There is an obvious systematic bias in the use of the term 'conspiracy theory' on Wikipedia which should be embarrassing to anyone who values a neutral point of view. Witness the articles Conspiracy theory which devotes its content to a condescending analysis of various examples of Conspiracism; List of alleged conspiracy theories which conflates alleged conspiracies with conspiracy theories but does not include alleged conspiracies which have been proven true; and Conspiracy (crime) which does not mention specific conspiracy allegations. The allegation of conspiracy is presented as 'theory' on Wikipedia. But 'conspiracy theory' is presented as wild speculation. On the other hand 'conspiracy' is presented as a legal standard with no case history. Where is the Wikipedia article on proved conspiracies? Where is the Wikipedia article on factually-based allegations of conspiracy? None of the existing articles that I am aware of presents a neutral point of view on either of these topics.
In which article, for example, should we include references to the San Diego citizens Grand Jury investigation and allegations of conspiracy ( http://stj911.org/paul/SDCGJ_HistoricResults.html) regarding the crimes of September 11, 2001? The September 11, 2001 attacks article will doubtless not take it because it is 'conspiracy theory'. It does not belong in 9/11 conspiracy theories because it is not a 'theory' in the sense of a wild speculation, but a court proceeding. Does this topic deserve a whole article of its own with no reference in any other article? That seems misleading. In fact so do the other two previous articles just mentioned when considering that a factual analysis does not belong in either place. Oneismany 01:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
We certainly do append judgement on the term 'conspiracy theory', whether consciously or not. Under this definition come such theories as those suggesting that the 'rulers of the world' are lizards (hello David Icke) or that the U.S. government are in cahoots with extra-terrestrial beings. In popular culture it is always used to refer to the incredible (I use the word in its literal sense). It was used consistently with reference to 'The X-Files' for example.
So, it has connotations that the term 'alternative account' does not. I thought we wanted scholarly objectivity on Wikipedia: using glib popular terms at the expense of neutrality does not help towards such an aim. Eustace Plimsoll 11:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
You just have to be kidding me with this page. This is one giant straw man argument; you put words into the mouths of the 9/11 Truth Community, with statements like the following:
You say, "conspiracy theorists assume that the 9/11 attacks achieved more-or-less exactly their intended result."
How do you know how many assume, and to what extent?
You seem to be doing an interview, but the persons you are interviewing do not talk, you talk for them, and no rebuttal from the 9/11 Truth People is being allowed.
The conspiracy is not theoretical, it is a fact, and it could be proven beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law. Yet you assume that is a just a theory. It is not theory, and the people of the 9/11 Truth Community are not conspiracy theorist. You claim over and over again that it is just theory, and by theory you mean some sort of wild guess, more or less an unfounded belief, rather than ideas based on facts.
definition a wild guess Edkollin 08:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
You say, "a 9/11 conspiracy theory generally refers to a belief in a broad conspiracy" Now where and how did you get this? Did you do a poll?
This is clearly an attack on the 9/11 Truth Community. To show that you are neutral, you need to remove terms like belief, and theorist, as well as broad generalizations about what the 9/11 Truth Community is saying. An Opinion Editorial is not encyclopedic. It appears to me that you are agents of the conspirators, accessories after the fact, aiding and abetting the criminals, with a propaganda hit piece, and yellow journalism. Treason!
Can I make a page called, "9/11 Goverment Loyalist Theories" ?
Alfons http://www.v911t.org/
Alfons Responds: WP policy is clearly indicated on your 9/11 conspiracy theories page. If you give me the same latitude as that seen in on your 9/11 conspiracy theories page, then I am in, I will not make the "9/11 Government Loyalist Theories" unless I can straw man them, and use broad generalizations to characterize them as the whackos that they are. If you get my drift here I want editorial control in my editorial rebuttal to your 9/11 conspiracy theories page which is clearly an Editorial. Alfons v911t
Alfons Responds: If "Editorializing" of any form is not acceptable, then you need to take this page down, 9/11_conspiracy_theories, or revise it to a great extent. The page is clearly slanted, makes unsubstantiated claims that can only be based upon opinion. It appears that you have arbitrarily decided that the "official story" is correct, and all others are wrong, that is your opinion, and the page in question is your editorial. I am on the side of the Truth, what side are you on? Alfons v911t
Howdy, the article says that the picture does not show the plane impacting, as a matter of fact you have to have a good imagination to say that the small silvery blob is a plane. Thus the image captioning should not claim that the picture shows something when it really does not, it is disrespectful towards the reader. Anyways, this article looks more like a rebuttal than an article. - Lapinmies 13:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree that it is not clear.-- Dcooper 15:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Follow-up: To those who keep changing the caption, and yet do not address the relevant issue here in the discussion page: Please do not present disputed factual matters as though they are not under dispute. Please do not make one-sided characterizations of cited sources, especially if it means omitting content relevant to the subject of this article. Please do not persist with undiscussed and unsupported edits to the article when discussion has been expressly requested.
The caption has been changed back *again* to reflect only non-disputed facts. Supporting rationale follows:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1968910 -- mentions the subject matter of this article, and clearly identifies there is a factual dispute.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/03/07/gen.pentagon.pictures/ -- does not even mention the subject matter of this article. therefore, this cite is not dispositive.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/16/AR2006051600788.html -- mentions the subject matter of this article, clearly identifies there is a factual dispute. For example, the article quotes in relevant part: "I don't hold those [conspiracy theory] viewpoints, but I really don't see how these tapes are going to put anything to rest."
Regardless of your or my personal views, there are some who dispute or question what is seen in the video. The existence of this dispute is documented in mainstream sources. The existence of this dispute is what this article is about.
If you personally consider this dispute and the claims of the disputers to be fundamentally repugnant, then follow WP:AFD. Don't use one-sided characterizations of cited sources. That's simply misleading. It tends to imply the dispute does not exist, and that's why it was necessary to change the caption to present only those matters not under dispute. dr.ef.tymac 02:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Reliable sources describe the video as showing the plane crashing into the Pentagon, for example:
The wording needs to be consistent with reliable sources. -- Aude ( talk) 02:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
The Pentagon videos provide only the briefest glimpse of the plane as it hits the building; the images were recorded on cameras designed to record license plates of vehicles entering the Pentagon grounds and were too slow to capture the airplane's approach. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1968910
Unless someone wants to clarify or explain this, the more accurate wording "do not support the controlled demolition hypothesis" should be re-inserted. As far as I am aware the only still-pending analysis is the detailed review of progressive failure scenario of WTC 7. dr.ef.tymac 20:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), has called for an independent review of NIST’s investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_alan_mil_070820_former_chief_of_nist.htm —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Patfromlogan (
talk •
contribs) 17:17, August 25, 2007 (UTC)
We certainly do append judgement on the term 'conspiracy theory', whether consciously or not. Under this definition come such theories as those suggesting that the 'rulers of the world' are lizards (hello David Icke) or that the U.S. government are in cahoots with extra-terrestrial beings. In popular culture it is always used to refer to the incredible (I use the word in its literal sense). It was used consistently with reference to 'The X-Files' for example.
So, it has connotations that the term 'alternative account' does not. I thought we wanted scholarly objectivity on Wikipedia: using glib popular terms at the expense of neutrality does not help towards such an aim. Eustace Plimsoll 11:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Conspiracy is defined as:
1. A combination of people for an evil purpose; an agreement, between two or more persons, to commit a crime in concert, as treason; a plot. [1913 Webster]
Given such, the accepted theory of Al Qaeda orchestrating the events of 9/11 is a conspiracy theory. Perhaps a better name is in order since it seems that the intent of the article is to summarize unpopular theories of 9/11. I understand that in many cases the vernacular allows for this, however, it is likely that the usage would be pejorative, thus biased. The name should convey the sense that the theories are unlikely, flawed, or otherwise unpopular without ridiculing the people who support the theories.
Edkollin, it is obvious you are here to disrupt this entry in the cause of some brand of 9/11 conspiracy belief. You need to stop. Now. Period. First warning. Carthago delenda est 18:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not really interested in what excuses you allow yourself for attempting to heavily invest POV on a topic you have absolutely zero business editing or contributing to; this is Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia, not your personal online plaything. The very use of the phrase "Project for The New American Century" indicates that you have about as much business editing and/or contributing to this Wiki entry as Karl Rove does on the entry regarding George W. Bush. But, if you persist, I'd be delighted to see this taken to arbitration. Carthago delenda est 04:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Never mind. Carthago delenda est 14:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the name of this article needs to be changed. How bout "the truth about 9/11". In response to these so-called "conspiracies theories" as unpopular, here is a link to a New York Times/CBS poll that shows those who accept the mainstream media are actually in the minority. http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/13469
The Times/CBS poll does not say people reject the fact bin Laden's terrorist attack was responsible for the destruction of 9/11. It says people don't believe the Bush Administration is telling the truth about how they were responding to the potential threat prior to 9/11. MajorRogers 11:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Angelaorders 02:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC) Please add the below information. It is important because in the introduction to this article, it suggests that there is a general consensus among top engineers that the official story is correct. The following points out clearly that is not true, as it lists three of the nation's preeminent engineering experts who believe we've been lied to regarding the NIST investigation and the official story of the collapse of the WTCs.
Former Congressional Office of Technology Assessment Senior Staff Member Calls for New Investigation of 9/11: On Sept. 4, Joel S. Hirschhorn, Ph.D., who served for 12 years as a Senior Staff Member of the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment and later as Director of Environment, Energy and Natural Resources for the National Governors Association, called for a new investigation of 9/11, saying "First, let the technical truth emerge. Then, if necessary, cope with the inevitable political, conspiracy and other questions."
National Academy of Sciences Member Calls for New 9/11 Investigation: On Aug. 27, Lynn Margulis, Ph.D., member of the National Academy of Sciences and world renowned scientist, characterized the official account of 9/11 as "a fraud" and called for a new investigation, "I suggest that those of us aware and concerned demand that the glaringly erroneous official account of 9/11 be dismissed as a fraud and a new, thorough, and impartial investigation be undertaken."
Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation: On Aug. 21 article reported that James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division, called for an independent review of the World Trade Center Twin Tower collapse investigation. "I wish that there would be a peer review of this," he said, referring to the NIST investigation. "I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they've done; both structurally and from a fire point of view. ... I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable."
Former California Seismic Safety Commissioner Endorses 9/11 Truth Movement: On July 16, J. Marx Ayres, former member of the National Institute of Sciences Building Safety Council and former member of the California Seismic Safety Commission called for a new investigation of 9/11, "Steven Jones' call for a serious investigation of the hypothesis that the WTC 7 and the Twin Towers were brought down, not just by impact damage and fire, but through the use of pre-positioned 'cutter-charges' must be the rallying cry for all building design experts to speak out."
Architects and Engineers have hosted ae911truth.org Where 168 Architectural and Engineering Professionals are demanding a new 9/11 investigation, and believe that the WTC collapses were due to controlled demolition, not due to the official "pancake" theory.
As Ed points out, the most recent suggestion has been tried before. It may be okay to think about it again though. It occured to me, for example, that a rewrite of the lead might express a compromise that doesn't require a name change. It seems clear (and uncontroversial) that the label "conspiracy theory" is used by the mainstream to dismiss these views. So a good question is: should the article in WP participate in that dismissal or just objectively report on it? The article currently does the former (simply by labelling), but it could do the latter:
This tone could then also guide a rewrite of the section on the mainstream account, which could take up the labelling issue directly by defining key notions such as "conspiracy theory", "mainstream account" and "official story". I'm still taking a break from active discussion here at Wikipedia for personal reasons, but I thought I'd put this idea out there if someone wants to run with it.-- Thomas Basboll 09:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
To change the direction a bit we need a better wording or explanation of what constitutes "mainstream" (My POV Network and cable news and most members of the two major political parties but where would you find a cite?). Once that is defined better then we could say something similar to what is said now that although the Al Queda by itself theory fits literal definition of a conspiracy theory the "mainstream" does use that term but does use that term to describe alternative theories. In most of the summary sections I have read a less strict citation policy is usually followed Edkollin 04:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I must diasagree sir, One of the defiantions of conspriacy is plot...so if we were to replace it with plot, a plot theory, this does include what the article does encompass.
Termborg 16:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Lets be perfectly clear here, wikipedia is not being completely objective by using "conspiracy theories" to identify this article. We already admitted that this title has negative connotations, even if it is an accurate description. But how often have we used it to describe more mainstream conspiracy theories in wikipedia. As stated above by definition the official report that Al Queda did it is in itself a conspiracy theory, yet how many times do you see it referred to as such in wikipedia? Time and time again throughout wikipedia when referring to a group conspiring against another group it isn't called a "conspiracy theory" unless it holds a biased POV. I propose the title "9/11 alternative theories", it is a neutral as you can get, on both sides. Debeo Morium 13:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Overall, good work. But what about the anthrax fiasco that came right after the attacks? What better of a way to scare the hell out of an already freaked out American public? Also, why isn't it spoke of how American civil liberties have suffered (i.e. the patriot act) after the attacks? That could have been part of the plan; to create a scared, complacent population who would only allow themselves to give up their basic rights under such an extreme form of duress.
As stated on the page, there was a widely documented (in the Arab media) claim that 4,000 Jewish employees skipped work at the WTC on September 11 has been widely reported and widely debunked. The response has been -- "the number of Jews who died in the attacks--typically estimated at around 400 -- tracks closely with the percentage of Jews living in the New York area." Not quite. Anyone who works in Finance and Banking knows full well that almost 40% of finance professionals are Jewish. So yes, the number dead (if true) tracks the proportion of Jews in NYC, but not in Finance.
A simple analogy. Imagine if a busload of rap artists died in a tragic fiery accident. Investigation shows that 13% of the dead were black, closely tracking the proportion of black people in the United states. Accurate?...not quite, because we need to consider the context.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Patriot1776 b4 ( talk • contribs).
I work as a trader and the percentage of Jewish exchange members is MUCH lower than 40%. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.94.21 ( talk) 14:12, August 26, 2007 (UTC)
Sure..I can, but why do you feel so intent on hiding this line of investigation? A simple answer would eliminate this alternative theory, so why dont you. Please present your story, I have presented mine. And dont give me any "holocaust denial" BS, just facts please.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Patriot1776 b4 ( talk • contribs).
I know arithmetic is hard for some so an easy example might help.
I guess I have to be careful how I answer - blocking threat etc for upsetting some.I believe in old archives the 4000 number is not Jews it is Israelis - of whom only 3 or 5 died ( but none of them were part of the 4000 - 2 in the planes, visitors ). Go ahead and use the word "lie" if you wish - the chances I will go a tattle to an adminstrator are 0 ( I have heard far worse on other sites and they seem to not be blocked). The 400 number may/probably is correct but of the 4000 the number is 0/5 - 400 out of 3000 is a little low but you are right it is possible ( in a hundred samples it might happen a half dozen times. 0/5 out of 4000 is way on the fringe - .0000000?% ). 159.105.80.141 17:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC) I majored in math. 159.105.80.141 17:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Good. now we have people who can understand the math we can get somwhere. With a PHD maybe you can give us the approximate odds for three skyscrapers collapsing ( within a few feet of each other ), in exactly ( pretty nearly ) the same manner - vertical, quickly ( no partial collapses in this story, we are talking in seconds right into the basement ), first skyscarpers ever to collapse like this from a fire ( not mush of a fire at that ), ..... My guess is 1:10000000 what's yours? More of question for an engineer - do you think this could be done again - an experiment ( demolition crews could try the kerosene fire trick in one corner of a building on their next job. I bet not many 911 believers would like to see that test. Maybe I am wrong but I doubt that too many demolition companies are seriously contemplating switching their techniques. 159.105.80.141 11:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Check the web - 4000 Israeli ( not Jewish ) - you will find seveal/many references - not many bosses showed up for work either - hell my sister in laws friend got a call to cancell her appointment ( the office was going to be closed - till that afternoon - just luck I guess).
Odds - give us your odds - based on facts then.
Yeah let's ignore Building 7 - the US government did why not us.
Identical buildings should fall identically - those pilots may have been good with all their Piper Cub training but they weren't that good.
Jet fuel explodes almost instantly - big flash - then we have paper and office furniture building to a steel melting blaze in 1 hour - try it in your back yard some day, if you can get much more than lead to melt you have done well. Jet fuel is classified as a cool fuel - not enough BTUs to melt steel on a good day - if it would work we could all cast metal in our basemnets.Citation -Pittsburgh.
If you are an engineer - science background - do you think this could be replicated - it aint science if it can't be done again.Check the wikipedia Odigi footnote [1] - there's two lucky escapees - somone could go and question the other 3998 as to how they decided to call in sick.
Did the FBI,etc ever get the IP of the messenger who contacted the two Odigo workers - never seemed to be much followup ( lots of explanations of why the message may have been ( fill in the blank)- I like the one about being just a lucky guess and they did't really mean WTC - those are the best ones I have heard - what are the odds on that i guess 0/1000000000000......0 to the nth ) 159.105.80.141 14:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
“ | Baraka tries to escape the charge of anti-Semitism by claiming only that 4,000 Israelis were told not to come to work on Sept. 11. But, with all his artistic accolades, he should be smart enough to know how close that sounds to the lie being perpetrated in Pakistan, Egypt and elsewhere that 3,000 World Trade Center Jews stayed home on Sept. 11. | ” |
“ | Consider the Kuwaiti press who held a press conference in Washington, DC, last week to demonstrate freedom of the press in Kuwait. One of the editors from the Gulf emirate restated the discredited notion that Israel had warned off 4,000 Israeli citizens from going to the World Trade Center on September 11. The genesis of this rumor is typical of the genesis of all gossip. Israeli media had begun to mourn the four thousand (American) Jews estimated to work in the World Trade Center. This was misreported as a reference to 4,000 Israeli citizens. When the Arab press reported that there were not 4,000 Israeli citizens at the World Trade Center that day, the story spread that 4,000 Israelis must have been warned to stay away. | ” |
If you are an engineer - science background - do you think this could be replicated - it aint science if it can't be done again. The basic science behind it has been replicated and explained: [8]
What follows is a refutation of Oneismany's lengthy paragraph on physics, most of which is not correct:
"Force is the rate of change in momentum and momentum is the difference in velocity between one mass and another mass."
Almost, but not quite: F = dp/dt, but p ≠ Δv.
"Motion is relative to the mass that is stationary, and force is proportional to the square of distance from the stationary mass (the second law)."
That is 100% not true. F ≠ k*x^2. Newton's law of gravitation is an inverse square; the force due to an electric dipole is approximately k/x for large x.
"A fixed mass, say the mass of your body, weighs more the closer you come to the center of the Earth, or less the further you climb away. Your change of motion (and weight) within this framework is your momentum."
Not true.
"We are all falling toward the center of the Earth, but most of us and our buildings also happen to be falling at the same velocity as the ground, which is spinning sideways around the center of the Earth."
Imprecise. The ground does not fall inwards, supported by the Earth's interior, and we are not falling to the center of the earth by the support of the ground.
"That is angular momentum. We do not notice it because we are in uniform motion with the ground and indeed in our frame of reference it is the Sun and Moon, etc. that are revolving around us. Now the only way you can jump upward or a building can rise higher (say, under construction) is by a force besides gravity, because any two objects in uniform motion will remain in uniform motion unless acted on by an outside force (the first law)."
We do not notice the angular momentum because the difference in our angular position is zero.
"That is what makes gravity a conservative force, i.e. it does no net work in a uniform frame of reference."
The definition of a conservative force is that it does no work to a closed loop (which is true for gravity). Your last statement is incorrect; when a rocket launches into space, the earth is doing work on the rocket.
"When a rocket takes off, it loses weight due to gravity as it climbs; but in response the Earth also slightly gains weight because both the rocket and the Earth have got gravity (the third law)."
Weight is the gravitational force on an object due to another. As the rocket takes off, it weighs less because it experiences less gravitational force, but, at the same time, the earth loses weight with respect to the rocket by the third law (its gravitational force is, not surprising less).
"In a closed system every increase in momentum is accompanied by an increase of inertia, because momentum is also a conservative force."
Momentum is not a conservative force; it is not a force at all. Linear momentum and angular momentum are conserved quantities, however. Also, a closed system has no external or dissipative forces, so linear momentum cannot be changed AT ALL. To change the linear momentum (in an open system, like the surface of the earth), one needs to do work on something.
"The momentum of the top of the tower cannot increase without a decrease of momentum (or an increase of inertia) somewhere else."
They are gaining a lot of momentum: gravity is doing work on them. The surface of the Earth is not a closed system: the earth's gravitational field is an external force.
"Now in a collapse the top floors of the Twin Towers weigh quite a lot but they also have got a lot of gravity so at the same time that they are pulled down they also pull the bottom floors toward them slightly, which should slow their increase in momentum."
If, by gravitational attraction you mean "approximately several ten-thousandths of a Newton."
"So, the bottom floors should dampen the collapse at least temporarily."
Temporarily = a few microseconds.
In conclusion: take Physics 101. I can quickly pull out my physics book and show you where you are wrong. (This rebuttal written by iMacWin95, who is not currently logged in).
