fact'. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.170.96.119 ( talk • contribs) 06:46, 15 February 2007.
Since there is no quote I am not sure what this is reffering to, but since you reverted me I would also like an explanation for this one
[8]. Thank you. PS do not move this, MONGO states its the proper place for this question since its about the article and he will only answer it here =) --
Nuclear
Zer0
13:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Dear Tom Harrison,
As I am not clever enough to use a talk page to correct the "9/11 Conspiracy Theories" article, I am appealing to you to correct what it says about me
In a Wikipedia article on “9/11 Conspiracy Theories,” the following false statement is made about me.
"Peter Dale Scott points out what he says are similarities between the assassination of JFK and the events of 9/11. Among many arguments he makes is that on September 11, at 9:59 the FBI already had names of 3 out of the 4 hijackers of Flight 93, at which time NORAD, according to the 9/11 Commission, wasn't yet aware that Flight 93 had been hijacked. (This Scott finds similar to the situation when Oswald's description was released immediately after the JFK assassination).[32]"
(“9/11 conspiracy theories,” Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories)
I accept full responsibility for having originated this error, because I did make this claim in an hour-long talk on 18 November 2007. However, as I no longer trust the source I used for the claim, I no longer make it. On the contrary, in my edited text of my remarks (posted on December 20, 2006) I restated my remarks about the FBI’s identifications on 9/11, to eliminate the reference to the Flight 93 hijackers:
"Now the parallel to that for 9/11 is, I have to say, even more astounding, because of Richard Clarke, who was director for counter-terrorism activities in the White House, and a very important eyewitness. His book Against All Enemies is almost totally ignored by the 9/11 Commission, and it had to be ignored by the Commission because it is at odds, in many important respects, with what the 9/11 Report says (which I will get back to). But he tells us that at 9:59 am on September 11, which is the time when the second tower collapses, the North Tower, the FBI already had a list of the alleged hijackers. [5] "This is extraordinary in the first place because the FBI always says about itself that it doesn’t do much intelligence in the field of terrorism; its specialty is criminal investigation afterwards. They had the names of hijackers at 9:59; at 9:59 am Flight 93 had not yet crashed. And even more astonishingly, if we believe the 9/11 Report (which of course on this point I do not believe), NORAD, which was searching for the hijacked planes, wasn’t aware that Flight 93 had been hijacked until 10:08, which is nine minutes later." (“JFK and 9/11: Insights Gained from Studying Both,” by Dr. Peter Dale Scott, Global Research, December 20, 2006, http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=SCO20061220&articleId=4207) It is clear that I am not now making the claim which the Wikipedia article attributes to me in the present tense, citing my original talk as given, but not my corrected text.
I would like to say that in general I am admirer of Wikipedia’s concept and process, and have belatedly come to use it as a research resource. I would say the same of the article on “9/11 Conspiracy Theories.” Even though there are many details in the article I disagree with, I would commend the article on the whole as a conscientious collective effort to grope towards a consensus view.
But I do not now make the claim about the three hijackers on Flight 93 which the article attributes to me in the present tense. More importantly, I do not now believe the claim. I would therefore be grateful to have the entire paragraph removed, as it is a disservice to the truth. I trust I will not need to seek legal assistance towards this end.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.131.180.192 ( talk • contribs).
BBC are making a programme called 9/11: The Conspiracy Files to be shown on Sunday 18 February 9pm British time. It's receiving first page coverage on the website as well so might lead to wider interest. 80.47.81.214 15:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
We could add an external link, unless people object. Tom Harrison Talk 15:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Will this program be downloadable or eventually air on BBC America? 69.114.117.103 14:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC) (Ed Kollin)
Yep, seen it on google videos, not very good i thought but hey. just search 911 conspiracy files on google videos and it comes up. DanCrowter 14:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
This page has been protected for a while (since January 25). Editing warring was over the template, but think/hope we are beyond that and we can try going back to semi-protection? -- Aude ( talk) 19:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
The contended UFO-reference offend obviously against the policy of No original research. Where is the context to 9/11? Please cite authors who try to debunk 9/11 conspiracy theories and who cite this poll as an argument. Otherwise we have a context implicated by wiki-authors, which is undoubtedly irregular!-- 87.78.80.234 18:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
It's time to wind up this curiously paranoid phenomenon in the civil discourse of our times. The conspiracy stories are all wrong. All of them. The government is not out to get you. Never was. Never will be. There are sometimes things which happen which are particularly sad, and particularly hurtful to people who have already been victimized by tragedy, and so some of the saddest particulars are not necessarily discussed by responsible people, out of respect or general understanding that it is not their job to bring it up or go on about it. They leave it for another time, for someone else to deal with when the time is right. 9/11 did, in fact, contain some of those sad elements. None of them, however, involved government plans to do wrong. Most of the conspiracy stories are simply paranoid, or at best total misinterpretations of the evidence. One story, for example, which has been making the rounds is the Russo fright about the new identity cards. If you are reading this, you are using a computer. That means the government already has the means to do everything Russo says the identity cards will introduce as some sort of new threat to your personal security. Has the government censored you, erased you, taken away your bank accounts, or otherwise done anything to interfere with your life? No. And they're not going to. It's your government, for heaven's sake. The only thing new about the identity card is this: it is hard to counterfeit, and should slow down identity theft and slow down counterfeit identity crimes. That's about all. The people who have believed in conspiracy stories will wake up one day and realize that they have been a bit crazy and made fools of themselves. They have also scared a few people unnecessarily, at a time when we are all trying to overcome a real scary thing, which is the cult of radical religious violence. Pull yourselves together and give your heads a shake... you've got a great country, and the many efforts your government has made, and is making, to establish your greater security, or prepare for possibly large sudden problems like 9/11 presented, may not be the most brilliant or may never be required, but at least they're trying to be a little bit ready for anything. I agree with the girl who said this discussion should be erased... a simple and direct suggestion from somebody with plain old common sense. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.216.236.248 ( talk • contribs) 17:35, 21 February 2007.
