This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 25 | ← | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | → | Archive 35 |
William Tahil has proposed (and seems to earnestly believe) that a nuclear meltdown (or a couple) was/were intentionally triggered deep below the towers on 9/11. Um...Wow. And here I thought I'd heard it all. While this is sufficiently bonkers to qualify alongside the other nuttiness in this article, is it too obscure to warrant a mention? The next thing you know someone will claim that a bunch of lizardmen rule the world. Oh...wait. (buries face in palm and shakes head) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.254.86.20 ( talk) 05:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
"Just before 9/11 there was an "extraordinary" amount of put options placed on United Airlines and American Airlines stocks"
Minoru Yamasaki did WTC! 198.151.130.69 ( talk) 05:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
I added a speech from John Buchanan from his own campaign web site. Practice has been that a person's own words on a campaign web site are citable as fact for what he said, and not for anything else. The problem is that his web site uses all caps. Should the quote be "fixed"? Cheers. Collect ( talk) 19:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Request: Can someone add the secondary source at 9/11 Truth movement? I can't do that, right now, due to general editing restriction (1RR) that apply to this article? Cs32en Talk to me 00:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Collect: "The candidacy was reported in secondary sources."
Only one source is in Buchanan's article for the candidacy, and as aforementioned, it is restricted from public view. Nightscream ( talk) 15:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
How many secondary sources are needed? [1] Yep - his position is covered in sufficient sources. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 16:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
I have to take issue with the following sentence at the end of the section on the Pentagon:
"The videos show an aircraft striking the building at high speed."
The word aircraft in this context implies that these videos do indeed show a commercial passenger jet hitting the Pentagon, thus proving once and for all that is what happened. If you have taken the time to actually watch those videos you can see that they prove almost nothing for either side. It's impossible to tell what's happening in any of them, let alone prove that it was a commercial passenger jet, or a missile. Some kind of revision in language is necessary here. Something like:
"The videos show an impossible to identify object hit the building at high speed."
Or something of the like. Using the word aircraft here is disingenuous. Any thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThinkForYourself123 ( talk • contribs) 20:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
OK, I definitely see your point. How about:
"The videos reportedly show an aircraft striking the building at high speed."
I'd say that's pretty accurate. What do you think?
P.S. Please forgive my comment formating. I'm slowly figuring it out :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThinkForYourself123 ( talk • contribs) 19:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
The word "reportedly" is not biased and is not a weasel word in this case. It's the word that accurately describes the situation. The videos, in fact, do not "show an aircraft striking the building at high speed," because it's impossible to tell what the object is from viewing the videos. Now, it is true that the sources you point to report that the videos show the impact of Flight 77, and that is how this needs to be portrayed in the article.
We're supposed to take it on faith that it was indeed a commercial airliner, because that is what we've been told by the media, but this entire conversation has to include the possibility that the media hasn’t been told the entire truth. Otherwise this is no longer an article about 9/11 conspiracy theories, it’s an article about regurgitating the media’s debunking campaign. In this case, it’s only fair to the article that something be done to temper the phrase:
"The videos show an aircraft striking the building at high speed."