Rosie O'Donell and Charlie Sheen are some of old/new names on that list of decent people who are wondering about unanswered questions. Shouldn’t there be a section which will deal with these "new radicals"? Anyway, the list of patriots has been updated… theirs questioning should be recognized, perhaps in a new section… perhaps in some other way… please share your thoughts… also, some of these folks need to be added to our conspiracy template, right? Lovelight 04:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Have you heard about this thing? I read a theory somewhere that the towers were destroyed because they had a lot of asbestos that would have been extremely expensive to remove, thus they were rather insured and then destroyed to avoid the costly removal. - Lapinmies 06:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
It is purely speculative to suggest in any way whether or not people would consider the costly asbestos removal to be a sufficient reason to commit these atrocities. Certainly, human history suggests the possibility, but it is undeterminable without further investiation. The presence of asbestos and the extremely expensive removal process merely suggests a possible motive for committing the atrocities or for considering the building's destruction as advantageous. It is sufficient, in my opinion, to warrant further investigation by authorities, but not to deem Silverstein culpable in these crimes.
Considering that this evidence is presented on many conspiracy theorist's sites, I do feel that this should be included on this page. It could be presented that this evidence causes many conspiracy theorists to feel there should be investigation into the possible involvement, if any, of Silverstein in these crimes. Kevin77v 19:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Certainly there are people who would kill 3000 or more to save millions of dollars. People have been murdered for winning at Monopoly, for drinking out of the wrong water fountain, etc. The motivation for these crimes is not that relevant when discussing who it was that actually committed them. I think it is obvious though, that these crimes were committed by people who were capable of actually committing them, and that there are no people who were capable of committing these crimes who stood to benefit directly. I think the demolitions were done by hired hands in other words. User:Pedant 07:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree; I like this theory. If it really does show up on the websites than an editor should put it in the article. 216.165.12.46 23:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
The article mentions that a conspiracy of tens or hundreds of people needs to have been formed before the attacks to accomplish them and to plant the false evidence that led the mainstream investigations to reach exactly one conclusion - that al Qaeda was responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks. What's unmentioned is that the conspiracy of those tens or hundreds of people has not been exposed to the mainstream after 5 1/2 years -- either by a failure of the conspirators to maintain the false evidence, or by a confession by any of the conspirators. With the passage of time, the failure to fully expose the conspiracy is evidence of the conspiracy's own implausibility. Is the omission of the post-attack conspiracy something that's being fully hashed out earlier in the editing debates on this article? patsw 13:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
That is sort of an answer. At least if I gather up the information according to the WP policies, how this conspiracy has managed to hide for 5 1/2 years, I won't be harangued with "hey, there already was an editor consensus to not include this". patsw 18:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Thousands of conspirators - who dreamed up that number. The technical parts could be managed by a very small core, most participants wouldn't even know they were involved. Wars are conducted by millions - only a handful know what is really going on, even fewer know why.
159.105.80.141
12:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Returned to 911 after seeing a show last night - Miegs of Popular Science has convinced himself that Building 7, etc fell in a patriotic manner. Mr Miegs is so confident that I think the next skyscraper that needs to be imploded ( and dropped in its cellar - not into the neighbors ) should be Mr Miegs project. Show us how it's done - a little kerosene, diesel, whatever in one corner of the building and in 1-+ hour we can watch Mr Miegs do his victory dance. Bring the 911 Commission to watch, they could learn something - they wouldn't even touch Building 7. 159.105.80.141 12:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
There are two different issues under one topic here. The first was there a "cover up". In the article there is a Washington Post story that said Pentagon officials did lie to the 9/11 commission to cover up incompetence. There is a paragraph dealing with the "Flight of the Saudis" including members of the Bin Ladin family that while giving the 9/11 commission report version of events does not have a cite claiming it was part of a cover up. This might be because that issue was "hot" among conspiracy theorists in the first few years after the attack but not in the last few years as the controlled demolition theory has taken most of the attention. The article does not discuss allegations that debris was removed from ground zero at a rapid rate as part of a cover up. This is an area you might look into. Also of note in the many mainstream media stories about health problems of ground zero workers mention has been made of the deliberate misstatements of the EPA in regard to the toxicity of the debris none of these stories have alleged that those statements were part of a 9/11 conspiracy cover up.
Issue two is the amount of people needed to pull off a controlled demolition or other Make It Happen scenarios. Proponents of both the mainstream account and various Let It Happen accounts have assumed it would take a large number of people and cite the lack of a whistleblower as evidence that there was no Make It Happen scenario. The only counter to this argument I have seen is an interview on the Alex Jones show by former German Defense Minister & former head of German Secret Service Andreas von Bulow claiming an operation of this type would take less then fifty people. The relevant statements are about midway through the video [10]. Edkollin 07:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I changed "The collapse... was a surprise to the engineering community" to "a surprise to some people" for the following reasons:
I think the NTSB reconstruction and black box data finding by Calum Douglas needs to be added. perhaps wording as follows "Flight Data records of flight 77 in both binary format and reconstruction format, obtained by freedom of information requests, show the plane was 300 feet too high to have hit the 5 light poles in front of the Pentagon. The NTSB and FBI have so far refused to comment." source http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html 11 April 2007
If the black box is exists but the government refuses to release it that must be notable - does pilotsfor911truth have any documentation that can be checked?
159.105.80.141
17:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that pilots for 911 truth aren't particularly reputable, and while they CLAIM it to be true, no reliable source has said this has any truth to it. Most likely they don't know what they're talking about, which is a pretty universal issue with the 9/11 truth community. Not to mention, you know, the minor issue that this plane, supposedly at 480 feet, had its black box recovered and recorded no information beyond this point, with absolutely no explanation whatsoever as to why this would be the case. I'm callling BS. Titanium Dragon 16:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
The source site above mentions they were able to have the radar height data decoded which supported 300ft too high theory. They also show the NTSB supplied reconstuction shows the plane way too high when over the freeway. I think they have raised a genuine issue which should be mentioned on the main page. Ccc001 12:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, let's make this simple and see if we can come to a consensus. Simply put your signature block into the heading that describes best how you feel. If ⅓ of the people want it, IMHO we should put it in since it would then be "significant." Add any short comments in comment blocks.
Support adding this discrepancy to the Flight 77 Section
Yes only if as credible or popular conspiracy (website,video,book etc) uses this discrepancy to point to a specific conspiracy theory or as part of a deliberate cover up Edkollin 04:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
More information is always better, especially since so much is still in serious dispute. I mean, if the basic numbers are wrong, then truth stands no chance. Truthful conclusion is impossible with truthful firgures, so let's make it globally known that someone involved with these crucial figures is a liar, tamperer, incompetent, or worse. Patriotick 05:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose adding this discrepancy to the Flight 77 Section
As a pilot, I don't see this as a reputable source or a logical conclusion — BQZip01 — talk 14:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
If they can show it is a reliable source, then sure, but until then... Titanium Dragon 00:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Here's what a real passenger jet crash into a building looks like:
http://www5.flickr.mud.yahoo.com/photos/thiagorigonatti/852228878/in/set-72157600900344074/
Brazillian crash of TMA JJ3054
I think it should be included that Donald Rumsfeld had made a speech on Dec 24, 2004 in which he made a reference to flight 93 as "the plane that was shot down over Pensyvania." This has been fuel for the conspiracy theorists. The Pentagon responded that this was merely a mistatement. [12] Kevin77v 07:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)kevin77v
The article 11 septembre 2001 : les Français en savaient long talks about what the French government knew about 9/11. 189.166.54.76 16:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I believe there were nine different countries who warned us of 911 - one country even got the 19 terrorist count correct. Just luck - maybe another conspiracy theory - trying to confuse us with accurate intelligence reports.
159.105.80.141
18:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
As discussed above, this article dismisses the arguments it claims to address, using the commonly dismissive labeling as 'conspiracy theories'. Useless and vague appeals to the authority 'mainstream' thought are cited in an effort to discredit the claims that are the subject of the article. Any faithful discussion of this subject would recognize not the importance of 'theories' about the 9/11 attacks, but questions about the validity of the official record of those attacks. Again, labeling the questions of millions worldwide (majorities in many nations) as well as many within in the U.S. as 'conspiracy theorists' does not reflect a neutral point of view. If the aims of those who have primarily authored this article are to refuse questions about the September 11th attacks, it is a mere truism that an honest and objective analysis of opposing arguments in light of relevant evidence is the best way to discredit false arguments in an open forum.
It is imperative that this article be renamed and that it makes an honest attempt to address the subject matter if it is to be of encyclopedic value.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 136.242.228.149 ( talk • contribs).
Defending the application of the the phrase on purely definitional grounds is rather ludicrous because virtually any topic in political science could be thus termed. The use of the phrase 'conspiracy theorists' has a strong history in the United States as a means to dismiss dissenters, labeling them as mentally unbalanced. Therefore, in an attempt to maintain some standard of objectivity an encyclopedic article should adopt more neutral language. It does not take much imagination to conjure up an accurate label. 'Challenges to the official account' or simply 'alternative accounts' seem the most reasonable - 'alternative theories' at the least. It is most important that within the article the arguments are presented straightforwardly and not attached to 'conspiracy theorists' who might as well be called 'wackos'. Again it doesn't take much imagination, but rather normal practice, to refer to those proposing arguments either without direct naming, or as 'some argue', 'those who question the official storyline' and so on. SDali2008 11:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
It is even less of a reason to use dismissive and pejorative language if it is already common in public discussion. Wikipedia should always use neutral language in keeping with standards of encyclopedic objectivity. SDali2008 04:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
If someone went to see a psychiatrist, would we from then on label him or her a psychiatric case? While literally true, it would be offensive due to it's connotations. Yet people here on wikipedia have no problem throwing around the conspiracy theorist label. Why? Because it's literally true. Is that not POV? Kevin77v 00:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
The article doesn't dismiss the conspiracy theories, reliable sources do. The article merely reports this fact. -- Tbeatty 03:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
If you dismiss a conspiracy theory you instantly become reliable - I see this circular argument frequently on wiki. 159.105.80.141 12:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Any crime (such as the murder of 3000 people and the unlawful destruction of buildings in an unsafe manner) which has been planned by two or more persons, (one or more of whom has committed an overt act which is an element of such plan) is the result of a conspiracy and was committed by conspirators and any unproven hypothesis as to the nature of the conspirators or their plan is by defintion a conspiracy theory.
It follows that every explanation possible for the events of 9/11 is in fact a conspiracy theory, therefore the term lacks any descriptive merit whatsoever and should not be used in an encyclopedia article about the events of 9/11. User:Pedant 07:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
"the difficulty of preparing the building for demolition without being noticed makes controlled demolition implausible." is neither an explaination, nor a refutation of why there is molten metal underground cooking for days. it sounds more like a weak argument against the theory, which is hardly mentioned,it sounds bias, and i vote that it is removed. 10 bucks says this ends in bloodshed 04:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I have seen no reliable sources that said molten steel flowed for days. Maybe a metallurgist or two can be found? But there is no doubt that conspiracy theorists have twisted non-reliabe reports into something that supports their views. Sort of like the way UFO conspiracy theorists play videos of people seeing lights in the sky as evidence that we were visited by little green men. Even when the people in the UFO videos say "we saw lights that looked like they were from out of this world" doesn't mean they saw extraterrestrials. -- Tbeatty 03:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
That is approaching its own conspiracy theory - all the firemen and construction workers were noticing phantom heat for days. I believe it was on tv reports for some time. 159.105.80.141 18:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
You all should check this out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcrF346sS_I
Penn & Teller on 9/11 conspiracy theory.
-- My Ancestor Is a Pirate
It's laughable that any one would even consider the Penn & Teller video to be of any value at all. To me it illustrates a common practice among people against the opponents of the official theory. They don't discuss a single claim made by the alternate theorists. This video contains nothing but character assaults against non-prominent theorists and the false logic that the character of these few negates the arguments of all the alternate theorists. Using hyperbole, they even suggest that we should murder someone who aligns themselves with a particular alternate theory publication. There's no place in the page for this video. Kevin77v 06:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
This cannot be in the article because it is a You Tube video and violates “copy write” protection according to YouTube policy. I have never liked this policy. At this point in time the only people not using YouTube videos are Wikipedia editors. But if a version of this video can be found that does not violate policy it should be in the debunking section because while not “reliable” it is “notable” and because it does use many of the common anti 9/11 conspiracy arguments. Actually I am surprised that the mainstream media did not pick up on this. I thought it would be newsworthy that Penn and Teller would go out of character to make a statement like this. Edkollin 07:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Nearly all the conspiracy theories have been debunked. Yet the article only uses this term concerning the anti-Semitic theories. Shouldn't we put this term everywhere? It is definitely true that the anti-Semitic conspiracy theories have been debunked but so have all the other ones. Shouldn't we add debunked to all the other theories so they are portrayed the same as the most widely held conspiracy theory on the planet? -- Tbeatty 06:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Its better to just indicate how they were disproven/why they are disputed, such as pieces of the plane being well-documented within the pentagon and the like, rather than saying "debunked". Show, don't tell. Titanium Dragon 21:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
"Nearly all the conspiracy theories have been debunked." citation needed User:Pedant 07:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Is he Osama's brother or half brother?. The article has been revised to say that he is a half brother. The Wikipedia article on him claims half-brother as does the Washington Post. A quick search I did shows every other reference of him uses the word brother including The Guardian cite used in that section and Fortune Magazine. Edkollin 05:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
He is listged as a conspiracy proponent at the footer of the article but he was a janitor in the North tower who claims to have heard an explosion in the basement before the plane hit. Shouldn't there be a discussion of this? (NO i'm not a truther; just curious) Mre5765 19:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
That case was dismissed. The governmental defendants were dismissed June 26, 2006, by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on sovereign immunity grounds. (Case No. 05 CV 5402.) The plaintiff's sole argument against dismissal---that the defendants were immune from liability, but not from trial---was laughable. He never served any of the non-governmental defendants named in the complaint, even though he had at least two years to do so. 75.3.122.222 22:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
was saddam hussein linked to al-qaeda, the supposed culprits behind 9/11? in a way, thats just another phony conspiracy theory, much like the ones mentioned on this page. funny thing is, this particular conspiracy theory was pushed by the US government! and it resulted in a pretty huge war! funny how things work out. or, not so funny, given the death and destruction and what not. lets call it what it is.
70.107.12.147 14:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
9/11 conspiracy theories/Archive 15 page. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
- Debeo Morium: to be morally bound ( Talk | Contribs) 21:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
This should actually be listed as one of the conspiracy theories. Osama is also another theory - no proof as far as I ever saw. 159.105.80.141 18:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
really? should we consider listing it? it may qualify as a conspiracy theory. i guess its been pretty much disproved, but it had mainstream backing at one point (assuming you view the bush admin. as "mainstream"... some view it as "extremist" but thats for another discussion).
btw... i very much believe that this is a worthy topic of discussion, so user BQZip01 should stop deleting it from the discussion page. deleting stuff from the talk page just shows that you have an absurd sense of duty and it really just amounts to censorship. this isnt communist china. this is a healthy discourse that you are trying to squash. you cited the "Wiki is not a soapbox" rule, which is primarily a guideline for the main ARTICLE, not the discussion page. this is why the WP:SOAP page specifies that "Wikipedia articles are not..." (read: ARTICLES... not discussion pages). BQZip01, your actions as driven by your absurd sense of duty really just amount to censorship. this isnt communist china. we're having a healthy discourse, and you arent doing much to facilitate it. we all have a responsibility to make wiki articles more informative, which is why we have discussion pages for issues such as these. our duty does not extend to purging the discussion pages of whatever we dont agree with. perhaps this issue we're discussing (the saddam-al-qaeda theory) won't amount to anything worth including in the article, but that's for all us wiki editors to decide collectively (i havent even added anything to the article!), not for you to declare unworthy of even a discussion. 70.107.12.147 14:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
This if put in will have to deal with a lot of parsing. The Administration claimed a Saddam/Al Queda link but never directly said Saddam had knowledge of 9/11 Edkollin
Saddam-Al Quaeda definitely deserves a section in this article, given how many people were (and are!) gullible enough to believe it. Titanium Dragon 05:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Wasn't this theory what George W. Bush believed when he invaded Iraq? I remember he's tried to make claims of ties between Hussain and 9/11. SakotGrimshine 07:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Put in "less common theories" section new Newsweek poll indicating 41% of Americans agree with direct Saddam/9/11 link up 5% from 2004. I put in there because that is where the other Saddam mention is although if 41% agree it is a pretty common idea. It appears the mainstream media,9/11 truth movement and some of us Wikipedia editors have mistakenly thought the story was dead and buried years ago. The percentage of the public agreeing with this theory is higher then for the thories getting tons of ink in this article. Edkollin 05:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Taken from article:
The declassified documents explicitly state that some of the acts of terrorism proposed could be either real or simulated. For example, it proposes sinking a boatload of Cuban immigrants, either real or simulated. It seems obvious that a real sinking involves sinking an actual boat with actual immigrants in it. Nathan Baum 12:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
The way it is written, it reads like an apologetic rather than a factual statement. It should be removed or edited. 24.150.203.74 07:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
The following is testimony of the Secretary of Transporation, Norman Mineta, that comes from the 9/11 Commission Hearing:
MR. HAMILTON: We thank you for that. I wanted to focus just a moment on the Presidential Emergency Operating Center. You were there for a good part of the day. I think you were there with the vice president. And when you had that order given, I think it was by the president, that authorized the shooting down of commercial aircraft that were suspected to be controlled by terrorists, were you there when that order was given?
MR. MINETA: No, I was not. I was made aware of it during the time that the airplane coming into the Pentagon. There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, "The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to, "The plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the vice president, "Do the orders still stand?" And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?"
You can find the quote here: http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hearing2/9-11Commission_Hearing_2003-05-23.htm. Or you can watch the video of it on google video here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3722436852417384871&q=mineta+testimony.
It has been argued that rather than the orders mentioned being to shoot down the plane, it makes more sense that the orders were to not shoot down the plane. Hence, the questioning by the aide. If the orders were to shoot down the plane there would be little reason to question it.
Regardless of the truth regarding this testimony, this is something I feel is certainly worthy of inclusion but I'm not sure where this should be included in the page and the best way to do so. Kevin77v 08:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I've added the Mineta testimony to the page. If there is a better way to place it in the article or word it, be my guest. Kevin77v 23:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 9/11 conspiracy theories article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. If you want to talk about the issues I would suggest the reference desk or better yet, an online forum dedicated to these discussions. RxS 20:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I couldn't find mention of this issue when I quickly viewed the article but is there any mention of the IM's received by the employees of Odigo? That seems to be one of the unexplained incidents regarding 9/11. The story goes as follows:
"At least two Israel-based employees of Odigo received warnings of an imminent attack in New York City more than two hours before the first plane hit the WTC. Odigo had its U.S. headquarters two blocks from the WTC. The Odigo employees, however, did not pass the warning on to the authorities in New York City, a move that could have saved thousands of lives."
I think that this should be explored and added to the article. Jtpaladin 18:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I believe Haaretz must be a premier reliable source for wiki. Odigo is a major 911 conspiracy theory - Other Point of Interest? is where the minor stuff goes. The news articles (citation) about the two different school boys in NYC ( both of Middle Eastern ancestry ) who seemed to know about 911 on 901 seemed to even interest the FBI for a brief moment in time. ( One boy I believe pointed out his school window and told his teacher that the WTC was not going to be there next week, the other boy ( a nicer kid it appears ) tearfully told his teacher not to go downtown on 911 because it wasn't safe. Odigo and two Arab boys all knew more than the FBI and CIA - they must have been good guessers. 159.105.80.141 14:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
The Wall Street Journal - May 30, 2007 has an interesting article "The Long Fall Of 130 Liberty St". They are having a hard time taking down one of the building across the street from WTC. With what appeared to be substantial damage the darn building - built i the 1970s - is going to cost a fortune to tear down. It just wont fall - have they tried kerosene, according to the government, a little kerosene and lots of black smoke and down she'll come ( in 1 hour +-).PS From all my searching I can only assume that 911 was a day of magic - 910 and before and 912 and after, kerosene can't melt steel. They missed their chance, only on 911 could you melt steel - not very good planning on thier part - Odigo obviously didn't call these guys or they could have "pulled" their building to. 159.105.80.141 15:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Wiki has some articles on jet fuel, kerosene and steel. Kerosene and jet fuel are both classified as "cool" fuels. To get either above the 600 -700 degree level requires factors that most skyscraper offices lack - forced oxygen, etc. Your paper and office furniture would actually be more likely to do the job. Haaretz must be "reliable" and the NYC newspaper reports about the boys being investigated are available on the web.
The Oakland article says the tanker was carrying gas - it appeared to burn for hours and was able to sag a beam ( did the road surface consist of concrete or pavement (oil based)? I doubt the physics of the bridge and 911 are even close - reason (that's all we would have seen on tv for weeks).
A slow smoky trash fire has yet to melt/weaken my trash barrel - a hot roaring fire and the barrel survives another day. The beams were designed to take a hit and a fire but failed rapidly, totally and at fairly low temperature. (Cockburn appears to be angry at conspiracy theorists because he believe it is a red herring drawing attention away from poor construction. In honesty, if the official version is correct, the building would have had to be massively under-code. This may be another theory that seems to have little play anywhere.) But assuming the building was not made substandard the fire, melting/weakening... official theory comes way up short.