Any suggestions?
Tomandlu 09:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the new title, with capital letters, is consistent with Wikipedia:Naming conventions. I plan to move it back. Tom Harrison Talk 13:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
This is a double post intended to increase the visibility of this talk. I hope you don't mind I really want answers to this.
I didn't believe the conspiracy theories at first; but now I don't know.
I was hoping some of you experienced wikipedians can try to figure out why no one is questioning the passenger manifest.
The passenger manifest must be compiled before a plane takes off; yet the official passenger manifest fluctuated for over a month after 9/11.
What's more, the majority of the dead "passengers" have no family members coming forward to either accept government compensation or saying anything to the media, the blogosphere, and various other 'internets'. The people related to those dead at ground zero are very vocal in comparison.
Also, there are no arabic names on the passenger manifest. 19 arabic "hijackers" could not have snuck onboard all these planes.
Also, can somebody verify if two people who were reported dead on the plane (and their families recieved mysteriously undamaged id and credit cards) but weren't on the passenger manifest actually existed?
Please I think this is the most telling piece of evidence against the corrupt Bush administration.
Surely you've noticed, like I have, that the relative dearth of passenger relatives indicates a fabricated list of passengers!
http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm
Why does the nose of a commercial airliner look like the thin sliver of a nose that is more indicative of a small plane or missile?
The 9/11 mysteries one.
How could you watch that and dismiss the so-called "conspiracy theories"
Hey ho.
I know that the article is already very long, so maybe this detail won't make the cut. But there is a new (to me) allegation that the BBC had foreknowledge about 9/11 or at least the demolition of WTC7. There is a video allegedly showing a BBC reporter discussing the collapse of WTC7 twenty minutes before it occurred and with a standing WTC7 in the background.
See www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/260207building7.htm]. Phiwum 13:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
We're up to 114k, 72 seconds to download the total page over a 56K modem [9]. We might want to start thinking of logical places to start splitting data out. Ronabop 06:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Someone should take every name on the passenger lists and try to confirm their existence.
It would be a lot harder for the conspiracy to be true if everyone on the list actually existed and died at that time; and has relatives to confirm this.
As far as I'm aware only a few relatives are known (especially the pilots wives odd enough).
I dunno I just want to find something to help bring Bush down and the only way I can think is to plunge into the internets.
What is the issue with the inclusion of this refuation of the space beams?
"physicist Greg Jenkins has written a refutation of the energy beam claims in a letter [1] to the Journal of 9/11 Studies."
What is the violation? Please explain. bov 02:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
It is self-evident that the title is POV and a smear, since the word is a smear by definition. Although Al Qaeda terrorists did indeed plot to attack the U.S.(although they would not have succeeded without Administration complicity), saying this is so is not called "conspiracy theory," because "conspiracy theory" is a loaded smear to surreptiotiously call a claim false. This is obviously and heavily POV, and the issue was avoided in the debate through equivocation and side-stepping.
71.221.89.250 06:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
This is more egregious and more undeniably POV. Calling those who claim complicity "conspiracy theorists" is going far beyond merely titling the article "9/11 Conspiracy Theories." To label the claimants themselves as "conspiracy theorists" is to imply that anyone who claims complicity in the attacks, even when based on sound factual evidence, has at best a wild imagination or is at worst schizophrenic. It labels complicity claimants, who are actually a large proportion of the population, as commonly engaged in inducing "conspiracy theories," when this claim has not support whatsoever. It would thus be far more NPOV to call them "those who suggest Administration complicity" or "those who suggest Pakistani and Administration complicity," etc, whatever the case may be.
The article is even written in a way that (intentionally?) repeatedly refers to the "conspiracy theorists," ramming it into the reader's mind that claims of complicity are paranoid nonsense, rather than simply stating the case as it is made.
71.221.89.250 06:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
In the "Basic Argument" section, the article mentions a "government employee by the name of O'Neill". Does he have a first name? I thought it was John P. O'Neill at first, which would have made for a hell of a conspiracy theory. SuperToad64 20:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that would indeed be strange if it were John O'Neill, the FBI Al Qaeda expert who resigned shortly before 9/11, citing repeated blocking of his investigations into Al Qaeda by his superiors, because he was then offered a job in the WTC, where he was killed. Dead men tell no tales...
71.221.89.250 00:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
The article intro does not make a distinction between the conclusions arrived at by alternate-conspiracy theorists, and the underlying factual assertions upon which those conclusions are based. The distinction is relevant and should be made clear. A non-mainstream factual interpretation does not necessarily invalidate a mainstream conclusion as to the ultimate responsibility for the attacks. dr.ef.tymac 02:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Some of these conspiracy theories depend on alternate factual conclusions from public documents, documentary evidence and official statements of the events. Other conclusions originate from speculation and unsubstantiated inference, which is sometimes claimed as necessary since some information has not been made available to the public.