This sentence implies that these videos are the end of the discussion, and that it’s a fact that the impact of Flight 77 is what is portrayed in them. Please watch the videos again. There is no way of being able to tell what is hitting the Pentagon from viewing them. The only thing we do know, as fact, is that the sources you point to report that’s what is happening in the video. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThinkForYourself123 ( talk • contribs) 00:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree, The videos show an aircraft is misleadingly implying that the aircraft is discernable in the video. The US justice department has released the first video of the plane crashing into the Pentagon (BBC) does not imply that a plane is discernable in the video. Here's what is said in the BBC video (linked from the article, under the picture): "At first it's hard to make out the hijacked plane. But look closely at the lower right-hand corner. The white blob entering the frame appears to be the nose of the plane, skidding along the ground before crashing into the Pentagon. That adds to images from a second security camera, ten feet away, which show a white streak in the lower right-hand corner, then the explosion." (emphasis added). The Judicial Watch page does not say a plane is seen in the videos at all. -- V111P ( talk) 09:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Can't we use WP:SENSE in this case? -- Solde9 ( talk) 21:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
"When Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, one wing hit the ground and the other was sheared off by the Pentagon's load-bearing columns." So where are they in the photos? Big things, no?-- andreasegde ( talk) 23:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
The above was deleted, as it was supposedly not about the article. The sentence quoted is actually in the article. If this comment is deleted again, I will take the matter further.-- andreasegde ( talk) 09:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Excuse me, but "our article" is alarming, and very shocking. Do you really think you control this? Please read WP:OWN, to learn more.-- andreasegde ( talk) 20:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNuosBnlw5s —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.6.63.181 ( talk) 22:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Why was this entire subsection on WTC Building 7 completely deleted, along with the supporting reliable sources? Is it irrelevant? Is it somehow biased or misleading? Are the sources unreliable? You really should give a precise reason for deleting an entire section of an article along with all the support references:
You 9/11 truthers are wasting your time because you don't get it. There is a strong consensus here that the "conspiracy theories" are wacko fringe. This discussion board is as predictable as the sun coming up in the east. Newbie adds truther information, veteran editor takes it out. Truther squawks. Veteran editors win and item does not get in because the vast majority of editors support the veteran editor and the veterans do have a greater knowledge of the guidelines then the truthers for the most part. All is quiet for awhile before the process starts over again. LIHOP May 31 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.225.141.253 ( talk) 21:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Based on recent polls, such as a 2011 CNN poll, now 84% of Americans believe that the US government knew the attack would occur or planned the attack. Only 16% now believe that foreign cave dwellers were involved in the attacks. Thousands of engineers, pilots, military officers, professors and others also agreed that there is overwhelming evident to show that nano-thermite and RXD were used to bring the towers down. Nano-thermite and RXD were found in every dusk sample taken.
Mcdo5454 ( talk) 20:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
EDIT REQUEST RE:== In a 2008 poll of 17 countries, 15% of those surveyed believed the US government was responsible for the attacks, 7% believed Israel was and another 7% believed some other perpetrator, other than al Qaeda, was responsible ==
This has no citation, no information on WHO conducted the poll, no mention of which countries were surveyed. These are all important things to include in any survey data as the entity conducting the poll and the demographic surveyed can make an enormous impact on the results of the survey. For example: I could conduct a survey that shows that 85% of the people surveyed believe women use sexual harassment as a control mechanism and most cases are false accusations, sounds pretty overwhelming until you realize 90 percent of those surveyed are people who have been terminated from employment for claims of sexual harassment. ALWAYS LIST A SOURCE IN A SURVEY AND A DEMOGRAPHIC PLEASE
Sagecorliss ( talk)Sage
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
It seems that the Criticism section is becoming contaminated by pro-conspiracy theory rebuttals, some of which are not pertinent to specific criticisms. Can these be removed from this section and possibly moved to a new 'Responses to Criticism' section? This paragraph in particular is a criticism of the critics and so does not belong in a Criticism section:
"Historian Kenneth J. Dillon argues that 9/11 conspiracy theories represent an overly easy target for skeptics and that their criticisms obfuscate the underlying issue of what actually happened if there was not a conspiracy. He suggests that the answer is criminal negligence on the part of the president and vice president, who were repeatedly warned, followed by a cover-up conspiracy after 9/11.[247] This was expanded upon by columnist Matt Mankelow writing for the online edition of the British Socialist Worker. He concludes that 9/11 truthers while "desperately trying to legitimately question a version of events" end up playing into the hands of the neoconservatives they are trying to take down by creating a diversion. Mankelow noted that this has irritated many people who are politically left wing.[248]"
That intention is difficult to determine from the wording. It seems circular. Can it be clarified? Who is the "their" in this sentence: "Historian Kenneth J. Dillon argues that 9/11 conspiracy theories represent an overly easy target for skeptics and that their criticisms obfuscate the underlying issue of what actually happened if there was not a conspiracy."? Simplifying the sentence could read: "Skeptical critics of conspiracy theories obfuscate what actually happened if there was no conspiracy.", or "9/11 conspiracy theorists' criticisms obfuscate what actually happened if there was no conspiracy." I see your point that the second simplification appears to be the intent, but I had to reread it several times to be sure. Should it be that difficult?
There is a similar problem with the Mankelow quote "...this has irritated many people who are politically left wing" in that the position of these "many people" regarding the conspiracy theories is not specified. Do these "many people" disbelieve the theories, or do they believe them but view them as impolitic, or a mixture of both? Specificity here would aid comprehension.