Cockburn's theory of poor construction may not be as farfetched. Does anyone know if the same architect designed all three building, the same contractor, etc. The height of the building should be irrelvant - how many stories above you in a fire may be the key. Are there any other buildings, anywhere, that just collapse starting at approximately the same floor from the top due to fire. I would expect a twisting, creaking, growning, leaning mess in most cases - instantaneous catastrophic total collapse must be unique (maybe a design flaw?). 159.105.80.141 14:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I believe an idiot wouldn't know evidence and proof if he saw it ( an different version of the same thought). Where did all this fuel come from - I heard someone say that planes only carried what they needed on a flight plus a little and the fire ball pretty well took care of most of what there was ( of course some people think that kerosene can't explode). Some defenders of the faith have switched to the paper and office furniture for a fire source, I am glad that wiki doesn't like that one. 159.105.80.141 20:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
The very inclusion of those lines cause me to question what you have to contribute to the conversation. IanThal 16:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
What burned for 10+ hours was likely not being carried on a commercial flight - willie petes, etc. Kerosene, jet fuel doesn't cut it as far as steel damage goes. I have read - may or may not be true - that firefighters etc were on or near the floors that were on fire ( crash floors) and they didn't report blast furnace conditions. Experienced, trained firefighters were totally surprised by the whole collapse scenario. After the event I suspect patriotism overwhelmed science and experience ( say if two planes not connected to terrorists had accidently ran into WTC ( remote but just for discussion's sake ) I suspect many of the people involved - firefighters, newsmen, politicians would have asked many more technical questions an demamded that not a bit of debris be touched until the cause was totally researched. 159.105.80.141 13:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
An aside - I am interested in metal-casting - hobby only. Instead of buying propane tanks, regulators, oxygen, fans, crucibles, Tiger torch, etc, I would like to save the money involved and use kerosene instead. Any links to this? Splashing kerosene in the open air so far has not gotten me very far. I suspect I am missing a step - but if it was done once I should be able to do it again - no special equipment needed I hope. So far I have not been able to get copper to melt - lead sort of works but I can do that on my stove anyway. The open air part may be a problem ( I also have to keep adding kerosene and an hour isn't enough, I have always quit after a few hours with a hot copper pipe that wont melt. I am a long way from steel but I am sure there is a website that has the "secret". Thanks. 159.105.80.141 13:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I was afraid that kerosene wouldnt/couldn't melt much of anything - worth a shot though. So according to MIT and tms and NIST a fire not any hotter than my kitchen stove took down two building because it weakened them. ( Great design - I would avoid this architect. ) I understand that the designer ( said architect ) said a plane would have the affect of a mosquito on a screen door ( re his building - of course this was before the mosquito struck ). Per tms, besides the fire it appears that the structural damage only required my kitchen stove to bring em down. It appears that whoever designed WTC7 only needed my stove ( hold it that one didn't get hit by anything). I have heard when the Commission ignored 7 that some enterprising guy had a diesel fire raging inside that pumped fuel all over the place and that fire brought 7 down. Is it true it fell 23 minutes after the annoucement of its demise?( the news guys et al should coordinate this stuff better ). Maybe the fire on the 11th floor in 1974 that raged really hot for many hours weakened the support beams of the entire plaza. You never know when a hidden design flaw will show up - hopefully other skyscrapers aren't ready to fall at 500F degrees plus a mosquito. 159.105.80.141 19:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Browsing the tms site I hit the NIST report which rebukes the "pancake" theory ( and the heat theory). It appears that the pancake theory is an essential part of the whole story. The magically evenly distributed heat that weakened( they claim 500F) and stretched the floor joists and then, because of inertia could only fall vertically was rejected by NIST. TMS says in effect - any collapse is going to be funnelled down the tube due to weight. TMS says that even at the "weakening stage" the steel still was 2 to 3 stronger than needed ( but due to thermal expansion it tore itself to pieces ( at 500F) - did the architect forget thermal expansion in his design - my stove doesn't expand any of my pots that much I hope. 159.105.80.141 19:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Is this page on 9/11 CT's really relevant. Its like saying the Moon is made from Cheese, or like taking David Icke seriously. It just plays into the hands of the idiots that come up with these theories, who at the end of the day are/ were trying to get to get 15 minutes of fame on the backs of the victims of 9/11. Freedom is'nt free 13:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Who deleted that image, and why? There should be a mechanism in Wikipedia to enforce accountability of those who remove images! -- AVM 19:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
It was removed for wp:csd#i6 - Missing fair-use rationale. Tom Harrison Talk 23:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I added inline text to the effect that the 'mainstream account' is itself a theory. This was reverted. Since the mainstream account has certainly not been proven, Wikipedia should not be pushing it as if it were fact, for Neutral POV, it must be presented as a theory, however widely promulgated. User:Pedant 18:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
The theory that 2 planes can destroy 3 buildings has no basis in logic. Building 7 was so clearly demolished with explosions it doesn't take a leap of imagination to see what happend with the towers? 82.217.41.25 08:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Is there a better way that we can think of to refer to the vast number of popular media publications as well as independent authors and journalists whose work is has contributed, among other things to the mainstream account that we have of the events of 9/11. it seems that any work which doesnt promote a conspiracy theory is passed off as "mainstream" which in some ways makes it seem less legitimate (even though it should be more legitimate). Anyone have an idea for a better wording of this phrase? Bonus Onus 20:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC).
From google definitions synonyms "prevailing thought" which could be translated to "prevailing theory". The theory of the "leading opinion makers" Edkollin 05:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
"On September 17, 2001,[212] the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz' reported that four hours after the attack the FBI arrested five Israelis who had been filming the smoking skyline from the roof of their company's building for "puzzling behavior." The Israelis were said to have been videotaping the disaster with cries of joy and mockery.[213] On June 21, 2002, ABC reported that the FBI has not reached a consensus on whether they were Israeli intelligence operatives but concluded they had no advance knowledge of the September 11 attacks.[214] The five were released and deported to Israel on November 20-21, 2001.[215]"
This is a fact, not a conspiracy theory. Why is not on the main page? It's a conspiracy theory in itself that it appears to reside here as an afterthought. Marlinspike 11:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
i am removing the template since the article appears to be adequately footnoted to me and morton devonshire gave no reasons on this talk page for the addition of the template Mujinga 17:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
expresses far too much subjective opinion. it needs to be more even and scientific and the tone sould be less hysterical.
but then I guess this is an open site... A subject such as this is open to manipulation and adjustment by parties both for and against such theories so has little value as a resource.
simplifying this page into source material only is possibly a good idea
Request quote in section Less common theories. Could not access Judi McLeod of Canada Free Press suggested the possible involvement of the mafia theory article source. -- Francisco Valverde 21:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Somewhere in the archived thing on Odigo a reference is made to students who mentioned the coming destruction of the towers to their teacher a few days before 9-11. Source was missing as noted by contributor BQZip0. This is covered in Newsweek, October, 2001, by Jonathan Alter.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_kmnew/is_200110/ai_kepm316210 -- Jcblackmon 22:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
-- Tbeatty 20:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Or maybe it should be?
I'm talking about the The 911 Octopus. (1 hr 33 min., you can find it on Google Video...) Shouldn't it be listed with the other conspiracy films?
70.105.48.94 22:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
This pic was repeatedly removed on a number of shifting pretexts, the most recent being from an editor who says that he doesn't see what this image has to do with any 9-11 conspiracy theories. Can anyone more knowledgeable on the subject perhaps shed some light on explaining what this image has to do with 9-11 conspiracy theories? Os Cangaceiros (Yippie!) 02:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
All the conspiracy theories about this event are ridiculous. None of them pass the litmus test for sanity.-- Beguiled 21:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I have started re-writing the article on the 9/11 Truth Movement and I would like to invite comments. It is currently here as it is not yet finished. Thanks, Corleonebrother 17:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
It seems that the directive "Note that citation [1] refers to WTC 7 only and not buildings 1 and 2." is satisfied. We should consider removing it from the to do list. I also added a link to the Operation Northwoods page; and am removing the corresponding to do directive. Kanodin 19:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Some of the theories mentioned on this page have been throroughly debunked by other conspiracy theorists (referred to as 'hoaxes' or 'errors'). For example the claims relating to Jews and Israel, and the 'Pod' and 'Flash' claims. I don't think we should remove them from article entirely, but I think it should be clear that they are historical in the sense that they are not (at least not now) the prevailing views among 9/11 conspiracy theorists. Compare this to the controlled demolition, NORAD stand-down, and President's Behaviour sections for example - these elements are included as part of all 9/11 'inside-job' conspiracy theories. Corleonebrother 23:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Can we remove the old AfD flag from Aug 2006? It's almost a year old. Kanodin 03:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
The page begins by saying that 9/11 truth is not supported by any architects or engineers. I have a link directly contradicting that statement: http://www.ae911truth.org/ -- ShurizenVenra 02:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Of course I know that, it was a simple typo, everyone makes them. Also if you'll look in their About Us section you'll see this: "We are a non-partisan association of Architects, Engineers, and affiliates, who are dedicated to exposing the falsehoods and to revealing truths about the “collapses” of the WTC high-rises on 9/11/01." Therefore it does make this claim. -- ShurizenVenra 00:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I do not see the page at this time making a claim that "9/11 Truth is not supported by any architects or engineers" just a "vast majority". That being said I will put your link under the supportive webpages section Edkollin 02:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Just like I saw in 2006 Duke University lacrosse case, I see that this article has over 200 footnotes and is over 130KB in size. That suggests to me that it is refactor time. It seems like Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center has already been a refactor out of this article. Any objections? Where to slice? We could start by just making the "External links" section its own article...-- SallyForth123 10:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree that this article is too long and would like to propose the following new articles are created to take some of the information from this page...
Other than the 'Media Reaction' and 'Criticism' sections, this article would then contain only information relating to the physical events of the day that are disputed. We could explain at the top of the article that this page relates to physical 'evidence' that conspiracy theorists bring up to suggest government complicity, with a link to the new 'suggested US government motives' article. We would also need to make it clear that not all 9/11 conspiracy theories point to the US government being responsible - this would link to '9/11 opinion polls' where you can read about Saddam theories and possibly Jewish plot theories as well.
Please let me know what you think about this proposal. Thanks, Corleonebrother 11:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
The last thing we need is two more pages about 9/11 conspiracy theories. Tom Harrison Talk 18:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
The 9/11 opinion polls should not have been moved out. A separate 9/11 opinion poll article is ok. First there was no consensus for it. More importantly if you look at Wikipedia articles say on a specific pop music group you will get a lot of media reaction pro and con and while you will not get opinion polls many of the articles will mention sales, downloads etc which are a similar concept. Trying to shorten this article to recommended length is as the cliché says trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. There are many theories that have nothing to do with one another or represent fundamentally opposing points of view. Since these theories are highly disputed and in some cases complicated concepts a pure listing inadequately informs the readers. You need both to explain the theories and what is in dispute. Edkollin 07:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Since i am making a formal request to move this page i wanted to add this section (right now opinion on this seem to be spread over many sections, so i wanted to make a single spot for the discussion.
Lets be perfectly clear here, wikipedia is not being completely objective by using "conspiracy theories" to identify this article. We already admitted that this title has negative connotations, even if it is an accurate description. But how often have we used it to describe more mainstream conspiracy theories in wikipedia. As stated above by definition the official report that Al Queda did it is in itself a conspiracy theory, yet how many times do you see it referred to as such in wikipedia? Time and time again throughout wikipedia when referring to a group conspiring against another group it isn't called a "conspiracy theory" unless it holds a biased POV. I propose the title "9/11 alternative theories", it is a neutral as you can get, on both sides. Debeo Morium 15:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
The article does mention that the "conspiracy theorists" point out that the mainstream theory fits the definition of a conspiracy theory. I would merge the media reaction and criticism and the poll results section into a "reaction to the conspiracy theories" section. I have been saying this for over a year now but somehow we must find a way to get the words "tin foil hat brigade" into the article. As much as I do not like it this or worlds like it are the used heavily among CT critics. This broader section would be the place where we have cites discussing the negative connotation of the word "conspiracy theory" preferences for the words "alternative theories" etc. Edkollin 18:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Oppose, not a pejorative term. Reginmund 19:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. -- Stemonitis 16:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
It seemed at the end a counter proposal was made which had 3 people support it (kanodin, Xiutwel, Me) and no one opposed the counterproposal. Seems to me we should have waited a day or two more to see i anyone opposed it. Debeo Morium 16:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I recently added the new sentence I proposed above into the article and it was reverted.
Below text copied over from user talk page:
In fact, my sentence originally said 'mainstream account' so I am not sure what Tom's objection is as I thought that it was the word 'theory' he was objecting to. Does anyone else have any thoughts on this? Corleonebrother 20:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I think you should add the line back. It will go a long way to help fix a disastrous bias POV in this article. Debeo Morium 16:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I worked on the ref's to get rid of all of the visible occurrences of "http" in the visible text. I still see a lot of occurrences of ".com" in the visible text. I would like to see less of that. The "conspiracy theories" are not an Internet phenomena (I hope).-- SallyForth123 23:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I would like to propose the following addition to #Claims that US defenses were deliberately disabled, but since I see it is disputed by people who call themselves skeptic, I write a proposal here on the talk page:
— Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 20:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
In addition to #intercepts above: both this article and the main September 11, 2001 attacks article do not mention much about radar. Both from testimony as from common sense, I assume that the USA, after 40 years of cold war, with Russion nuclear missile subs, would have excellent primary radar capabilities. (Nuclear missiles do not ☺ have transponders.)
Primary radar detects objects by means of the Reflection of a signal. Secondary radar requires a transponder. Information on enemy objects, like missiles or hijacked planes can simply be obtained by subtracting both sets of information. If hijackers turn off the transponder, the hijacked plane becomes more visible instead of less. It is quite strange for hijackers being able to evade alerted military radar for 80 minutes, I would guess.
Am I correct and if so, are editors willing to help me find RS for this? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 19:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Here is a NYPress source [19] on NORAD "routinely intercepting aircraft":
Mike Snyder, a spokesman for NORAD, echoed Myers in a Sept. 15 Boston Globe story, which stated: "[T]he command did not immediately scramble any fighters even though it was alerted to a hijacking 10 minutes before the first plane…slammed into the first World Trade Center tower... The spokesman said the fighters remained on the ground until after the Pentagon was hit..." U.S. inaction was all the more astonishing because the same story had Snyder admitting that "fighters routinely intercept aircraft." So why were no fighters dispatched to intercept planes on an extraordinary day like Sept. 11? Within days the story changed [...]
Here is another source [20] stating (words by 9/11 Commission Staff):
But NEADS did not know where to send the alert fighter aircraft. "I don't know where I'm scrambling these guys to. I need a direction, a destination." Because the hijackers had turned off the plane's transponder, NEADS personnel spent the next minutes searching their radar scopes for the elusive primary radar return. American 11 impacted the World Trade Center's north tower at 8:46:40. I hope this helps. SalvNaut 21:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Radar reconstructions performed after 9/11 reveal that FAA radar equipment tracked the flight from the moment its transponder was turned off at 8:56. But for 8:13 seconds, between 8:56 and 9:05, this primary radar information on American 77 was not displayed to controllers at Indianapolis center.
- The reasons are technical, arising from the way software process radar information, as well as from poor primary radar coverage where American 77 had been flying.
- According to the radar reconstruction, American 77 reemerged as a primary target on Indianapolis Center radarscopes at 9:05, east of its last-known position. The target remained in Indianapolis Center airspace for another six minutes, then crossed into the western portion of Washington Center's air space at 9:10.
- As Indianapolis Center continued searching for the aircraft, two managers and the controller responsible for American 77 looked to the west and southwest along the flight's projected paths, not east, where the aircraft was now heading. The managers did not instruct other controllers at Indianapolis Center to turn on their primary radar coverage to join in the search for American 77.
- In sum, Indianapolis Center never saw Flight 77 turn around. By the time it reappeared in primary radar coverage, controllers had either stopped looking for the aircraft because they thought it had crashed or they were looking toward the west.
- In addition, while the flight center learned Flight 77 was missing, neither it nor FAA headquarters issued an all all-points bulletin to surrounding centers to search for primary radar targets.
- American 77 traveled undetected for 36 minutes on a course heading due east for Washington, D.C.
Thanks SalvNaut! And also for the google tip, I didn't know that one. Now I'm most interested in finding a quote for this one, hope I will:
— Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 02:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
— Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 03:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I think you should review WP:SYN and WP:OR, it sounds like you're searching for primary sources to backup conclusions rather then finding WP:RS sources making similar claims. RxS 03:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Some more:
— Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 03:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I reverted this edit there is no reliable, third party source that disputes the fact that it was American Airlines Flight 77. There is more evidence (much more) that it was 77 that hit the Pentagon than just the video and it can be stated that it was in fact 77 that hit the building. RxS 21:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I have proposed that articles titled with "conspiracy theory" be renamed at Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory titles, please direct all comments to the proposal's discussion page. zen master T 22:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok. zen master T 00:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Zen, I could be mistaken, but isn't this subject the very reason that you got blocked for an entire year? MortonDevonshire Yo · 07:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I made an edit, it was removed because the person indicated that i it had a "tendentious" point of view. I am adding it back, and placing the text here. I think it is quiet clear there is no point of view, i even cite a goverment publication to support the evidence. If you think it is biased, change the wording, but the evidence is cited and stated clearly. Also i encourage discuss, not straight removal. Anyway, here it is...
There are several points of evidence supporting the use of thermate, including the presence of molten iron, aluminum, and sulfur mixture throughout the rubble. <ref>FEMA. "World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations", Appendix C, pp. C-1 (May 2002). </ref> Which is the residue left by thermate which consists of iron oxide, aluminum, and sulfur.
Debeo Morium 18:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
We can easily describe Jones' theory. Begin with "Jones says..." and end with citation to a reliable source where he says it. Selecting and presenting as fact points in support of his theory, is something Jones needs to do for himself. Tom Harrison Talk 21:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
SalvNaut i have one major problem with your recent edit. The FEMA source cited indicates that the sulfur, aluminum, and iron found were liquid, and mixed. Byt refering to them simple as "samples" it suggests that they were found individually, and seperate, and not molten. when in fact it was found as a single big blob of the three melted together as one huge mass. Debeo Morium 21:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I wanted to copy the conversation i had with Arthur Rubin on his talk page here, since it seems to apply to this conversation and should be made part of this debate (not sure if this is against any WP rules, if so i apologize)...
You removed a paragraph on the 9/11 conspiracy theories page against consensus. There has been an ongoing conversation on this topic. If you would like to contribute i suggest you head on over to the talk page under the heading "Edit reverted without cause.". this paragraph has been evolving all day. And while your efforts are welcome, please do not just delete the work which several wikipedians have been contributing throughout the day. While there may be some sections with dubious sources (i didnt check them all) you deleted at least one which references FEMA's on report and a quotation from it. Debeo Morium 05:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I see that you seem to think everyone is questioning the sources. While it is true throughout the day we have debated the wording (and as a group it has evolved to its current state) i dont see a single person who disputes the sources themselves. You need to keep in mind some comments were made early in the day when the text was very different to what it is now. Look at the history and you will see that the current wording was arived at as a group, and at no point were the soruces in dispute. Debeo Morium 05:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- I see Tom (although frequently making WP:POINT edits in the 9/11 fields) and others questiong whether the sources say what you say they say without interpolating additional information from other sources. I rate the entire section as a WP:SYN violation, consensus or not. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 05:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- First off whoever badmark is, it isnt me, and not a sock puppet. Secondly, tom did not remark about synthasis regarding the entire paragraph. Only an earlier form of it which has since been resolved. So lets see we have badmark, salv, and me on one side.. toms hasnt risen any objections since the new version, and you on the other side who has done three reverts so far on two different people. Ill ask another friend to look at it. If he feels its worthy of a revert and you do yet another revert i will regretably report the 3 revert rule (since it will be 2 reverts for me and 2 for 2 other people). I would much rather have debated this properly with you. Debeo Morium 06:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- And I would rather you commented on it rather than editing against the clear previous consensus that the FEMA report didn't say or imply "molten metal". The paraphrase in the main 9/11 article was "glowing liquid", but it was apparently never sampled. I still think your edit does not reflect what is actually said in the sources which are at all reliable, but I'll wait a while to revert. . — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 06:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- Did you bother to read the FEMA report cited. I have it open in front of me now. Yes it does say refer to molten metal several times. The last sentence on the first page of appendix C refers to it as "A liquid eutectic compound consisting primarily of....". Tom seemed uncertain, when ic clarified this to him he didnt seem to disagree or agree, my guess is that he didnt view the source and had no comment on it. Also ive been accused twice of using a sock, i did not and never have. A clear check into the ips should reveal that. I doubt any of the ips are anywhere near mine in location, and certainly not the same. Debeo Morium 06:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- "eutectic" is not "metal", and Tom probably hasn't been back on since you wrote that. He's not on 24/7, like User:Bov. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 06:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- A eutectic compound (and im oversimplifying here but feel free to look at the WP page on it) is an alloy or mixture of solids with a lower melting point then its constituents. Another words when you melt sulfur, iron and aluminum together you have a eutectic compound. However i choose not to indicate the full quote above. It when on to say consisting primarily of iron and the other compounds mentions. So yes, these materials were in a molten state. I guess you didnt read the source that you are saying is quoted out of context huh? cause the very next word int hat sentence where i have ... was iron. Debeo Morium 06:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Debeo Morium 07:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey tom, i tried to find a good compromise to your last edit that didnt leave out any of FEMA's details (And i didnt revert any of your work, or at least tried my best to leave it all there except for a word or two). Basically you pointed out on you talk page your edit was to indicate that it was no longer molten when fema got it, so i put "once molten" there instead, cause it is important to show that it was molten at one time (fema says this themselves in the cited source) let it all mix into one compound. Also i added a statement regarding these compounds as the result of a thermate reaction along with a source indicating it as such. If you dont like it please debate it here, id love to reach a mutual conclusion with consensus. Debeo Morium 14:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
My crazy little friends, we seem to have a little problem. many of the sections in this article simpley state the conspiracy, then forgo offering any direct response. Like most of these theories, instead of actually breaking it down scientifically, the article just throws overwhelming evidence to one point. over all this article is more on level with an editorial than an encyclopeda based on hard facts. 71.143.134.202 07:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)NutopianCitizen
Quote:"If it were unbiased, then the refutation sections would be larger than they are now. -
Arthur Rubin |
(talk)"
An interesting statement. I notice you also argue that refutation sections should not be on the
September 11, 2001 attacks page at all. I actually agree with you there but as this page is for "conspiracy Theories", refutations should not be a large part or the page becomes too POV by pushing the official account. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Wayne
08:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
This discussion began 2 sections up in this talk page in a section called "Edit reverted without cause". It has gotten a little off track so i wanted to start a new section for it.
This conversation is regarding a debate on the proper form of the following paragraph under the section entitled "Twin Towers collapse as a controlled demolition", the current paragraph im refering to (which will likely have changed since i posted this) is as follows:
There is a range of opinion about the most likely sort and amount of explosives, the way they were distributed, and how they were successfully brought into the building. Steven Jones, of the new Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice organisation, believes that the molten metal found underground weeks after 9/11 suggests that jet fuel could not have been the only incendiary used that day, and that thermite (in the form of thermate), perhaps in combination with other devices, was likely involved. Jones says "molten material" streamed out of the south tower shortly before it collapsed.[55][56] There were reports of "molten steel" in the pockets of the rubble.[57][58][59] Firefighters described having seen in the rubble "molten steel running down the channels, like you were in a foundry". World Trade Center USGS Thermal study, conducted on September 16, 2001 using Airborne Visible/Infrared Imaging Spectrometer, showed hotspots in the rubble reaching temperatures greater than 1000 K (727°C, 1341°F).[60] Samples of a once molten mixture of iron, aluminum, and sulfur were found in the rubble and analyzed by FEMA, who was unable to determine the source of the sulfur stating: "The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 [WTC7] and 2 [Towers] are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified." [61] Those elements as residues, as well as high temperatures sustained in the rubble, can result from burning thermate[62]. Jones believes the sulfur is a result of deliberate demolition using thermite.
Debeo Morium 14:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey tom, i tried to find a good compromise to your last edit that didnt leave out any of FEMA's details (And i didnt revert any of your work, or at least tried my best to leave it all there except for a word or two). Basically you pointed out on you talk page your edit was to indicate that it was no longer molten when fema got it, so i put "once molten" there instead, cause it is important to show that it was molten at one time (fema says this themselves in the cited source) let it all mix into one compound. Also i added a statement regarding these compounds as the result of a thermate reaction along with a source indicating it as such. If you dont like it please debate it here, id love to reach a mutual conclusion with consensus. Debeo Morium 14:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
The FEMA report has to trump the NIST as it addresses points raised in the paragraph where NIST does not. Of course mention can be made that NIST did not test the steel for Sulphur but to add anything more is encouraging readers to assume NIST tested and discounted the claim which they did not. The NIST conclusions may well be correct but they are not reliable for something they neither tested for nor mentioned. Wayne 09:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
By Tom Harrison's suggestion, active users here should read this and comment. — Kanodin 05:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I would like to propose this revised sentence for addition into the article:
I think this sentence is true and unlikely to be disputed. We use the term because we intuit that name as the most recognizable, not because of attributable evidence (we can cite no content analysis of our reliable sources to determine name usage; many sources use the term, but no reliable sources say that "9/11 conspiracy theories" is the most appropriate term). This sentence also categorically excludes any discussions that critique the 9/11 Commission Report without positing an opposing version that significantly increases the U.S.'s culpability (e.g., if someone merely says that the Commission did not adequately interview Richard Clark, the 9/11 conspiracy theory predicate would not apply). Of course, the word "colloquially" above is optional and can be removed if anyone has a serious objection, but I think it best captures the spirit in which we justify using "9/11 conspiracy theories". It is a real but informal expression. — Kanodin 01:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Relying on the internet alone for definitions of conspiracy theory and conspiracism is alarmingly superficial. There are dozens of scholarly books in print that define conspiracism. Here is one definition from Right-Wing Populism in America (which I co-wrote as Chip Berlet:
What are the key elements of conspiracism?
The work of Barkun, Goldberg, Mintz, Fenster, and Pipes can also be consulted. Try using a library card--it is a wonderful key to knowledge.-- Cberlet 13:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I think that FBI agent Coleen Rowley's letter to then FBI Director Robert Mueller has reason be be cited in this section. Time Magazine article It shows that she was compelled to write to the director to politely express her frustration at the difficulty of attaining and following up FISA search and detainment requests for accused 911 terrorist Moussaoui in the weeks up to and after the attacks. She indicates that had those requests been granted on the wealth of probable cause evidence collected, it would have gone a long way toward preventing the attacks. These are serious claims, as is in small part indicated by the following passages from the letter:
"...FBI Supervisory Special Agent (SSA) who was the one most involved in the Moussaoui matter and who, up to that point seemed to have been consistently, almost deliberately thwarting the Minneapolis FBI agents' efforts (see number 5). Even after the attacks had begun, the SSA in question was still attempting to block the search of Moussaoui's computer, characterizing the World Trade Center attacks as a mere coincidence with Misseapolis' prior suspicions about Moussaoui."
"...(The SSA in question actually received a promotion some months afterward!)"
JWarwick 04:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
How are these paragraph's?
In 2002, FBI whistleblower Coleen Rowley wrote to then FBI director Robert Mueller describing her experience working with Minneapolis FBI division agents leading up to the 911 attacks Time Magazine article. Her division was tracking suspected terrorist Zacaraias Moussaoui.
Rowley states the Minneapolis bureau had desperately sought a warrant to search Moussaoui's computer. She asserts that there was probable cause for this because
Moussaoui signalled he had something to hide in the way he refused to allow them to search his computer
. She also indicates her view that division intelligence on flight training and French intelligence reports on Moussaoui received leading up to the attacks fully necessitated such a warrant
FBI eMails concerning Moussaoui.
Stated for reasons of integrity and frustration, Rowley goes on to describe the behavior of an FBI Supervisory Special Agent; her superior Deputy General Counsel Marion "Spike" Bowman as having
consistently, almost deliberately thwarted the Minneapolis FBI agents' efforts
to attain the FISA search warrant up to the day of he attacks, and that
even after the attacks had begun, the SSA in question was still attempting to block the search of Moussaoui's computer,
characterizing the World Trade Center attacks as a mere coincidence with Misseapolis' prior suspicions about Moussaoui.
. Further to this she says that the SSA agent in question
received a promotion some months afterward!
FBI watchdog Sen. Chuck Grassley, Republican-Iowa, later wrote to FBI Director Robert Mueller:
If the application for the FISA warrant had gone forward, agents would have found information in Moussaoui's belongings that linked him both to a major financier of the hijacking plot working out of Germany, and to a Malaysian al-Qaida boss who had met with at least two other hijackers while under surveillance by intelligence officials.
Coleen Rowley's account was not reviewed by the 911 commission as she was never asked to testify. JWarwick 03:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay then I will request to put them (the paras above) in without blockquotes. JWarwick 06:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I know this probably isn't the place for it, but I was discussing the 9/11 article proper, and came across ppl discussing this and just had a question I always wondered how all you conspirarcy nuts (enthusiasts/keepers of the truth - however you like to be referred to) figure out: If the towers were brought down by bombs, how do you fit in the fact that it was the top of the buildings that collapsed first? I know that there was/is a lot of whoohaa about whether the temp fuel burns at is enough to make the steel melt, but do you take that to mean there were bombs placed where the planes crashed to help the fire along with its job? How did they know exactly where the planes were gonna crash? Big Love :) Wireless99 20:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
9/11 conspiracy theories/Archive 15 page. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
- Debeo Morium: to be morally bound ( Talk | Contribs) 03:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
You need to understand what "all you conspirarcy nuts" actually means. Only 16% of the general population believe in a conspiracy theory 100%. 36% believe a conspiracy theory is plausable and an investigation is needed. Only 30% of the population actually believes the official account. 65% believe at least part of one of the conspiracy theories. These numbers indicate that it is appropriate to consider conspiracy theories until outstanding questions are answered. It means this article is relevant and should be maintained as NPOV as possible regardless of what the supporters of the official account want. I point out that the Pearl Harbour conspiracy theories were discounted as implausable but we now know they were in fact partially true and it is only the degree of truth that is still debated. If everything "implausable" is discounted and not mentioned then the truth never comes out. Ergo conspiracy theories are a public service. Wayne 04:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
9/11 conspiracy theories/Archive 15 page. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
- Debeo Morium: to be morally bound ( Talk | Contribs) 07:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
There is no fact at all supporting the claim that former CEO of Securacom, Wirt Walker III, is a cousin of president Bush.
I've yet seen any source supporting the claim, and therefore I think that the claim either should be removed here, or supporting evidence be added to the article. As it is now, the only source cited is an article written by David Griffin (note 67), hardly an unbiased source and one that actually doesn't provide anything at all to show that Walker III is in fact anyway related to George Bush.
From WP:RS
Sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight should only be used in articles about the sources themselves. Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources.
-- SLOB1 11:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
First, the Wiki-entry states it as a fact, which its not. The Washington Specator writer, Margie Burns, states in her blog [22]:
"A former colleague of the head of the company, Wirt Dexter Walker III, suggested to me that Walker is a distant relative of the Bush family. While any blood relationship to the Bush Walkers would have to be remote (the first Wirt D. Walker, two generations ago, was based in Chicago; the second in McLean, Virginia, in the DIA), "
A "former collegue", "suggested" "distant relative". That is hardly enought to state, as the Wiki article does:
"from 1999 to January 2002 their cousin Wirt Walker III was the CEO".
Its_pure_conspiracist_speculation. He is definately not their cousin, and no evidence show that he's even a distant cousin.
Secondly, "Also no one has denied it which you would expect", is argumentum ad ignorantiam . Its a logical fallacy.
The claim should either be supported with proper sources, or removed.
-- SLOB1 21:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
The text as it is today doesn't even reflect the role Stratesec/Securacom had at WTC (e.g it was involed in developing the security-description plan, the layout of the electronic security system). The current description is at best sketchy. The main reason why CT'ers pull the alleged Walker-Bush connection, is to claim that the Bush family "was in charge of security at the WTC", and thus had an opportunity to pre-rig the towers with explosives, thermite or whatever. By stopping at just stating "a company that provided security for the WTC", that theory, imho, is fueled.
And what is a "principal"? As I understand it Marvin Bush was a board member, which could mean just about anything. If he was indeed a "principal" his role in the company needs to be elaborated.
In its present incarnation, I also think that the mentioning of United Airlines within brackets should either be removed, or clarified (Why stop at mentioning United Airlines, why not all of Stratesec/Securacom operations?). Right now its just plain insinuation.
I think it would suffice to write something along with:
"Critics often argue that the difficulty of preparing the building for demolition without being noticed makes controlled demolition implausible. Proponents sometimes point out that between 1993 and 2000, Marvin Bush (President Bush's brother) was a board member of Stratesec/Securacom, a company that for two years was involved in developing an electronic security system for the World Trade Center. Some also claims that the CEO from 1999 to 2002, Wirt Walker III, is a distant cousin of the Bush Family, however the family connection has not been proven. Stratesec/Securacom lost their contract in 1998 to another company." -- SLOB1 22:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
"Critics often argue that the difficulty of preparing the building for demolition without being noticed makes controlled demolition implausible. Proponents sometimes point out that a company Stratesec that had a role in developing security systems for the World Trade Center had high officers in the company that had Bush family relations. Marvin Bush Presidents Bush's brother was a member of the firms board of directors from 1993 through 2000. While on the board, Marvin Bush served on the company's Audit Committee and Compensation Committee. He acquired 53,000 shares of stock in the company at 52 cents a share, partly through his private company, Andrews-Bush, located in northern Virginia. Company stock became worthless after the company was de-listed on the American Stock Exchange in the fall of 2002. Securities and Exchange Commission filings ceased showing Marvin Bush as a shareholder after 2000 but there are no filings indicating when his stock was sold. Wirt Walker III who according to a former colleague and member of the Kuwaiti ruling family Mishal Yousef Saud Al Sabah is a distant relative "in the Walker branch of the Bush family" was at various times CEO and chairman of the board at Stratesec.
The company received a $8.3 million World Trade Center security contract in October 1996 and received about $9.2 million from the WTC job from 1996 (a quarter of its revenues that year) to 1998. But in 1998 the company was "excused from the project" because it could not fulfill the work according to former manager Al Weinstein and the electronic security work at the WTC was taken over by EJ Electric a larger contractor. Since that time the company has gone bankrupt and as of 2005 investors were suing the company's partners including Walker in federal court in Washington.
Marvin Bush also served on the board of directors of HCC Insurance one of the main insurance carriers for the World Trade Center. HCC lost $29 million at 9/11 largely from World Trade Center property losses, medical payouts in New York City, and workers' compensation and reinsurance losses. Bush's directorship at Stratesec was not included on the proxy statement for HCC in 1999 and his connections with HCC were not included on the proxy statement for Stratesec. SEC regulations require directors and officers of public companies to list their other directorships and business connections.
The White House has not responded to repeated questions and requests for comment about Marvin Bush's relationship with Securacom" TRIMMING THE BUSHES Family Business at the Watergate By Margie Burns Washington Spectator February 15, 2005
The cite is a bi weekly published since 1974. You have name of the person that claims Walker is a distant relative and a name of a person who claims the company was fired from the WTC job. I want to thank SLOB1 who pointed out that the company was fired from the WTC job which in my POV is a vital piece of information that I had not seen before and which prompted me to inquire about it leading me find this cite that had a lot of detail and provided me with a new perspective on this. This is at best a rough draft. It does not at describe how Stratesec became Securacom and has information that is not directly related to 9/11 conspiracy theories. In short this needs to be reedited by an editor has has a working knowledge of how corporations are structured which this editor does not posses Edkollin 06:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I do know that a quote floats around the net negating the claim that Walker was an ever so distant "cousin":
"Walker is the great-grandnephew of his namesake Wirt D. Walker (1860-1899), a successful railroad entrepreneur and philanthropist from Chicago who became blind and helped found the Art Institute of Chicago. They are descended from James M. Walker of New Hampshire. Although frequently cited as a cousin of Marvin Bush, who is a descendant of George Herbert Walker of St. Louis, there is no connection between the families."
I however haven't been able to find the source for that text, other than an apparently deleted Wikipedia article about Wirt.
--
SLOB1
15:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I read that the other day and it actually continues by saying that the proof is that these Walkers lived in Chicago so any relationship is unlikely. I tried to trace the Walkers and found that Chicago was only where their main business interests and main residences were. They spent half the year (since the mid 1800's) living in Massachusetts and they all attended Yale so that sort of negates the proof given for no connection. There are numerous mentions on the internet to Wirt being a distant cousin and they all postdate that original source but there is nothing disputing it. Wayne 09:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
-- SLOB1 19:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Could you please provide a link to the Yale bios, and/or give me an email whom to reach at Yale to get access to these bios? For the record my quote does not claim that distance was the reason for them not being relatives (which would make absolutely no sense at all, one might live in New York, and one in San Franscico and they could still be related). It is just a small bio showing that they are different persons, different Walkers. One from Chicago and one from S:t Louis. And yet again, the burden of proof is on the party making the claim, not the other way around. If someone claims two persons are cousins, that person is the one to prove it.
Another point could be made that very, very distant relations is a moot point, if you look back in time anyone is related. The claim in question asserts that they are in fact _cousins_. If no such evidence exist, again I move to have the claim removed, or have it clarified that no evidence exists that proves, or even suggests, that Walker and Bush are indeed cousins (as in sharing grand-parents).
-- SLOB1 06:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I put what I wrote above as a new subsection of the controlled demolition section. I felt with the debate kind of stalled here the need to get the new information out to the many readers who might be looking at this article with the 6th anniversary coming up Tuesday. As for Walker I said if and what the relationship is remains murky. I said David Griffin is claiming that Walker is the presidents cousin and added a cite for that. I mentioned the Kuwaiti ruling family member who claims that Walker is a "distant relative" as per the Washington Spectator article. If a counter claim can be found of course it should immediatly be added to that section Edkollin 06:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
-- SLOB1 22:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Image:Noseoutframe.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 05:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I want to comment about 911 content and titles and point of view issues. I didn't know quite where to put this so I'm starting a new page.
First, just because someone is interested in the paranormal, doesn't mean they can't deal logically with facts. Many of the early astronomers were also astrologers, but were still valuable as astronomers, and contributed in humanity's quest for scientific knowledge. To be interested in 911 AND symbolic ideas, and poetical terms, like giant lizards, karma, faces in clouds, etc, does not necessarily mean people are completely insane. However, I don't think these ideas should have a big place in Wikipedia.
What I do think is germane in the 911 Wikipedia content and discussions are 2 approaches that are more "reality-based':
1. Approach Number One: 911 as history: The "story" of 911. This includes the mainstream approach,
the story of the passengers taking over flight 93, the government conspiracy theory of how it was all planned from a cave in a stone age country, (David vs. Goliath) and the idea that this story is pieced together from all kinds of little tidbits including a picture of an "Islamic" bandana in an FBI plastic bag, good-bye phone calls, etc. This is the story of our time and deserves a place in an encyclopedia. And my heart goes out to everyone involved. This is the emotional approach.
2. Approach Number Two: 911 as a crime: This is a very different approach from the one above.
It involves being skeptical of everything until it can be proved. It involves wanting actual evidence, not good story items. If one is investigating a crime, it is not woo-woo or crazy to be skeptical. One should be skeptical. A murder investigator will want an alibi from most EVERYONE involved with the victim, including the spouse! (You can't just say, "Oh, someone would NEVER kill their own husband or wife.") The ideal is to find the truth of what actually happened, whatever it might be. To be skeptical of people's "stories" is what is required. To be skeptical of the government's story is what is required. And especially in this case, since the stories are often contradictory. And, I have to say that I find this approach enormously interesting. This is the unsolved puzzle of our time. This is the mental/intellectual approach.
I think distinguishing these two approaches might be helpful in organizing and titling pages and sub-pages. I think some people favor Approach #1 and get very emotional about those using Approach #2, and lump anyone using Approach #2 as a questionable source, (because they are hinting at a different story) when it's actually just a difference in approach.
For example, it may be historically true, to the best of our knowledge, that, in one instance, it was an American Airlines jet that crashed, but presenting evidence of this in a trial is an entirely different thing. The same with the phone calls. They add to the story, but would they hold up in court? I, for one, am interested in the evidentiary approach, especially since there has been so much controversy. Let's get down to brass tacks.
Maybe there could be a page called "Investigating 911" or "911 as a Crime" that could be more evidence-based, rather than story-based, that could include: >facts with their sources >conclusions from these facts-quotes from those drawing the conclusions >disputed facts-quotes for and against >contradictory evidence-placing sourced items side-by-side (you decide!) >tentative theories based on the above It could be truly "encyclopediac," as in thorough!
And, just to vent,
My understanding is that the legal definition of "conspiracy" is 2 or more people plotting destruction.
Unless you think it was a coincidence that 4 planes were hijacked on the same morning, 911 has
to be a conspiracy, it's self-evident. Anyway you look at it, it was planned by 2 or more people, and it was destructive.
Who all was involved in the conspiracy is what is in dispute, or unsolved.
Saying 911 Conspiracy is like saying apple-fruit.
Titling the page "Conspiracy Theories" is like pitting different stories against each other. The connect-the-dots approach is an up in the air type thing, with ideas that can be made to look silly or woo-woo depending on one's point of view. It's just ideas up in the clouds, that could be bantered around endlessly.
But calling it "Investigating 911" or "911 as a Crime" brings it down to earth, with respectful room for sourced physical evidence, anomalies, tentative theories, suspicions, contradictory items, etc. This would be a great service to our country, to catalog all this in Wikipedia's format. This is a much more neutral approach.
It's not a silly subject. I've seen estimates that we've killed up to a million innocent Iraqi civilians over this, and with the median age over there at 19, that figures out to possibly half a million children. It's a serious subject, and it deserves serious treatment, not just emotional scorn for differing opinions.