Edkollin, please bear with me on this. This article is on 911 conspiracy theories, and this section is on Criticism of these theories. The use of the word "conspiracy" to describe a cover-up is confusing here. The phrase "real conspiracy" in this discussion is similarly distracting. A conspiracy to hide government incompetence is a conspiracy as much as any truther conspiracy, so why is this not in a list of conspiracies, at least as an alternate kind of conspiracy (I'm not asking to move it, I'm asking to encourage thinking about how this is presented)? In a sense, because it apparently denies the validity of truther conspiracies but postulates another conspiracy, it is really neither fish nor fowl for the opposing sections of this article. You've convinced me that it is not a rebuttal of criticism; yet, most critics of 911 conspiracy theories take he government's side, more or less, and so a criticism that doesn't is again, different.
I have a few thoughts. Do you think it might make more sense to create a new Wiki article on AMOC where this can be spelled out in more detail along the lines of your discussion post above, and then reference it in this article? There currently is no such article. There is a lot packed into the sentence on Kenneth Dillion, and doing this may make it more readable. I am not familiar with Dillion's article, and perhaps it holds other examples outside of 911 that can be described in a separate article, and so can be linked from other articles as well. Also, please don't take offense, but I have the feeling that you are much more familiar with this material than most people, and that you are not looking at this the way that someone new to the material sees it. BTW, I do like the change that you apparently made. That new second sentence in the paragraph does help.
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The title of this article should be changed to 9/11 Alternate Theories to more accurately reflect reality and to avoid the negative connotation of the word conspiracy. Lovepompitus ( talk) 20:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Why was the description of this petition deleted? It's notable information that is supported by the reliable sources cited: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories&diff=440239510&oldid=440238603 Ghostofnemo ( talk) 03:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
What do editors feel about adding the following to the 3.1.3 Israeli agents subection?
FBI spokesman Margolin said: "Their explanation of why they were happy was that the United States would now have to commit itself to fighting [Middle East] terrorism, that Americans would have an understanding and empathy for Israel's circumstances, and that the attacks were ultimately a good thing for Israel". Yet the Israelis' were witnessed celebratiing on the New Jersey waterfront during the first sixteen minutes after the initial crash, from the time the first plane hit the north tower at 8:46 a.m., to the time the second plane hit the south tower, at 9:02 a.m. At that time the overwhelming assumption of news outlets and government officials was that the plane's impact was simply a terrible accident. It was only after the second plane hit that suspicions were aroused. The journalist Christopher Ketcham has pointed out that if the men were cheering for the reasons given to the FBI, then they obviously believed they were witnessing a terrorist act and not an accident. Oded Ellner admitted on Israeli TV: "We are coming from a country that experiences terror daily. Our purpose was to document the event". This would imply that they thought they were documenting with film and video a terrorist act before anyone knew it was a terrorist act. [1] -- Mystichumwipe ( talk) 14:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected|answered=no}} There is no mention in this article of the various attempts made at testing the conspiracy using the courts. Just this spring the 2nd Circuit dismissed the Gallop case that claimed the Pentagon was hit by a rocket or other explosive as frivolous. There was the Stitch case that I have yet to read, and a consolidated multidistrict case that claimed a laser type weapon destroyed the WTC; both in New York. And there is a new case in Denver that claims Article III standing by challenging the post 9/11 security measures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stapler80 ( talk • contribs) 15:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC) Stapler80 ( talk) 03:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Why was the link to the Rumsfled interview deleted? http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=3845 "...Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.135.72.159 ( talk) 22:58, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected|answered=no}} I am opening this section to discuss the aforesaid claim that no explosives scenario has been explained. Jim Hoffman has published such scenario http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/blasting_scenario.html The question is can this reference be cited?
I am also adding to this discussiong the NPOV issue aparent when the holes to the theorists are readily exposed and the holes of the official versions are not. The following language was deleted by QuestforKnowledge because as he puts it "are of questionable relevance":
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) concluded the accepted version was more than sufficient to explain the initiation of collapse of the buildings. The NIST investigation was limited to the collapse initiation analysis and did not dwelved into the actual fall of the towers. cite web|title=NCSTAR 1,WTC Investigation, Executive Summary at xxxvi "Simulation ..."|url= http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201.pdf%7Caccessdate=22 July 2011
Another NPOV issue is the total silence as to the fact that the underground fires were burning for more than 90 days and a firefighther described the amount poured on it as that of a giant lake. http://web.archive.org/web/20081226231906/http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/12/19/archive/main321907.shtml
The scope of the NIST investigation the is relevant in the light that the article appears to state that all official organizations back the NIST report and the average user would easily assume that the NIST investigation was a full blown rather than the limited investigation that it was.