````
There is an obvious systematic bias in the use of the term 'conspiracy theory' on Wikipedia which should be embarrassing to anyone who values a neutral point of view. Witness the articles Conspiracy theory which devotes its content to a condescending analysis of various examples of Conspiracism; List of alleged conspiracy theories which conflates alleged conspiracies with conspiracy theories but does not include alleged conspiracies which have been proven true; and Conspiracy (crime) which does not mention specific conspiracy allegations. The allegation of conspiracy is presented as 'theory' on Wikipedia. But 'conspiracy theory' is presented as wild speculation. On the other hand 'conspiracy' is presented as a legal standard with no case history. Where is the Wikipedia article on proved conspiracies? Where is the Wikipedia article on factually-based allegations of conspiracy? None of the existing articles that I am aware of presents a neutral point of view on either of these topics.
In which article, for example, should we include references to the San Diego citizens Grand Jury investigation and allegations of conspiracy ( http://stj911.org/paul/SDCGJ_HistoricResults.html) regarding the crimes of September 11, 2001? The September 11, 2001 attacks article will doubtless not take it because it is 'conspiracy theory'. It does not belong in 9/11 conspiracy theories because it is not a 'theory' in the sense of a wild speculation, but a court proceeding. Does this topic deserve a whole article of its own with no reference in any other article? That seems misleading. In fact so do the other two previous articles just mentioned when considering that a factual analysis does not belong in either place. Oneismany 01:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
We certainly do append judgement on the term 'conspiracy theory', whether consciously or not. Under this definition come such theories as those suggesting that the 'rulers of the world' are lizards (hello David Icke) or that the U.S. government are in cahoots with extra-terrestrial beings. In popular culture it is always used to refer to the incredible (I use the word in its literal sense). It was used consistently with reference to 'The X-Files' for example.
So, it has connotations that the term 'alternative account' does not. I thought we wanted scholarly objectivity on Wikipedia: using glib popular terms at the expense of neutrality does not help towards such an aim. Eustace Plimsoll 11:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
You just have to be kidding me with this page. This is one giant straw man argument; you put words into the mouths of the 9/11 Truth Community, with statements like the following:
You say, "conspiracy theorists assume that the 9/11 attacks achieved more-or-less exactly their intended result."
How do you know how many assume, and to what extent?
You seem to be doing an interview, but the persons you are interviewing do not talk, you talk for them, and no rebuttal from the 9/11 Truth People is being allowed.
The conspiracy is not theoretical, it is a fact, and it could be proven beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law. Yet you assume that is a just a theory. It is not theory, and the people of the 9/11 Truth Community are not conspiracy theorist. You claim over and over again that it is just theory, and by theory you mean some sort of wild guess, more or less an unfounded belief, rather than ideas based on facts.
definition a wild guess Edkollin 08:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
You say, "a 9/11 conspiracy theory generally refers to a belief in a broad conspiracy" Now where and how did you get this? Did you do a poll?
This is clearly an attack on the 9/11 Truth Community. To show that you are neutral, you need to remove terms like belief, and theorist, as well as broad generalizations about what the 9/11 Truth Community is saying. An Opinion Editorial is not encyclopedic. It appears to me that you are agents of the conspirators, accessories after the fact, aiding and abetting the criminals, with a propaganda hit piece, and yellow journalism. Treason!
Can I make a page called, "9/11 Goverment Loyalist Theories" ?
Alfons http://www.v911t.org/
Alfons Responds: WP policy is clearly indicated on your 9/11 conspiracy theories page. If you give me the same latitude as that seen in on your 9/11 conspiracy theories page, then I am in, I will not make the "9/11 Government Loyalist Theories" unless I can straw man them, and use broad generalizations to characterize them as the whackos that they are. If you get my drift here I want editorial control in my editorial rebuttal to your 9/11 conspiracy theories page which is clearly an Editorial. Alfons v911t
Alfons Responds: If "Editorializing" of any form is not acceptable, then you need to take this page down, 9/11_conspiracy_theories, or revise it to a great extent. The page is clearly slanted, makes unsubstantiated claims that can only be based upon opinion. It appears that you have arbitrarily decided that the "official story" is correct, and all others are wrong, that is your opinion, and the page in question is your editorial. I am on the side of the Truth, what side are you on? Alfons v911t
Howdy, the article says that the picture does not show the plane impacting, as a matter of fact you have to have a good imagination to say that the small silvery blob is a plane. Thus the image captioning should not claim that the picture shows something when it really does not, it is disrespectful towards the reader. Anyways, this article looks more like a rebuttal than an article. - Lapinmies 13:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree that it is not clear.-- Dcooper 15:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Follow-up: To those who keep changing the caption, and yet do not address the relevant issue here in the discussion page: Please do not present disputed factual matters as though they are not under dispute. Please do not make one-sided characterizations of cited sources, especially if it means omitting content relevant to the subject of this article. Please do not persist with undiscussed and unsupported edits to the article when discussion has been expressly requested.
The caption has been changed back *again* to reflect only non-disputed facts. Supporting rationale follows:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1968910 -- mentions the subject matter of this article, and clearly identifies there is a factual dispute.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/03/07/gen.pentagon.pictures/ -- does not even mention the subject matter of this article. therefore, this cite is not dispositive.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/16/AR2006051600788.html -- mentions the subject matter of this article, clearly identifies there is a factual dispute. For example, the article quotes in relevant part: "I don't hold those [conspiracy theory] viewpoints, but I really don't see how these tapes are going to put anything to rest."
Regardless of your or my personal views, there are some who dispute or question what is seen in the video. The existence of this dispute is documented in mainstream sources. The existence of this dispute is what this article is about.
If you personally consider this dispute and the claims of the disputers to be fundamentally repugnant, then follow WP:AFD. Don't use one-sided characterizations of cited sources. That's simply misleading. It tends to imply the dispute does not exist, and that's why it was necessary to change the caption to present only those matters not under dispute. dr.ef.tymac 02:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Reliable sources describe the video as showing the plane crashing into the Pentagon, for example:
The wording needs to be consistent with reliable sources. -- Aude ( talk) 02:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
The Pentagon videos provide only the briefest glimpse of the plane as it hits the building; the images were recorded on cameras designed to record license plates of vehicles entering the Pentagon grounds and were too slow to capture the airplane's approach. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1968910
Unless someone wants to clarify or explain this, the more accurate wording "do not support the controlled demolition hypothesis" should be re-inserted. As far as I am aware the only still-pending analysis is the detailed review of progressive failure scenario of WTC 7. dr.ef.tymac 20:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), has called for an independent review of NIST’s investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_alan_mil_070820_former_chief_of_nist.htm —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Patfromlogan (
talk •
contribs) 17:17, August 25, 2007 (UTC)
We certainly do append judgement on the term 'conspiracy theory', whether consciously or not. Under this definition come such theories as those suggesting that the 'rulers of the world' are lizards (hello David Icke) or that the U.S. government are in cahoots with extra-terrestrial beings. In popular culture it is always used to refer to the incredible (I use the word in its literal sense). It was used consistently with reference to 'The X-Files' for example.
So, it has connotations that the term 'alternative account' does not. I thought we wanted scholarly objectivity on Wikipedia: using glib popular terms at the expense of neutrality does not help towards such an aim. Eustace Plimsoll 11:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Conspiracy is defined as:
1. A combination of people for an evil purpose; an agreement, between two or more persons, to commit a crime in concert, as treason; a plot. [1913 Webster]
Given such, the accepted theory of Al Qaeda orchestrating the events of 9/11 is a conspiracy theory. Perhaps a better name is in order since it seems that the intent of the article is to summarize unpopular theories of 9/11. I understand that in many cases the vernacular allows for this, however, it is likely that the usage would be pejorative, thus biased. The name should convey the sense that the theories are unlikely, flawed, or otherwise unpopular without ridiculing the people who support the theories.
Edkollin, it is obvious you are here to disrupt this entry in the cause of some brand of 9/11 conspiracy belief. You need to stop. Now. Period. First warning. Carthago delenda est 18:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not really interested in what excuses you allow yourself for attempting to heavily invest POV on a topic you have absolutely zero business editing or contributing to; this is Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia, not your personal online plaything. The very use of the phrase "Project for The New American Century" indicates that you have about as much business editing and/or contributing to this Wiki entry as Karl Rove does on the entry regarding George W. Bush. But, if you persist, I'd be delighted to see this taken to arbitration. Carthago delenda est 04:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Never mind. Carthago delenda est 14:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the name of this article needs to be changed. How bout "the truth about 9/11". In response to these so-called "conspiracies theories" as unpopular, here is a link to a New York Times/CBS poll that shows those who accept the mainstream media are actually in the minority. http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/13469
The Times/CBS poll does not say people reject the fact bin Laden's terrorist attack was responsible for the destruction of 9/11. It says people don't believe the Bush Administration is telling the truth about how they were responding to the potential threat prior to 9/11. MajorRogers 11:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Angelaorders 02:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC) Please add the below information. It is important because in the introduction to this article, it suggests that there is a general consensus among top engineers that the official story is correct. The following points out clearly that is not true, as it lists three of the nation's preeminent engineering experts who believe we've been lied to regarding the NIST investigation and the official story of the collapse of the WTCs.
Former Congressional Office of Technology Assessment Senior Staff Member Calls for New Investigation of 9/11: On Sept. 4, Joel S. Hirschhorn, Ph.D., who served for 12 years as a Senior Staff Member of the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment and later as Director of Environment, Energy and Natural Resources for the National Governors Association, called for a new investigation of 9/11, saying "First, let the technical truth emerge. Then, if necessary, cope with the inevitable political, conspiracy and other questions."
National Academy of Sciences Member Calls for New 9/11 Investigation: On Aug. 27, Lynn Margulis, Ph.D., member of the National Academy of Sciences and world renowned scientist, characterized the official account of 9/11 as "a fraud" and called for a new investigation, "I suggest that those of us aware and concerned demand that the glaringly erroneous official account of 9/11 be dismissed as a fraud and a new, thorough, and impartial investigation be undertaken."
Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation: On Aug. 21 article reported that James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division, called for an independent review of the World Trade Center Twin Tower collapse investigation. "I wish that there would be a peer review of this," he said, referring to the NIST investigation. "I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they've done; both structurally and from a fire point of view. ... I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable."
Former California Seismic Safety Commissioner Endorses 9/11 Truth Movement: On July 16, J. Marx Ayres, former member of the National Institute of Sciences Building Safety Council and former member of the California Seismic Safety Commission called for a new investigation of 9/11, "Steven Jones' call for a serious investigation of the hypothesis that the WTC 7 and the Twin Towers were brought down, not just by impact damage and fire, but through the use of pre-positioned 'cutter-charges' must be the rallying cry for all building design experts to speak out."
Architects and Engineers have hosted ae911truth.org Where 168 Architectural and Engineering Professionals are demanding a new 9/11 investigation, and believe that the WTC collapses were due to controlled demolition, not due to the official "pancake" theory.
As Ed points out, the most recent suggestion has been tried before. It may be okay to think about it again though. It occured to me, for example, that a rewrite of the lead might express a compromise that doesn't require a name change. It seems clear (and uncontroversial) that the label "conspiracy theory" is used by the mainstream to dismiss these views. So a good question is: should the article in WP participate in that dismissal or just objectively report on it? The article currently does the former (simply by labelling), but it could do the latter:
This tone could then also guide a rewrite of the section on the mainstream account, which could take up the labelling issue directly by defining key notions such as "conspiracy theory", "mainstream account" and "official story". I'm still taking a break from active discussion here at Wikipedia for personal reasons, but I thought I'd put this idea out there if someone wants to run with it.-- Thomas Basboll 09:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
To change the direction a bit we need a better wording or explanation of what constitutes "mainstream" (My POV Network and cable news and most members of the two major political parties but where would you find a cite?). Once that is defined better then we could say something similar to what is said now that although the Al Queda by itself theory fits literal definition of a conspiracy theory the "mainstream" does use that term but does use that term to describe alternative theories. In most of the summary sections I have read a less strict citation policy is usually followed Edkollin 04:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I must diasagree sir, One of the defiantions of conspriacy is plot...so if we were to replace it with plot, a plot theory, this does include what the article does encompass.
Termborg 16:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Lets be perfectly clear here, wikipedia is not being completely objective by using "conspiracy theories" to identify this article. We already admitted that this title has negative connotations, even if it is an accurate description. But how often have we used it to describe more mainstream conspiracy theories in wikipedia. As stated above by definition the official report that Al Queda did it is in itself a conspiracy theory, yet how many times do you see it referred to as such in wikipedia? Time and time again throughout wikipedia when referring to a group conspiring against another group it isn't called a "conspiracy theory" unless it holds a biased POV. I propose the title "9/11 alternative theories", it is a neutral as you can get, on both sides. Debeo Morium 13:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Overall, good work. But what about the anthrax fiasco that came right after the attacks? What better of a way to scare the hell out of an already freaked out American public? Also, why isn't it spoke of how American civil liberties have suffered (i.e. the patriot act) after the attacks? That could have been part of the plan; to create a scared, complacent population who would only allow themselves to give up their basic rights under such an extreme form of duress.
As stated on the page, there was a widely documented (in the Arab media) claim that 4,000 Jewish employees skipped work at the WTC on September 11 has been widely reported and widely debunked. The response has been -- "the number of Jews who died in the attacks--typically estimated at around 400 -- tracks closely with the percentage of Jews living in the New York area." Not quite. Anyone who works in Finance and Banking knows full well that almost 40% of finance professionals are Jewish. So yes, the number dead (if true) tracks the proportion of Jews in NYC, but not in Finance.
A simple analogy. Imagine if a busload of rap artists died in a tragic fiery accident. Investigation shows that 13% of the dead were black, closely tracking the proportion of black people in the United states. Accurate?...not quite, because we need to consider the context.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Patriot1776 b4 ( talk • contribs).
I work as a trader and the percentage of Jewish exchange members is MUCH lower than 40%. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.94.21 ( talk) 14:12, August 26, 2007 (UTC)
Sure..I can, but why do you feel so intent on hiding this line of investigation? A simple answer would eliminate this alternative theory, so why dont you. Please present your story, I have presented mine. And dont give me any "holocaust denial" BS, just facts please.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Patriot1776 b4 ( talk • contribs).
I know arithmetic is hard for some so an easy example might help.
I guess I have to be careful how I answer - blocking threat etc for upsetting some.I believe in old archives the 4000 number is not Jews it is Israelis - of whom only 3 or 5 died ( but none of them were part of the 4000 - 2 in the planes, visitors ). Go ahead and use the word "lie" if you wish - the chances I will go a tattle to an adminstrator are 0 ( I have heard far worse on other sites and they seem to not be blocked). The 400 number may/probably is correct but of the 4000 the number is 0/5 - 400 out of 3000 is a little low but you are right it is possible ( in a hundred samples it might happen a half dozen times. 0/5 out of 4000 is way on the fringe - .0000000?% ). 159.105.80.141 17:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC) I majored in math. 159.105.80.141 17:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Good. now we have people who can understand the math we can get somwhere. With a PHD maybe you can give us the approximate odds for three skyscrapers collapsing ( within a few feet of each other ), in exactly ( pretty nearly ) the same manner - vertical, quickly ( no partial collapses in this story, we are talking in seconds right into the basement ), first skyscarpers ever to collapse like this from a fire ( not mush of a fire at that ), ..... My guess is 1:10000000 what's yours? More of question for an engineer - do you think this could be done again - an experiment ( demolition crews could try the kerosene fire trick in one corner of a building on their next job. I bet not many 911 believers would like to see that test. Maybe I am wrong but I doubt that too many demolition companies are seriously contemplating switching their techniques. 159.105.80.141 11:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Check the web - 4000 Israeli ( not Jewish ) - you will find seveal/many references - not many bosses showed up for work either - hell my sister in laws friend got a call to cancell her appointment ( the office was going to be closed - till that afternoon - just luck I guess).
Odds - give us your odds - based on facts then.
Yeah let's ignore Building 7 - the US government did why not us.
Identical buildings should fall identically - those pilots may have been good with all their Piper Cub training but they weren't that good.
Jet fuel explodes almost instantly - big flash - then we have paper and office furniture building to a steel melting blaze in 1 hour - try it in your back yard some day, if you can get much more than lead to melt you have done well. Jet fuel is classified as a cool fuel - not enough BTUs to melt steel on a good day - if it would work we could all cast metal in our basemnets.Citation -Pittsburgh.
If you are an engineer - science background - do you think this could be replicated - it aint science if it can't be done again.Check the wikipedia Odigi footnote [1] - there's two lucky escapees - somone could go and question the other 3998 as to how they decided to call in sick.
Did the FBI,etc ever get the IP of the messenger who contacted the two Odigo workers - never seemed to be much followup ( lots of explanations of why the message may have been ( fill in the blank)- I like the one about being just a lucky guess and they did't really mean WTC - those are the best ones I have heard - what are the odds on that i guess 0/1000000000000......0 to the nth ) 159.105.80.141 14:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
“ | Baraka tries to escape the charge of anti-Semitism by claiming only that 4,000 Israelis were told not to come to work on Sept. 11. But, with all his artistic accolades, he should be smart enough to know how close that sounds to the lie being perpetrated in Pakistan, Egypt and elsewhere that 3,000 World Trade Center Jews stayed home on Sept. 11. | ” |
“ | Consider the Kuwaiti press who held a press conference in Washington, DC, last week to demonstrate freedom of the press in Kuwait. One of the editors from the Gulf emirate restated the discredited notion that Israel had warned off 4,000 Israeli citizens from going to the World Trade Center on September 11. The genesis of this rumor is typical of the genesis of all gossip. Israeli media had begun to mourn the four thousand (American) Jews estimated to work in the World Trade Center. This was misreported as a reference to 4,000 Israeli citizens. When the Arab press reported that there were not 4,000 Israeli citizens at the World Trade Center that day, the story spread that 4,000 Israelis must have been warned to stay away. | ” |
If you are an engineer - science background - do you think this could be replicated - it aint science if it can't be done again. The basic science behind it has been replicated and explained: [8]
What follows is a refutation of Oneismany's lengthy paragraph on physics, most of which is not correct:
"Force is the rate of change in momentum and momentum is the difference in velocity between one mass and another mass."
Almost, but not quite: F = dp/dt, but p ≠ Δv.
"Motion is relative to the mass that is stationary, and force is proportional to the square of distance from the stationary mass (the second law)."
That is 100% not true. F ≠ k*x^2. Newton's law of gravitation is an inverse square; the force due to an electric dipole is approximately k/x for large x.
"A fixed mass, say the mass of your body, weighs more the closer you come to the center of the Earth, or less the further you climb away. Your change of motion (and weight) within this framework is your momentum."
Not true.
"We are all falling toward the center of the Earth, but most of us and our buildings also happen to be falling at the same velocity as the ground, which is spinning sideways around the center of the Earth."
Imprecise. The ground does not fall inwards, supported by the Earth's interior, and we are not falling to the center of the earth by the support of the ground.
"That is angular momentum. We do not notice it because we are in uniform motion with the ground and indeed in our frame of reference it is the Sun and Moon, etc. that are revolving around us. Now the only way you can jump upward or a building can rise higher (say, under construction) is by a force besides gravity, because any two objects in uniform motion will remain in uniform motion unless acted on by an outside force (the first law)."
We do not notice the angular momentum because the difference in our angular position is zero.
"That is what makes gravity a conservative force, i.e. it does no net work in a uniform frame of reference."
The definition of a conservative force is that it does no work to a closed loop (which is true for gravity). Your last statement is incorrect; when a rocket launches into space, the earth is doing work on the rocket.
"When a rocket takes off, it loses weight due to gravity as it climbs; but in response the Earth also slightly gains weight because both the rocket and the Earth have got gravity (the third law)."
Weight is the gravitational force on an object due to another. As the rocket takes off, it weighs less because it experiences less gravitational force, but, at the same time, the earth loses weight with respect to the rocket by the third law (its gravitational force is, not surprising less).
"In a closed system every increase in momentum is accompanied by an increase of inertia, because momentum is also a conservative force."
Momentum is not a conservative force; it is not a force at all. Linear momentum and angular momentum are conserved quantities, however. Also, a closed system has no external or dissipative forces, so linear momentum cannot be changed AT ALL. To change the linear momentum (in an open system, like the surface of the earth), one needs to do work on something.
"The momentum of the top of the tower cannot increase without a decrease of momentum (or an increase of inertia) somewhere else."
They are gaining a lot of momentum: gravity is doing work on them. The surface of the Earth is not a closed system: the earth's gravitational field is an external force.
"Now in a collapse the top floors of the Twin Towers weigh quite a lot but they also have got a lot of gravity so at the same time that they are pulled down they also pull the bottom floors toward them slightly, which should slow their increase in momentum."
If, by gravitational attraction you mean "approximately several ten-thousandths of a Newton."
"So, the bottom floors should dampen the collapse at least temporarily."
Temporarily = a few microseconds.
In conclusion: take Physics 101. I can quickly pull out my physics book and show you where you are wrong. (This rebuttal written by iMacWin95, who is not currently logged in).
Rosie O'Donell and Charlie Sheen are some of old/new names on that list of decent people who are wondering about unanswered questions. Shouldn’t there be a section which will deal with these "new radicals"? Anyway, the list of patriots has been updated… theirs questioning should be recognized, perhaps in a new section… perhaps in some other way… please share your thoughts… also, some of these folks need to be added to our conspiracy template, right? Lovelight 04:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Have you heard about this thing? I read a theory somewhere that the towers were destroyed because they had a lot of asbestos that would have been extremely expensive to remove, thus they were rather insured and then destroyed to avoid the costly removal. - Lapinmies 06:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
It is purely speculative to suggest in any way whether or not people would consider the costly asbestos removal to be a sufficient reason to commit these atrocities. Certainly, human history suggests the possibility, but it is undeterminable without further investiation. The presence of asbestos and the extremely expensive removal process merely suggests a possible motive for committing the atrocities or for considering the building's destruction as advantageous. It is sufficient, in my opinion, to warrant further investigation by authorities, but not to deem Silverstein culpable in these crimes.
Considering that this evidence is presented on many conspiracy theorist's sites, I do feel that this should be included on this page. It could be presented that this evidence causes many conspiracy theorists to feel there should be investigation into the possible involvement, if any, of Silverstein in these crimes. Kevin77v 19:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Certainly there are people who would kill 3000 or more to save millions of dollars. People have been murdered for winning at Monopoly, for drinking out of the wrong water fountain, etc. The motivation for these crimes is not that relevant when discussing who it was that actually committed them. I think it is obvious though, that these crimes were committed by people who were capable of actually committing them, and that there are no people who were capable of committing these crimes who stood to benefit directly. I think the demolitions were done by hired hands in other words. User:Pedant 07:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree; I like this theory. If it really does show up on the websites than an editor should put it in the article. 216.165.12.46 23:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
The article mentions that a conspiracy of tens or hundreds of people needs to have been formed before the attacks to accomplish them and to plant the false evidence that led the mainstream investigations to reach exactly one conclusion - that al Qaeda was responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks. What's unmentioned is that the conspiracy of those tens or hundreds of people has not been exposed to the mainstream after 5 1/2 years -- either by a failure of the conspirators to maintain the false evidence, or by a confession by any of the conspirators. With the passage of time, the failure to fully expose the conspiracy is evidence of the conspiracy's own implausibility. Is the omission of the post-attack conspiracy something that's being fully hashed out earlier in the editing debates on this article? patsw 13:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
That is sort of an answer. At least if I gather up the information according to the WP policies, how this conspiracy has managed to hide for 5 1/2 years, I won't be harangued with "hey, there already was an editor consensus to not include this". patsw 18:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Thousands of conspirators - who dreamed up that number. The technical parts could be managed by a very small core, most participants wouldn't even know they were involved. Wars are conducted by millions - only a handful know what is really going on, even fewer know why.
159.105.80.141
12:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Returned to 911 after seeing a show last night - Miegs of Popular Science has convinced himself that Building 7, etc fell in a patriotic manner. Mr Miegs is so confident that I think the next skyscraper that needs to be imploded ( and dropped in its cellar - not into the neighbors ) should be Mr Miegs project. Show us how it's done - a little kerosene, diesel, whatever in one corner of the building and in 1-+ hour we can watch Mr Miegs do his victory dance. Bring the 911 Commission to watch, they could learn something - they wouldn't even touch Building 7. 159.105.80.141 12:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
There are two different issues under one topic here. The first was there a "cover up". In the article there is a Washington Post story that said Pentagon officials did lie to the 9/11 commission to cover up incompetence. There is a paragraph dealing with the "Flight of the Saudis" including members of the Bin Ladin family that while giving the 9/11 commission report version of events does not have a cite claiming it was part of a cover up. This might be because that issue was "hot" among conspiracy theorists in the first few years after the attack but not in the last few years as the controlled demolition theory has taken most of the attention. The article does not discuss allegations that debris was removed from ground zero at a rapid rate as part of a cover up. This is an area you might look into. Also of note in the many mainstream media stories about health problems of ground zero workers mention has been made of the deliberate misstatements of the EPA in regard to the toxicity of the debris none of these stories have alleged that those statements were part of a 9/11 conspiracy cover up.
Issue two is the amount of people needed to pull off a controlled demolition or other Make It Happen scenarios. Proponents of both the mainstream account and various Let It Happen accounts have assumed it would take a large number of people and cite the lack of a whistleblower as evidence that there was no Make It Happen scenario. The only counter to this argument I have seen is an interview on the Alex Jones show by former German Defense Minister & former head of German Secret Service Andreas von Bulow claiming an operation of this type would take less then fifty people. The relevant statements are about midway through the video [10]. Edkollin 07:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I changed "The collapse... was a surprise to the engineering community" to "a surprise to some people" for the following reasons:
I think the NTSB reconstruction and black box data finding by Calum Douglas needs to be added. perhaps wording as follows "Flight Data records of flight 77 in both binary format and reconstruction format, obtained by freedom of information requests, show the plane was 300 feet too high to have hit the 5 light poles in front of the Pentagon. The NTSB and FBI have so far refused to comment." source http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html 11 April 2007
If the black box is exists but the government refuses to release it that must be notable - does pilotsfor911truth have any documentation that can be checked?
159.105.80.141
17:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that pilots for 911 truth aren't particularly reputable, and while they CLAIM it to be true, no reliable source has said this has any truth to it. Most likely they don't know what they're talking about, which is a pretty universal issue with the 9/11 truth community. Not to mention, you know, the minor issue that this plane, supposedly at 480 feet, had its black box recovered and recorded no information beyond this point, with absolutely no explanation whatsoever as to why this would be the case. I'm callling BS. Titanium Dragon 16:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
The source site above mentions they were able to have the radar height data decoded which supported 300ft too high theory. They also show the NTSB supplied reconstuction shows the plane way too high when over the freeway. I think they have raised a genuine issue which should be mentioned on the main page. Ccc001 12:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, let's make this simple and see if we can come to a consensus. Simply put your signature block into the heading that describes best how you feel. If ⅓ of the people want it, IMHO we should put it in since it would then be "significant." Add any short comments in comment blocks.
Support adding this discrepancy to the Flight 77 Section
Yes only if as credible or popular conspiracy (website,video,book etc) uses this discrepancy to point to a specific conspiracy theory or as part of a deliberate cover up Edkollin 04:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
More information is always better, especially since so much is still in serious dispute. I mean, if the basic numbers are wrong, then truth stands no chance. Truthful conclusion is impossible with truthful firgures, so let's make it globally known that someone involved with these crucial figures is a liar, tamperer, incompetent, or worse. Patriotick 05:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose adding this discrepancy to the Flight 77 Section
As a pilot, I don't see this as a reputable source or a logical conclusion — BQZip01 — talk 14:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
If they can show it is a reliable source, then sure, but until then... Titanium Dragon 00:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Here's what a real passenger jet crash into a building looks like:
http://www5.flickr.mud.yahoo.com/photos/thiagorigonatti/852228878/in/set-72157600900344074/
Brazillian crash of TMA JJ3054
I think it should be included that Donald Rumsfeld had made a speech on Dec 24, 2004 in which he made a reference to flight 93 as "the plane that was shot down over Pensyvania." This has been fuel for the conspiracy theorists. The Pentagon responded that this was merely a mistatement. [12] Kevin77v 07:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)kevin77v
The article 11 septembre 2001 : les Français en savaient long talks about what the French government knew about 9/11. 189.166.54.76 16:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I believe there were nine different countries who warned us of 911 - one country even got the 19 terrorist count correct. Just luck - maybe another conspiracy theory - trying to confuse us with accurate intelligence reports.
159.105.80.141
18:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
As discussed above, this article dismisses the arguments it claims to address, using the commonly dismissive labeling as 'conspiracy theories'. Useless and vague appeals to the authority 'mainstream' thought are cited in an effort to discredit the claims that are the subject of the article. Any faithful discussion of this subject would recognize not the importance of 'theories' about the 9/11 attacks, but questions about the validity of the official record of those attacks. Again, labeling the questions of millions worldwide (majorities in many nations) as well as many within in the U.S. as 'conspiracy theorists' does not reflect a neutral point of view. If the aims of those who have primarily authored this article are to refuse questions about the September 11th attacks, it is a mere truism that an honest and objective analysis of opposing arguments in light of relevant evidence is the best way to discredit false arguments in an open forum.
It is imperative that this article be renamed and that it makes an honest attempt to address the subject matter if it is to be of encyclopedic value.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 136.242.228.149 ( talk • contribs).
Defending the application of the the phrase on purely definitional grounds is rather ludicrous because virtually any topic in political science could be thus termed. The use of the phrase 'conspiracy theorists' has a strong history in the United States as a means to dismiss dissenters, labeling them as mentally unbalanced. Therefore, in an attempt to maintain some standard of objectivity an encyclopedic article should adopt more neutral language. It does not take much imagination to conjure up an accurate label. 'Challenges to the official account' or simply 'alternative accounts' seem the most reasonable - 'alternative theories' at the least. It is most important that within the article the arguments are presented straightforwardly and not attached to 'conspiracy theorists' who might as well be called 'wackos'. Again it doesn't take much imagination, but rather normal practice, to refer to those proposing arguments either without direct naming, or as 'some argue', 'those who question the official storyline' and so on. SDali2008 11:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
It is even less of a reason to use dismissive and pejorative language if it is already common in public discussion. Wikipedia should always use neutral language in keeping with standards of encyclopedic objectivity. SDali2008 04:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
If someone went to see a psychiatrist, would we from then on label him or her a psychiatric case? While literally true, it would be offensive due to it's connotations. Yet people here on wikipedia have no problem throwing around the conspiracy theorist label. Why? Because it's literally true. Is that not POV? Kevin77v 00:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
The article doesn't dismiss the conspiracy theories, reliable sources do. The article merely reports this fact. -- Tbeatty 03:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
If you dismiss a conspiracy theory you instantly become reliable - I see this circular argument frequently on wiki. 159.105.80.141 12:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Any crime (such as the murder of 3000 people and the unlawful destruction of buildings in an unsafe manner) which has been planned by two or more persons, (one or more of whom has committed an overt act which is an element of such plan) is the result of a conspiracy and was committed by conspirators and any unproven hypothesis as to the nature of the conspirators or their plan is by defintion a conspiracy theory.
It follows that every explanation possible for the events of 9/11 is in fact a conspiracy theory, therefore the term lacks any descriptive merit whatsoever and should not be used in an encyclopedia article about the events of 9/11. User:Pedant 07:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
"the difficulty of preparing the building for demolition without being noticed makes controlled demolition implausible." is neither an explaination, nor a refutation of why there is molten metal underground cooking for days. it sounds more like a weak argument against the theory, which is hardly mentioned,it sounds bias, and i vote that it is removed. 10 bucks says this ends in bloodshed 04:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I have seen no reliable sources that said molten steel flowed for days. Maybe a metallurgist or two can be found? But there is no doubt that conspiracy theorists have twisted non-reliabe reports into something that supports their views. Sort of like the way UFO conspiracy theorists play videos of people seeing lights in the sky as evidence that we were visited by little green men. Even when the people in the UFO videos say "we saw lights that looked like they were from out of this world" doesn't mean they saw extraterrestrials. -- Tbeatty 03:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
That is approaching its own conspiracy theory - all the firemen and construction workers were noticing phantom heat for days. I believe it was on tv reports for some time. 159.105.80.141 18:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
You all should check this out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcrF346sS_I
Penn & Teller on 9/11 conspiracy theory.
-- My Ancestor Is a Pirate
It's laughable that any one would even consider the Penn & Teller video to be of any value at all. To me it illustrates a common practice among people against the opponents of the official theory. They don't discuss a single claim made by the alternate theorists. This video contains nothing but character assaults against non-prominent theorists and the false logic that the character of these few negates the arguments of all the alternate theorists. Using hyperbole, they even suggest that we should murder someone who aligns themselves with a particular alternate theory publication. There's no place in the page for this video. Kevin77v 06:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
This cannot be in the article because it is a You Tube video and violates “copy write” protection according to YouTube policy. I have never liked this policy. At this point in time the only people not using YouTube videos are Wikipedia editors. But if a version of this video can be found that does not violate policy it should be in the debunking section because while not “reliable” it is “notable” and because it does use many of the common anti 9/11 conspiracy arguments. Actually I am surprised that the mainstream media did not pick up on this. I thought it would be newsworthy that Penn and Teller would go out of character to make a statement like this. Edkollin 07:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Nearly all the conspiracy theories have been debunked. Yet the article only uses this term concerning the anti-Semitic theories. Shouldn't we put this term everywhere? It is definitely true that the anti-Semitic conspiracy theories have been debunked but so have all the other ones. Shouldn't we add debunked to all the other theories so they are portrayed the same as the most widely held conspiracy theory on the planet? -- Tbeatty 06:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Its better to just indicate how they were disproven/why they are disputed, such as pieces of the plane being well-documented within the pentagon and the like, rather than saying "debunked". Show, don't tell. Titanium Dragon 21:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
"Nearly all the conspiracy theories have been debunked." citation needed User:Pedant 07:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Is he Osama's brother or half brother?. The article has been revised to say that he is a half brother. The Wikipedia article on him claims half-brother as does the Washington Post. A quick search I did shows every other reference of him uses the word brother including The Guardian cite used in that section and Fortune Magazine. Edkollin 05:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
He is listged as a conspiracy proponent at the footer of the article but he was a janitor in the North tower who claims to have heard an explosion in the basement before the plane hit. Shouldn't there be a discussion of this? (NO i'm not a truther; just curious) Mre5765 19:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
That case was dismissed. The governmental defendants were dismissed June 26, 2006, by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on sovereign immunity grounds. (Case No. 05 CV 5402.) The plaintiff's sole argument against dismissal---that the defendants were immune from liability, but not from trial---was laughable. He never served any of the non-governmental defendants named in the complaint, even though he had at least two years to do so. 75.3.122.222 22:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
was saddam hussein linked to al-qaeda, the supposed culprits behind 9/11? in a way, thats just another phony conspiracy theory, much like the ones mentioned on this page. funny thing is, this particular conspiracy theory was pushed by the US government! and it resulted in a pretty huge war! funny how things work out. or, not so funny, given the death and destruction and what not. lets call it what it is.
70.107.12.147 14:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
9/11 conspiracy theories/Archive 15 page. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
- Debeo Morium: to be morally bound ( Talk | Contribs) 21:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
This should actually be listed as one of the conspiracy theories. Osama is also another theory - no proof as far as I ever saw. 159.105.80.141 18:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
really? should we consider listing it? it may qualify as a conspiracy theory. i guess its been pretty much disproved, but it had mainstream backing at one point (assuming you view the bush admin. as "mainstream"... some view it as "extremist" but thats for another discussion).
btw... i very much believe that this is a worthy topic of discussion, so user BQZip01 should stop deleting it from the discussion page. deleting stuff from the talk page just shows that you have an absurd sense of duty and it really just amounts to censorship. this isnt communist china. this is a healthy discourse that you are trying to squash. you cited the "Wiki is not a soapbox" rule, which is primarily a guideline for the main ARTICLE, not the discussion page. this is why the WP:SOAP page specifies that "Wikipedia articles are not..." (read: ARTICLES... not discussion pages). BQZip01, your actions as driven by your absurd sense of duty really just amount to censorship. this isnt communist china. we're having a healthy discourse, and you arent doing much to facilitate it. we all have a responsibility to make wiki articles more informative, which is why we have discussion pages for issues such as these. our duty does not extend to purging the discussion pages of whatever we dont agree with. perhaps this issue we're discussing (the saddam-al-qaeda theory) won't amount to anything worth including in the article, but that's for all us wiki editors to decide collectively (i havent even added anything to the article!), not for you to declare unworthy of even a discussion. 70.107.12.147 14:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
This if put in will have to deal with a lot of parsing. The Administration claimed a Saddam/Al Queda link but never directly said Saddam had knowledge of 9/11 Edkollin
Saddam-Al Quaeda definitely deserves a section in this article, given how many people were (and are!) gullible enough to believe it. Titanium Dragon 05:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Wasn't this theory what George W. Bush believed when he invaded Iraq? I remember he's tried to make claims of ties between Hussain and 9/11. SakotGrimshine 07:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Put in "less common theories" section new Newsweek poll indicating 41% of Americans agree with direct Saddam/9/11 link up 5% from 2004. I put in there because that is where the other Saddam mention is although if 41% agree it is a pretty common idea. It appears the mainstream media,9/11 truth movement and some of us Wikipedia editors have mistakenly thought the story was dead and buried years ago. The percentage of the public agreeing with this theory is higher then for the thories getting tons of ink in this article. Edkollin 05:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Taken from article:
The declassified documents explicitly state that some of the acts of terrorism proposed could be either real or simulated. For example, it proposes sinking a boatload of Cuban immigrants, either real or simulated. It seems obvious that a real sinking involves sinking an actual boat with actual immigrants in it. Nathan Baum 12:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
The way it is written, it reads like an apologetic rather than a factual statement. It should be removed or edited. 24.150.203.74 07:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
The following is testimony of the Secretary of Transporation, Norman Mineta, that comes from the 9/11 Commission Hearing:
MR. HAMILTON: We thank you for that. I wanted to focus just a moment on the Presidential Emergency Operating Center. You were there for a good part of the day. I think you were there with the vice president. And when you had that order given, I think it was by the president, that authorized the shooting down of commercial aircraft that were suspected to be controlled by terrorists, were you there when that order was given?
MR. MINETA: No, I was not. I was made aware of it during the time that the airplane coming into the Pentagon. There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, "The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to, "The plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the vice president, "Do the orders still stand?" And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?"
You can find the quote here: http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hearing2/9-11Commission_Hearing_2003-05-23.htm. Or you can watch the video of it on google video here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3722436852417384871&q=mineta+testimony.
It has been argued that rather than the orders mentioned being to shoot down the plane, it makes more sense that the orders were to not shoot down the plane. Hence, the questioning by the aide. If the orders were to shoot down the plane there would be little reason to question it.
Regardless of the truth regarding this testimony, this is something I feel is certainly worthy of inclusion but I'm not sure where this should be included in the page and the best way to do so. Kevin77v 08:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I've added the Mineta testimony to the page. If there is a better way to place it in the article or word it, be my guest. Kevin77v 23:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 9/11 conspiracy theories article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. If you want to talk about the issues I would suggest the reference desk or better yet, an online forum dedicated to these discussions. RxS 20:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I couldn't find mention of this issue when I quickly viewed the article but is there any mention of the IM's received by the employees of Odigo? That seems to be one of the unexplained incidents regarding 9/11. The story goes as follows:
"At least two Israel-based employees of Odigo received warnings of an imminent attack in New York City more than two hours before the first plane hit the WTC. Odigo had its U.S. headquarters two blocks from the WTC. The Odigo employees, however, did not pass the warning on to the authorities in New York City, a move that could have saved thousands of lives."
I think that this should be explored and added to the article. Jtpaladin 18:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I believe Haaretz must be a premier reliable source for wiki. Odigo is a major 911 conspiracy theory - Other Point of Interest? is where the minor stuff goes. The news articles (citation) about the two different school boys in NYC ( both of Middle Eastern ancestry ) who seemed to know about 911 on 901 seemed to even interest the FBI for a brief moment in time. ( One boy I believe pointed out his school window and told his teacher that the WTC was not going to be there next week, the other boy ( a nicer kid it appears ) tearfully told his teacher not to go downtown on 911 because it wasn't safe. Odigo and two Arab boys all knew more than the FBI and CIA - they must have been good guessers. 159.105.80.141 14:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
The Wall Street Journal - May 30, 2007 has an interesting article "The Long Fall Of 130 Liberty St". They are having a hard time taking down one of the building across the street from WTC. With what appeared to be substantial damage the darn building - built i the 1970s - is going to cost a fortune to tear down. It just wont fall - have they tried kerosene, according to the government, a little kerosene and lots of black smoke and down she'll come ( in 1 hour +-).PS From all my searching I can only assume that 911 was a day of magic - 910 and before and 912 and after, kerosene can't melt steel. They missed their chance, only on 911 could you melt steel - not very good planning on thier part - Odigo obviously didn't call these guys or they could have "pulled" their building to. 159.105.80.141 15:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Wiki has some articles on jet fuel, kerosene and steel. Kerosene and jet fuel are both classified as "cool" fuels. To get either above the 600 -700 degree level requires factors that most skyscraper offices lack - forced oxygen, etc. Your paper and office furniture would actually be more likely to do the job. Haaretz must be "reliable" and the NYC newspaper reports about the boys being investigated are available on the web.
The Oakland article says the tanker was carrying gas - it appeared to burn for hours and was able to sag a beam ( did the road surface consist of concrete or pavement (oil based)? I doubt the physics of the bridge and 911 are even close - reason (that's all we would have seen on tv for weeks).
A slow smoky trash fire has yet to melt/weaken my trash barrel - a hot roaring fire and the barrel survives another day. The beams were designed to take a hit and a fire but failed rapidly, totally and at fairly low temperature. (Cockburn appears to be angry at conspiracy theorists because he believe it is a red herring drawing attention away from poor construction. In honesty, if the official version is correct, the building would have had to be massively under-code. This may be another theory that seems to have little play anywhere.) But assuming the building was not made substandard the fire, melting/weakening... official theory comes way up short.
Cockburn's theory of poor construction may not be as farfetched. Does anyone know if the same architect designed all three building, the same contractor, etc. The height of the building should be irrelvant - how many stories above you in a fire may be the key. Are there any other buildings, anywhere, that just collapse starting at approximately the same floor from the top due to fire. I would expect a twisting, creaking, growning, leaning mess in most cases - instantaneous catastrophic total collapse must be unique (maybe a design flaw?). 159.105.80.141 14:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I believe an idiot wouldn't know evidence and proof if he saw it ( an different version of the same thought). Where did all this fuel come from - I heard someone say that planes only carried what they needed on a flight plus a little and the fire ball pretty well took care of most of what there was ( of course some people think that kerosene can't explode). Some defenders of the faith have switched to the paper and office furniture for a fire source, I am glad that wiki doesn't like that one. 159.105.80.141 20:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
The very inclusion of those lines cause me to question what you have to contribute to the conversation. IanThal 16:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
What burned for 10+ hours was likely not being carried on a commercial flight - willie petes, etc. Kerosene, jet fuel doesn't cut it as far as steel damage goes. I have read - may or may not be true - that firefighters etc were on or near the floors that were on fire ( crash floors) and they didn't report blast furnace conditions. Experienced, trained firefighters were totally surprised by the whole collapse scenario. After the event I suspect patriotism overwhelmed science and experience ( say if two planes not connected to terrorists had accidently ran into WTC ( remote but just for discussion's sake ) I suspect many of the people involved - firefighters, newsmen, politicians would have asked many more technical questions an demamded that not a bit of debris be touched until the cause was totally researched. 159.105.80.141 13:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
An aside - I am interested in metal-casting - hobby only. Instead of buying propane tanks, regulators, oxygen, fans, crucibles, Tiger torch, etc, I would like to save the money involved and use kerosene instead. Any links to this? Splashing kerosene in the open air so far has not gotten me very far. I suspect I am missing a step - but if it was done once I should be able to do it again - no special equipment needed I hope. So far I have not been able to get copper to melt - lead sort of works but I can do that on my stove anyway. The open air part may be a problem ( I also have to keep adding kerosene and an hour isn't enough, I have always quit after a few hours with a hot copper pipe that wont melt. I am a long way from steel but I am sure there is a website that has the "secret". Thanks. 159.105.80.141 13:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I was afraid that kerosene wouldnt/couldn't melt much of anything - worth a shot though. So according to MIT and tms and NIST a fire not any hotter than my kitchen stove took down two building because it weakened them. ( Great design - I would avoid this architect. ) I understand that the designer ( said architect ) said a plane would have the affect of a mosquito on a screen door ( re his building - of course this was before the mosquito struck ). Per tms, besides the fire it appears that the structural damage only required my kitchen stove to bring em down. It appears that whoever designed WTC7 only needed my stove ( hold it that one didn't get hit by anything). I have heard when the Commission ignored 7 that some enterprising guy had a diesel fire raging inside that pumped fuel all over the place and that fire brought 7 down. Is it true it fell 23 minutes after the annoucement of its demise?( the news guys et al should coordinate this stuff better ). Maybe the fire on the 11th floor in 1974 that raged really hot for many hours weakened the support beams of the entire plaza. You never know when a hidden design flaw will show up - hopefully other skyscrapers aren't ready to fall at 500F degrees plus a mosquito. 159.105.80.141 19:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Browsing the tms site I hit the NIST report which rebukes the "pancake" theory ( and the heat theory). It appears that the pancake theory is an essential part of the whole story. The magically evenly distributed heat that weakened( they claim 500F) and stretched the floor joists and then, because of inertia could only fall vertically was rejected by NIST. TMS says in effect - any collapse is going to be funnelled down the tube due to weight. TMS says that even at the "weakening stage" the steel still was 2 to 3 stronger than needed ( but due to thermal expansion it tore itself to pieces ( at 500F) - did the architect forget thermal expansion in his design - my stove doesn't expand any of my pots that much I hope. 159.105.80.141 19:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Is this page on 9/11 CT's really relevant. Its like saying the Moon is made from Cheese, or like taking David Icke seriously. It just plays into the hands of the idiots that come up with these theories, who at the end of the day are/ were trying to get to get 15 minutes of fame on the backs of the victims of 9/11. Freedom is'nt free 13:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Who deleted that image, and why? There should be a mechanism in Wikipedia to enforce accountability of those who remove images! -- AVM 19:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
It was removed for wp:csd#i6 - Missing fair-use rationale. Tom Harrison Talk 23:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I added inline text to the effect that the 'mainstream account' is itself a theory. This was reverted. Since the mainstream account has certainly not been proven, Wikipedia should not be pushing it as if it were fact, for Neutral POV, it must be presented as a theory, however widely promulgated. User:Pedant 18:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
The theory that 2 planes can destroy 3 buildings has no basis in logic. Building 7 was so clearly demolished with explosions it doesn't take a leap of imagination to see what happend with the towers? 82.217.41.25 08:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Is there a better way that we can think of to refer to the vast number of popular media publications as well as independent authors and journalists whose work is has contributed, among other things to the mainstream account that we have of the events of 9/11. it seems that any work which doesnt promote a conspiracy theory is passed off as "mainstream" which in some ways makes it seem less legitimate (even though it should be more legitimate). Anyone have an idea for a better wording of this phrase? Bonus Onus 20:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC).
From google definitions synonyms "prevailing thought" which could be translated to "prevailing theory". The theory of the "leading opinion makers" Edkollin 05:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
"On September 17, 2001,[212] the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz' reported that four hours after the attack the FBI arrested five Israelis who had been filming the smoking skyline from the roof of their company's building for "puzzling behavior." The Israelis were said to have been videotaping the disaster with cries of joy and mockery.[213] On June 21, 2002, ABC reported that the FBI has not reached a consensus on whether they were Israeli intelligence operatives but concluded they had no advance knowledge of the September 11 attacks.[214] The five were released and deported to Israel on November 20-21, 2001.[215]"
This is a fact, not a conspiracy theory. Why is not on the main page? It's a conspiracy theory in itself that it appears to reside here as an afterthought. Marlinspike 11:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
i am removing the template since the article appears to be adequately footnoted to me and morton devonshire gave no reasons on this talk page for the addition of the template Mujinga 17:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
expresses far too much subjective opinion. it needs to be more even and scientific and the tone sould be less hysterical.
but then I guess this is an open site... A subject such as this is open to manipulation and adjustment by parties both for and against such theories so has little value as a resource.
simplifying this page into source material only is possibly a good idea
Request quote in section Less common theories. Could not access Judi McLeod of Canada Free Press suggested the possible involvement of the mafia theory article source. -- Francisco Valverde 21:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Somewhere in the archived thing on Odigo a reference is made to students who mentioned the coming destruction of the towers to their teacher a few days before 9-11. Source was missing as noted by contributor BQZip0. This is covered in Newsweek, October, 2001, by Jonathan Alter.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_kmnew/is_200110/ai_kepm316210 -- Jcblackmon 22:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
-- Tbeatty 20:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Or maybe it should be?
I'm talking about the The 911 Octopus. (1 hr 33 min., you can find it on Google Video...) Shouldn't it be listed with the other conspiracy films?
70.105.48.94 22:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
This pic was repeatedly removed on a number of shifting pretexts, the most recent being from an editor who says that he doesn't see what this image has to do with any 9-11 conspiracy theories. Can anyone more knowledgeable on the subject perhaps shed some light on explaining what this image has to do with 9-11 conspiracy theories? Os Cangaceiros (Yippie!) 02:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
All the conspiracy theories about this event are ridiculous. None of them pass the litmus test for sanity.-- Beguiled 21:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I have started re-writing the article on the 9/11 Truth Movement and I would like to invite comments. It is currently here as it is not yet finished. Thanks, Corleonebrother 17:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
It seems that the directive "Note that citation [1] refers to WTC 7 only and not buildings 1 and 2." is satisfied. We should consider removing it from the to do list. I also added a link to the Operation Northwoods page; and am removing the corresponding to do directive. Kanodin 19:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Some of the theories mentioned on this page have been throroughly debunked by other conspiracy theorists (referred to as 'hoaxes' or 'errors'). For example the claims relating to Jews and Israel, and the 'Pod' and 'Flash' claims. I don't think we should remove them from article entirely, but I think it should be clear that they are historical in the sense that they are not (at least not now) the prevailing views among 9/11 conspiracy theorists. Compare this to the controlled demolition, NORAD stand-down, and President's Behaviour sections for example - these elements are included as part of all 9/11 'inside-job' conspiracy theories. Corleonebrother 23:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Can we remove the old AfD flag from Aug 2006? It's almost a year old. Kanodin 03:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
The page begins by saying that 9/11 truth is not supported by any architects or engineers. I have a link directly contradicting that statement: http://www.ae911truth.org/ -- ShurizenVenra 02:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Of course I know that, it was a simple typo, everyone makes them. Also if you'll look in their About Us section you'll see this: "We are a non-partisan association of Architects, Engineers, and affiliates, who are dedicated to exposing the falsehoods and to revealing truths about the “collapses” of the WTC high-rises on 9/11/01." Therefore it does make this claim. -- ShurizenVenra 00:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I do not see the page at this time making a claim that "9/11 Truth is not supported by any architects or engineers" just a "vast majority". That being said I will put your link under the supportive webpages section Edkollin 02:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Just like I saw in 2006 Duke University lacrosse case, I see that this article has over 200 footnotes and is over 130KB in size. That suggests to me that it is refactor time. It seems like Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center has already been a refactor out of this article. Any objections? Where to slice? We could start by just making the "External links" section its own article...-- SallyForth123 10:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree that this article is too long and would like to propose the following new articles are created to take some of the information from this page...
Other than the 'Media Reaction' and 'Criticism' sections, this article would then contain only information relating to the physical events of the day that are disputed. We could explain at the top of the article that this page relates to physical 'evidence' that conspiracy theorists bring up to suggest government complicity, with a link to the new 'suggested US government motives' article. We would also need to make it clear that not all 9/11 conspiracy theories point to the US government being responsible - this would link to '9/11 opinion polls' where you can read about Saddam theories and possibly Jewish plot theories as well.
Please let me know what you think about this proposal. Thanks, Corleonebrother 11:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
The last thing we need is two more pages about 9/11 conspiracy theories. Tom Harrison Talk 18:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
The 9/11 opinion polls should not have been moved out. A separate 9/11 opinion poll article is ok. First there was no consensus for it. More importantly if you look at Wikipedia articles say on a specific pop music group you will get a lot of media reaction pro and con and while you will not get opinion polls many of the articles will mention sales, downloads etc which are a similar concept. Trying to shorten this article to recommended length is as the cliché says trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. There are many theories that have nothing to do with one another or represent fundamentally opposing points of view. Since these theories are highly disputed and in some cases complicated concepts a pure listing inadequately informs the readers. You need both to explain the theories and what is in dispute. Edkollin 07:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Since i am making a formal request to move this page i wanted to add this section (right now opinion on this seem to be spread over many sections, so i wanted to make a single spot for the discussion.
Lets be perfectly clear here, wikipedia is not being completely objective by using "conspiracy theories" to identify this article. We already admitted that this title has negative connotations, even if it is an accurate description. But how often have we used it to describe more mainstream conspiracy theories in wikipedia. As stated above by definition the official report that Al Queda did it is in itself a conspiracy theory, yet how many times do you see it referred to as such in wikipedia? Time and time again throughout wikipedia when referring to a group conspiring against another group it isn't called a "conspiracy theory" unless it holds a biased POV. I propose the title "9/11 alternative theories", it is a neutral as you can get, on both sides. Debeo Morium 15:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
The article does mention that the "conspiracy theorists" point out that the mainstream theory fits the definition of a conspiracy theory. I would merge the media reaction and criticism and the poll results section into a "reaction to the conspiracy theories" section. I have been saying this for over a year now but somehow we must find a way to get the words "tin foil hat brigade" into the article. As much as I do not like it this or worlds like it are the used heavily among CT critics. This broader section would be the place where we have cites discussing the negative connotation of the word "conspiracy theory" preferences for the words "alternative theories" etc. Edkollin 18:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Oppose, not a pejorative term. Reginmund 19:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. -- Stemonitis 16:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
It seemed at the end a counter proposal was made which had 3 people support it (kanodin, Xiutwel, Me) and no one opposed the counterproposal. Seems to me we should have waited a day or two more to see i anyone opposed it. Debeo Morium 16:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I recently added the new sentence I proposed above into the article and it was reverted.
Below text copied over from user talk page:
In fact, my sentence originally said 'mainstream account' so I am not sure what Tom's objection is as I thought that it was the word 'theory' he was objecting to. Does anyone else have any thoughts on this? Corleonebrother 20:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I think you should add the line back. It will go a long way to help fix a disastrous bias POV in this article. Debeo Morium 16:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I worked on the ref's to get rid of all of the visible occurrences of "http" in the visible text. I still see a lot of occurrences of ".com" in the visible text. I would like to see less of that. The "conspiracy theories" are not an Internet phenomena (I hope).-- SallyForth123 23:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I would like to propose the following addition to #Claims that US defenses were deliberately disabled, but since I see it is disputed by people who call themselves skeptic, I write a proposal here on the talk page:
— Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 20:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
In addition to #intercepts above: both this article and the main September 11, 2001 attacks article do not mention much about radar. Both from testimony as from common sense, I assume that the USA, after 40 years of cold war, with Russion nuclear missile subs, would have excellent primary radar capabilities. (Nuclear missiles do not ☺ have transponders.)
Primary radar detects objects by means of the Reflection of a signal. Secondary radar requires a transponder. Information on enemy objects, like missiles or hijacked planes can simply be obtained by subtracting both sets of information. If hijackers turn off the transponder, the hijacked plane becomes more visible instead of less. It is quite strange for hijackers being able to evade alerted military radar for 80 minutes, I would guess.
Am I correct and if so, are editors willing to help me find RS for this? — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 19:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Here is a NYPress source [19] on NORAD "routinely intercepting aircraft":
Mike Snyder, a spokesman for NORAD, echoed Myers in a Sept. 15 Boston Globe story, which stated: "[T]he command did not immediately scramble any fighters even though it was alerted to a hijacking 10 minutes before the first plane…slammed into the first World Trade Center tower... The spokesman said the fighters remained on the ground until after the Pentagon was hit..." U.S. inaction was all the more astonishing because the same story had Snyder admitting that "fighters routinely intercept aircraft." So why were no fighters dispatched to intercept planes on an extraordinary day like Sept. 11? Within days the story changed [...]
Here is another source [20] stating (words by 9/11 Commission Staff):
But NEADS did not know where to send the alert fighter aircraft. "I don't know where I'm scrambling these guys to. I need a direction, a destination." Because the hijackers had turned off the plane's transponder, NEADS personnel spent the next minutes searching their radar scopes for the elusive primary radar return. American 11 impacted the World Trade Center's north tower at 8:46:40. I hope this helps. SalvNaut 21:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- Radar reconstructions performed after 9/11 reveal that FAA radar equipment tracked the flight from the moment its transponder was turned off at 8:56. But for 8:13 seconds, between 8:56 and 9:05, this primary radar information on American 77 was not displayed to controllers at Indianapolis center.
- The reasons are technical, arising from the way software process radar information, as well as from poor primary radar coverage where American 77 had been flying.
- According to the radar reconstruction, American 77 reemerged as a primary target on Indianapolis Center radarscopes at 9:05, east of its last-known position. The target remained in Indianapolis Center airspace for another six minutes, then crossed into the western portion of Washington Center's air space at 9:10.
- As Indianapolis Center continued searching for the aircraft, two managers and the controller responsible for American 77 looked to the west and southwest along the flight's projected paths, not east, where the aircraft was now heading. The managers did not instruct other controllers at Indianapolis Center to turn on their primary radar coverage to join in the search for American 77.
- In sum, Indianapolis Center never saw Flight 77 turn around. By the time it reappeared in primary radar coverage, controllers had either stopped looking for the aircraft because they thought it had crashed or they were looking toward the west.
- In addition, while the flight center learned Flight 77 was missing, neither it nor FAA headquarters issued an all all-points bulletin to surrounding centers to search for primary radar targets.
- American 77 traveled undetected for 36 minutes on a course heading due east for Washington, D.C.
Thanks SalvNaut! And also for the google tip, I didn't know that one. Now I'm most interested in finding a quote for this one, hope I will:
— Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 02:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
— Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 03:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I think you should review WP:SYN and WP:OR, it sounds like you're searching for primary sources to backup conclusions rather then finding WP:RS sources making similar claims. RxS 03:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Some more:
— Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 03:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I reverted this edit there is no reliable, third party source that disputes the fact that it was American Airlines Flight 77. There is more evidence (much more) that it was 77 that hit the Pentagon than just the video and it can be stated that it was in fact 77 that hit the building. RxS 21:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I have proposed that articles titled with "conspiracy theory" be renamed at Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory titles, please direct all comments to the proposal's discussion page. zen master T 22:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok. zen master T 00:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Zen, I could be mistaken, but isn't this subject the very reason that you got blocked for an entire year? MortonDevonshire Yo · 07:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I made an edit, it was removed because the person indicated that i it had a "tendentious" point of view. I am adding it back, and placing the text here. I think it is quiet clear there is no point of view, i even cite a goverment publication to support the evidence. If you think it is biased, change the wording, but the evidence is cited and stated clearly. Also i encourage discuss, not straight removal. Anyway, here it is...
There are several points of evidence supporting the use of thermate, including the presence of molten iron, aluminum, and sulfur mixture throughout the rubble. <ref>FEMA. "World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations", Appendix C, pp. C-1 (May 2002). </ref> Which is the residue left by thermate which consists of iron oxide, aluminum, and sulfur.
Debeo Morium 18:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
We can easily describe Jones' theory. Begin with "Jones says..." and end with citation to a reliable source where he says it. Selecting and presenting as fact points in support of his theory, is something Jones needs to do for himself. Tom Harrison Talk 21:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
SalvNaut i have one major problem with your recent edit. The FEMA source cited indicates that the sulfur, aluminum, and iron found were liquid, and mixed. Byt refering to them simple as "samples" it suggests that they were found individually, and seperate, and not molten. when in fact it was found as a single big blob of the three melted together as one huge mass. Debeo Morium 21:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I wanted to copy the conversation i had with Arthur Rubin on his talk page here, since it seems to apply to this conversation and should be made part of this debate (not sure if this is against any WP rules, if so i apologize)...
You removed a paragraph on the 9/11 conspiracy theories page against consensus. There has been an ongoing conversation on this topic. If you would like to contribute i suggest you head on over to the talk page under the heading "Edit reverted without cause.". this paragraph has been evolving all day. And while your efforts are welcome, please do not just delete the work which several wikipedians have been contributing throughout the day. While there may be some sections with dubious sources (i didnt check them all) you deleted at least one which references FEMA's on report and a quotation from it. Debeo Morium 05:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I see that you seem to think everyone is questioning the sources. While it is true throughout the day we have debated the wording (and as a group it has evolved to its current state) i dont see a single person who disputes the sources themselves. You need to keep in mind some comments were made early in the day when the text was very different to what it is now. Look at the history and you will see that the current wording was arived at as a group, and at no point were the soruces in dispute. Debeo Morium 05:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- I see Tom (although frequently making WP:POINT edits in the 9/11 fields) and others questiong whether the sources say what you say they say without interpolating additional information from other sources. I rate the entire section as a WP:SYN violation, consensus or not. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 05:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- First off whoever badmark is, it isnt me, and not a sock puppet. Secondly, tom did not remark about synthasis regarding the entire paragraph. Only an earlier form of it which has since been resolved. So lets see we have badmark, salv, and me on one side.. toms hasnt risen any objections since the new version, and you on the other side who has done three reverts so far on two different people. Ill ask another friend to look at it. If he feels its worthy of a revert and you do yet another revert i will regretably report the 3 revert rule (since it will be 2 reverts for me and 2 for 2 other people). I would much rather have debated this properly with you. Debeo Morium 06:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- And I would rather you commented on it rather than editing against the clear previous consensus that the FEMA report didn't say or imply "molten metal". The paraphrase in the main 9/11 article was "glowing liquid", but it was apparently never sampled. I still think your edit does not reflect what is actually said in the sources which are at all reliable, but I'll wait a while to revert. . — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 06:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- Did you bother to read the FEMA report cited. I have it open in front of me now. Yes it does say refer to molten metal several times. The last sentence on the first page of appendix C refers to it as "A liquid eutectic compound consisting primarily of....". Tom seemed uncertain, when ic clarified this to him he didnt seem to disagree or agree, my guess is that he didnt view the source and had no comment on it. Also ive been accused twice of using a sock, i did not and never have. A clear check into the ips should reveal that. I doubt any of the ips are anywhere near mine in location, and certainly not the same. Debeo Morium 06:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- "eutectic" is not "metal", and Tom probably hasn't been back on since you wrote that. He's not on 24/7, like User:Bov. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 06:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- A eutectic compound (and im oversimplifying here but feel free to look at the WP page on it) is an alloy or mixture of solids with a lower melting point then its constituents. Another words when you melt sulfur, iron and aluminum together you have a eutectic compound. However i choose not to indicate the full quote above. It when on to say consisting primarily of iron and the other compounds mentions. So yes, these materials were in a molten state. I guess you didnt read the source that you are saying is quoted out of context huh? cause the very next word int hat sentence where i have ... was iron. Debeo Morium 06:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Debeo Morium 07:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey tom, i tried to find a good compromise to your last edit that didnt leave out any of FEMA's details (And i didnt revert any of your work, or at least tried my best to leave it all there except for a word or two). Basically you pointed out on you talk page your edit was to indicate that it was no longer molten when fema got it, so i put "once molten" there instead, cause it is important to show that it was molten at one time (fema says this themselves in the cited source) let it all mix into one compound. Also i added a statement regarding these compounds as the result of a thermate reaction along with a source indicating it as such. If you dont like it please debate it here, id love to reach a mutual conclusion with consensus. Debeo Morium 14:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
My crazy little friends, we seem to have a little problem. many of the sections in this article simpley state the conspiracy, then forgo offering any direct response. Like most of these theories, instead of actually breaking it down scientifically, the article just throws overwhelming evidence to one point. over all this article is more on level with an editorial than an encyclopeda based on hard facts. 71.143.134.202 07:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)NutopianCitizen
Quote:"If it were unbiased, then the refutation sections would be larger than they are now. -
Arthur Rubin |
(talk)"
An interesting statement. I notice you also argue that refutation sections should not be on the
September 11, 2001 attacks page at all. I actually agree with you there but as this page is for "conspiracy Theories", refutations should not be a large part or the page becomes too POV by pushing the official account. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Wayne
08:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
This discussion began 2 sections up in this talk page in a section called "Edit reverted without cause". It has gotten a little off track so i wanted to start a new section for it.
This conversation is regarding a debate on the proper form of the following paragraph under the section entitled "Twin Towers collapse as a controlled demolition", the current paragraph im refering to (which will likely have changed since i posted this) is as follows:
There is a range of opinion about the most likely sort and amount of explosives, the way they were distributed, and how they were successfully brought into the building. Steven Jones, of the new Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice organisation, believes that the molten metal found underground weeks after 9/11 suggests that jet fuel could not have been the only incendiary used that day, and that thermite (in the form of thermate), perhaps in combination with other devices, was likely involved. Jones says "molten material" streamed out of the south tower shortly before it collapsed.[55][56] There were reports of "molten steel" in the pockets of the rubble.[57][58][59] Firefighters described having seen in the rubble "molten steel running down the channels, like you were in a foundry". World Trade Center USGS Thermal study, conducted on September 16, 2001 using Airborne Visible/Infrared Imaging Spectrometer, showed hotspots in the rubble reaching temperatures greater than 1000 K (727°C, 1341°F).[60] Samples of a once molten mixture of iron, aluminum, and sulfur were found in the rubble and analyzed by FEMA, who was unable to determine the source of the sulfur stating: "The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 [WTC7] and 2 [Towers] are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified." [61] Those elements as residues, as well as high temperatures sustained in the rubble, can result from burning thermate[62]. Jones believes the sulfur is a result of deliberate demolition using thermite.
Debeo Morium 14:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey tom, i tried to find a good compromise to your last edit that didnt leave out any of FEMA's details (And i didnt revert any of your work, or at least tried my best to leave it all there except for a word or two). Basically you pointed out on you talk page your edit was to indicate that it was no longer molten when fema got it, so i put "once molten" there instead, cause it is important to show that it was molten at one time (fema says this themselves in the cited source) let it all mix into one compound. Also i added a statement regarding these compounds as the result of a thermate reaction along with a source indicating it as such. If you dont like it please debate it here, id love to reach a mutual conclusion with consensus. Debeo Morium 14:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
The FEMA report has to trump the NIST as it addresses points raised in the paragraph where NIST does not. Of course mention can be made that NIST did not test the steel for Sulphur but to add anything more is encouraging readers to assume NIST tested and discounted the claim which they did not. The NIST conclusions may well be correct but they are not reliable for something they neither tested for nor mentioned. Wayne 09:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
By Tom Harrison's suggestion, active users here should read this and comment. — Kanodin 05:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I would like to propose this revised sentence for addition into the article:
I think this sentence is true and unlikely to be disputed. We use the term because we intuit that name as the most recognizable, not because of attributable evidence (we can cite no content analysis of our reliable sources to determine name usage; many sources use the term, but no reliable sources say that "9/11 conspiracy theories" is the most appropriate term). This sentence also categorically excludes any discussions that critique the 9/11 Commission Report without positing an opposing version that significantly increases the U.S.'s culpability (e.g., if someone merely says that the Commission did not adequately interview Richard Clark, the 9/11 conspiracy theory predicate would not apply). Of course, the word "colloquially" above is optional and can be removed if anyone has a serious objection, but I think it best captures the spirit in which we justify using "9/11 conspiracy theories". It is a real but informal expression. — Kanodin 01:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Relying on the internet alone for definitions of conspiracy theory and conspiracism is alarmingly superficial. There are dozens of scholarly books in print that define conspiracism. Here is one definition from Right-Wing Populism in America (which I co-wrote as Chip Berlet:
What are the key elements of conspiracism?
The work of Barkun, Goldberg, Mintz, Fenster, and Pipes can also be consulted. Try using a library card--it is a wonderful key to knowledge.-- Cberlet 13:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I think that FBI agent Coleen Rowley's letter to then FBI Director Robert Mueller has reason be be cited in this section. Time Magazine article It shows that she was compelled to write to the director to politely express her frustration at the difficulty of attaining and following up FISA search and detainment requests for accused 911 terrorist Moussaoui in the weeks up to and after the attacks. She indicates that had those requests been granted on the wealth of probable cause evidence collected, it would have gone a long way toward preventing the attacks. These are serious claims, as is in small part indicated by the following passages from the letter:
"...FBI Supervisory Special Agent (SSA) who was the one most involved in the Moussaoui matter and who, up to that point seemed to have been consistently, almost deliberately thwarting the Minneapolis FBI agents' efforts (see number 5). Even after the attacks had begun, the SSA in question was still attempting to block the search of Moussaoui's computer, characterizing the World Trade Center attacks as a mere coincidence with Misseapolis' prior suspicions about Moussaoui."
"...(The SSA in question actually received a promotion some months afterward!)"
JWarwick 04:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
How are these paragraph's?
In 2002, FBI whistleblower Coleen Rowley wrote to then FBI director Robert Mueller describing her experience working with Minneapolis FBI division agents leading up to the 911 attacks Time Magazine article. Her division was tracking suspected terrorist Zacaraias Moussaoui.
Rowley states the Minneapolis bureau had desperately sought a warrant to search Moussaoui's computer. She asserts that there was probable cause for this because
Moussaoui signalled he had something to hide in the way he refused to allow them to search his computer
. She also indicates her view that division intelligence on flight training and French intelligence reports on Moussaoui received leading up to the attacks fully necessitated such a warrant
FBI eMails concerning Moussaoui.
Stated for reasons of integrity and frustration, Rowley goes on to describe the behavior of an FBI Supervisory Special Agent; her superior Deputy General Counsel Marion "Spike" Bowman as having
consistently, almost deliberately thwarted the Minneapolis FBI agents' efforts
to attain the FISA search warrant up to the day of he attacks, and that
even after the attacks had begun, the SSA in question was still attempting to block the search of Moussaoui's computer,
characterizing the World Trade Center attacks as a mere coincidence with Misseapolis' prior suspicions about Moussaoui.
. Further to this she says that the SSA agent in question
received a promotion some months afterward!
FBI watchdog Sen. Chuck Grassley, Republican-Iowa, later wrote to FBI Director Robert Mueller:
If the application for the FISA warrant had gone forward, agents would have found information in Moussaoui's belongings that linked him both to a major financier of the hijacking plot working out of Germany, and to a Malaysian al-Qaida boss who had met with at least two other hijackers while under surveillance by intelligence officials.
Coleen Rowley's account was not reviewed by the 911 commission as she was never asked to testify. JWarwick 03:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay then I will request to put them (the paras above) in without blockquotes. JWarwick 06:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I know this probably isn't the place for it, but I was discussing the 9/11 article proper, and came across ppl discussing this and just had a question I always wondered how all you conspirarcy nuts (enthusiasts/keepers of the truth - however you like to be referred to) figure out: If the towers were brought down by bombs, how do you fit in the fact that it was the top of the buildings that collapsed first? I know that there was/is a lot of whoohaa about whether the temp fuel burns at is enough to make the steel melt, but do you take that to mean there were bombs placed where the planes crashed to help the fire along with its job? How did they know exactly where the planes were gonna crash? Big Love :) Wireless99 20:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
9/11 conspiracy theories/Archive 15 page. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
- Debeo Morium: to be morally bound ( Talk | Contribs) 03:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
You need to understand what "all you conspirarcy nuts" actually means. Only 16% of the general population believe in a conspiracy theory 100%. 36% believe a conspiracy theory is plausable and an investigation is needed. Only 30% of the population actually believes the official account. 65% believe at least part of one of the conspiracy theories. These numbers indicate that it is appropriate to consider conspiracy theories until outstanding questions are answered. It means this article is relevant and should be maintained as NPOV as possible regardless of what the supporters of the official account want. I point out that the Pearl Harbour conspiracy theories were discounted as implausable but we now know they were in fact partially true and it is only the degree of truth that is still debated. If everything "implausable" is discounted and not mentioned then the truth never comes out. Ergo conspiracy theories are a public service. Wayne 04:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
9/11 conspiracy theories/Archive 15 page. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
- Debeo Morium: to be morally bound ( Talk | Contribs) 07:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
There is no fact at all supporting the claim that former CEO of Securacom, Wirt Walker III, is a cousin of president Bush.
I've yet seen any source supporting the claim, and therefore I think that the claim either should be removed here, or supporting evidence be added to the article. As it is now, the only source cited is an article written by David Griffin (note 67), hardly an unbiased source and one that actually doesn't provide anything at all to show that Walker III is in fact anyway related to George Bush.
From WP:RS
Sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight should only be used in articles about the sources themselves. Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources.
-- SLOB1 11:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
First, the Wiki-entry states it as a fact, which its not. The Washington Specator writer, Margie Burns, states in her blog [22]:
"A former colleague of the head of the company, Wirt Dexter Walker III, suggested to me that Walker is a distant relative of the Bush family. While any blood relationship to the Bush Walkers would have to be remote (the first Wirt D. Walker, two generations ago, was based in Chicago; the second in McLean, Virginia, in the DIA), "
A "former collegue", "suggested" "distant relative". That is hardly enought to state, as the Wiki article does:
"from 1999 to January 2002 their cousin Wirt Walker III was the CEO".
Its_pure_conspiracist_speculation. He is definately not their cousin, and no evidence show that he's even a distant cousin.
Secondly, "Also no one has denied it which you would expect", is argumentum ad ignorantiam . Its a logical fallacy.
The claim should either be supported with proper sources, or removed.
-- SLOB1 21:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
The text as it is today doesn't even reflect the role Stratesec/Securacom had at WTC (e.g it was involed in developing the security-description plan, the layout of the electronic security system). The current description is at best sketchy. The main reason why CT'ers pull the alleged Walker-Bush connection, is to claim that the Bush family "was in charge of security at the WTC", and thus had an opportunity to pre-rig the towers with explosives, thermite or whatever. By stopping at just stating "a company that provided security for the WTC", that theory, imho, is fueled.
And what is a "principal"? As I understand it Marvin Bush was a board member, which could mean just about anything. If he was indeed a "principal" his role in the company needs to be elaborated.
In its present incarnation, I also think that the mentioning of United Airlines within brackets should either be removed, or clarified (Why stop at mentioning United Airlines, why not all of Stratesec/Securacom operations?). Right now its just plain insinuation.
I think it would suffice to write something along with:
"Critics often argue that the difficulty of preparing the building for demolition without being noticed makes controlled demolition implausible. Proponents sometimes point out that between 1993 and 2000, Marvin Bush (President Bush's brother) was a board member of Stratesec/Securacom, a company that for two years was involved in developing an electronic security system for the World Trade Center. Some also claims that the CEO from 1999 to 2002, Wirt Walker III, is a distant cousin of the Bush Family, however the family connection has not been proven. Stratesec/Securacom lost their contract in 1998 to another company." -- SLOB1 22:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
"Critics often argue that the difficulty of preparing the building for demolition without being noticed makes controlled demolition implausible. Proponents sometimes point out that a company Stratesec that had a role in developing security systems for the World Trade Center had high officers in the company that had Bush family relations. Marvin Bush Presidents Bush's brother was a member of the firms board of directors from 1993 through 2000. While on the board, Marvin Bush served on the company's Audit Committee and Compensation Committee. He acquired 53,000 shares of stock in the company at 52 cents a share, partly through his private company, Andrews-Bush, located in northern Virginia. Company stock became worthless after the company was de-listed on the American Stock Exchange in the fall of 2002. Securities and Exchange Commission filings ceased showing Marvin Bush as a shareholder after 2000 but there are no filings indicating when his stock was sold. Wirt Walker III who according to a former colleague and member of the Kuwaiti ruling family Mishal Yousef Saud Al Sabah is a distant relative "in the Walker branch of the Bush family" was at various times CEO and chairman of the board at Stratesec.
The company received a $8.3 million World Trade Center security contract in October 1996 and received about $9.2 million from the WTC job from 1996 (a quarter of its revenues that year) to 1998. But in 1998 the company was "excused from the project" because it could not fulfill the work according to former manager Al Weinstein and the electronic security work at the WTC was taken over by EJ Electric a larger contractor. Since that time the company has gone bankrupt and as of 2005 investors were suing the company's partners including Walker in federal court in Washington.
Marvin Bush also served on the board of directors of HCC Insurance one of the main insurance carriers for the World Trade Center. HCC lost $29 million at 9/11 largely from World Trade Center property losses, medical payouts in New York City, and workers' compensation and reinsurance losses. Bush's directorship at Stratesec was not included on the proxy statement for HCC in 1999 and his connections with HCC were not included on the proxy statement for Stratesec. SEC regulations require directors and officers of public companies to list their other directorships and business connections.
The White House has not responded to repeated questions and requests for comment about Marvin Bush's relationship with Securacom" TRIMMING THE BUSHES Family Business at the Watergate By Margie Burns Washington Spectator February 15, 2005
The cite is a bi weekly published since 1974. You have name of the person that claims Walker is a distant relative and a name of a person who claims the company was fired from the WTC job. I want to thank SLOB1 who pointed out that the company was fired from the WTC job which in my POV is a vital piece of information that I had not seen before and which prompted me to inquire about it leading me find this cite that had a lot of detail and provided me with a new perspective on this. This is at best a rough draft. It does not at describe how Stratesec became Securacom and has information that is not directly related to 9/11 conspiracy theories. In short this needs to be reedited by an editor has has a working knowledge of how corporations are structured which this editor does not posses Edkollin 06:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I do know that a quote floats around the net negating the claim that Walker was an ever so distant "cousin":
"Walker is the great-grandnephew of his namesake Wirt D. Walker (1860-1899), a successful railroad entrepreneur and philanthropist from Chicago who became blind and helped found the Art Institute of Chicago. They are descended from James M. Walker of New Hampshire. Although frequently cited as a cousin of Marvin Bush, who is a descendant of George Herbert Walker of St. Louis, there is no connection between the families."
I however haven't been able to find the source for that text, other than an apparently deleted Wikipedia article about Wirt.
--
SLOB1
15:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I read that the other day and it actually continues by saying that the proof is that these Walkers lived in Chicago so any relationship is unlikely. I tried to trace the Walkers and found that Chicago was only where their main business interests and main residences were. They spent half the year (since the mid 1800's) living in Massachusetts and they all attended Yale so that sort of negates the proof given for no connection. There are numerous mentions on the internet to Wirt being a distant cousin and they all postdate that original source but there is nothing disputing it. Wayne 09:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
-- SLOB1 19:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Could you please provide a link to the Yale bios, and/or give me an email whom to reach at Yale to get access to these bios? For the record my quote does not claim that distance was the reason for them not being relatives (which would make absolutely no sense at all, one might live in New York, and one in San Franscico and they could still be related). It is just a small bio showing that they are different persons, different Walkers. One from Chicago and one from S:t Louis. And yet again, the burden of proof is on the party making the claim, not the other way around. If someone claims two persons are cousins, that person is the one to prove it.
Another point could be made that very, very distant relations is a moot point, if you look back in time anyone is related. The claim in question asserts that they are in fact _cousins_. If no such evidence exist, again I move to have the claim removed, or have it clarified that no evidence exists that proves, or even suggests, that Walker and Bush are indeed cousins (as in sharing grand-parents).
-- SLOB1 06:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I put what I wrote above as a new subsection of the controlled demolition section. I felt with the debate kind of stalled here the need to get the new information out to the many readers who might be looking at this article with the 6th anniversary coming up Tuesday. As for Walker I said if and what the relationship is remains murky. I said David Griffin is claiming that Walker is the presidents cousin and added a cite for that. I mentioned the Kuwaiti ruling family member who claims that Walker is a "distant relative" as per the Washington Spectator article. If a counter claim can be found of course it should immediatly be added to that section Edkollin 06:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
-- SLOB1 22:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Image:Noseoutframe.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 05:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I want to comment about 911 content and titles and point of view issues. I didn't know quite where to put this so I'm starting a new page.
First, just because someone is interested in the paranormal, doesn't mean they can't deal logically with facts. Many of the early astronomers were also astrologers, but were still valuable as astronomers, and contributed in humanity's quest for scientific knowledge. To be interested in 911 AND symbolic ideas, and poetical terms, like giant lizards, karma, faces in clouds, etc, does not necessarily mean people are completely insane. However, I don't think these ideas should have a big place in Wikipedia.
What I do think is germane in the 911 Wikipedia content and discussions are 2 approaches that are more "reality-based':
1. Approach Number One: 911 as history: The "story" of 911. This includes the mainstream approach,
the story of the passengers taking over flight 93, the government conspiracy theory of how it was all planned from a cave in a stone age country, (David vs. Goliath) and the idea that this story is pieced together from all kinds of little tidbits including a picture of an "Islamic" bandana in an FBI plastic bag, good-bye phone calls, etc. This is the story of our time and deserves a place in an encyclopedia. And my heart goes out to everyone involved. This is the emotional approach.
2. Approach Number Two: 911 as a crime: This is a very different approach from the one above.
It involves being skeptical of everything until it can be proved. It involves wanting actual evidence, not good story items. If one is investigating a crime, it is not woo-woo or crazy to be skeptical. One should be skeptical. A murder investigator will want an alibi from most EVERYONE involved with the victim, including the spouse! (You can't just say, "Oh, someone would NEVER kill their own husband or wife.") The ideal is to find the truth of what actually happened, whatever it might be. To be skeptical of people's "stories" is what is required. To be skeptical of the government's story is what is required. And especially in this case, since the stories are often contradictory. And, I have to say that I find this approach enormously interesting. This is the unsolved puzzle of our time. This is the mental/intellectual approach.
I think distinguishing these two approaches might be helpful in organizing and titling pages and sub-pages. I think some people favor Approach #1 and get very emotional about those using Approach #2, and lump anyone using Approach #2 as a questionable source, (because they are hinting at a different story) when it's actually just a difference in approach.
For example, it may be historically true, to the best of our knowledge, that, in one instance, it was an American Airlines jet that crashed, but presenting evidence of this in a trial is an entirely different thing. The same with the phone calls. They add to the story, but would they hold up in court? I, for one, am interested in the evidentiary approach, especially since there has been so much controversy. Let's get down to brass tacks.
Maybe there could be a page called "Investigating 911" or "911 as a Crime" that could be more evidence-based, rather than story-based, that could include: >facts with their sources >conclusions from these facts-quotes from those drawing the conclusions >disputed facts-quotes for and against >contradictory evidence-placing sourced items side-by-side (you decide!) >tentative theories based on the above It could be truly "encyclopediac," as in thorough!
And, just to vent,
My understanding is that the legal definition of "conspiracy" is 2 or more people plotting destruction.
Unless you think it was a coincidence that 4 planes were hijacked on the same morning, 911 has
to be a conspiracy, it's self-evident. Anyway you look at it, it was planned by 2 or more people, and it was destructive.
Who all was involved in the conspiracy is what is in dispute, or unsolved.
Saying 911 Conspiracy is like saying apple-fruit.
Titling the page "Conspiracy Theories" is like pitting different stories against each other. The connect-the-dots approach is an up in the air type thing, with ideas that can be made to look silly or woo-woo depending on one's point of view. It's just ideas up in the clouds, that could be bantered around endlessly.
But calling it "Investigating 911" or "911 as a Crime" brings it down to earth, with respectful room for sourced physical evidence, anomalies, tentative theories, suspicions, contradictory items, etc. This would be a great service to our country, to catalog all this in Wikipedia's format. This is a much more neutral approach.
It's not a silly subject. I've seen estimates that we've killed up to a million innocent Iraqi civilians over this, and with the median age over there at 19, that figures out to possibly half a million children. It's a serious subject, and it deserves serious treatment, not just emotional scorn for differing opinions.
````