The fact that the fightfighters describe the water poured on Ground Zero as a Giant Lake neutralizes the allegation that the excavation equipment would melt. Here another NPOV issue.
The allegation that Jones has not explained the thermite scenario is charged in the light that a self plublishe scenario is published plausibly arguing that ceiling tiles and paint were the explosives. NPOV issue. Stapler80 ( talk) 19:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
"You couldn't even begin to imagine how much water was pumped in there," said Tom Manley of the Uniformed Firefighters Association, the largest fire department union. "It was like you were creating a giant lake."
The first sentence was not at all not representative of the content of the one source that it cited. Moreover, the cited web page is obviously incomplete (ending with a heading that has no content following, and not containing other content relevant to the original first sentence that its introduction foretells). Research on TheWaybackMachine shows that the page has been in this incomplete form for quite some time (perhaps always).
MY CHANGES: (1) I cited to another page from the same website. (2) I added a second citation. (3) I subsumed the one-sentence "Types of Criticism" section and its citation into the new first sentence (i.e. moving it there). Coastwise ( talk) 22:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
An editor has requested that a Request for Comment be held on this issue on my talkpage, but asked me to do it since they were unfamiliar with the process. Since we seem to be unable to resolve this among ourselves, I agree that this might help us resolve the issue:
Should a subsection with information about the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 be included in the article 9/11 conspiracy theories? Such information has been repeatedly deleted from the article, as was done here: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories&diff=430572843&oldid=430470741 Ghostofnemo ( talk) 02:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Looks like there's still no consensus on this issue. Ghostofnemo ( talk) 13:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Alright this just ridiculous, it should not take two fucking paragraphs to introduce the subject of the article and calling it anti-semitic in the opening sentence without extensive documentation of this being a hallmark is completely absurd. I understand that certain editors aren't happy with the outcome of the RFC and that a link to this article was added to the main 9/11 article, but that doesn't mean you should go out of your way to destroy this one. The definition of what the 9/11 conspiracy theories are should be first and foremost in the introduction of it, not a two paragraph preamble that is designed solely to debunk the theories. Soxwon ( talk) 19:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 25 | ← | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | → | Archive 35 |
William Tahil has proposed (and seems to earnestly believe) that a nuclear meltdown (or a couple) was/were intentionally triggered deep below the towers on 9/11. Um...Wow. And here I thought I'd heard it all. While this is sufficiently bonkers to qualify alongside the other nuttiness in this article, is it too obscure to warrant a mention? The next thing you know someone will claim that a bunch of lizardmen rule the world. Oh...wait. (buries face in palm and shakes head) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.254.86.20 ( talk) 05:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
"Just before 9/11 there was an "extraordinary" amount of put options placed on United Airlines and American Airlines stocks"
Minoru Yamasaki did WTC! 198.151.130.69 ( talk) 05:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
I added a speech from John Buchanan from his own campaign web site. Practice has been that a person's own words on a campaign web site are citable as fact for what he said, and not for anything else. The problem is that his web site uses all caps. Should the quote be "fixed"? Cheers. Collect ( talk) 19:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Request: Can someone add the secondary source at 9/11 Truth movement? I can't do that, right now, due to general editing restriction (1RR) that apply to this article? Cs32en Talk to me 00:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Collect: "The candidacy was reported in secondary sources."
Only one source is in Buchanan's article for the candidacy, and as aforementioned, it is restricted from public view. Nightscream ( talk) 15:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
How many secondary sources are needed? [1] Yep - his position is covered in sufficient sources. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 16:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
I have to take issue with the following sentence at the end of the section on the Pentagon:
"The videos show an aircraft striking the building at high speed."
The word aircraft in this context implies that these videos do indeed show a commercial passenger jet hitting the Pentagon, thus proving once and for all that is what happened. If you have taken the time to actually watch those videos you can see that they prove almost nothing for either side. It's impossible to tell what's happening in any of them, let alone prove that it was a commercial passenger jet, or a missile. Some kind of revision in language is necessary here. Something like:
"The videos show an impossible to identify object hit the building at high speed."
Or something of the like. Using the word aircraft here is disingenuous. Any thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThinkForYourself123 ( talk • contribs) 20:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
OK, I definitely see your point. How about:
"The videos reportedly show an aircraft striking the building at high speed."
I'd say that's pretty accurate. What do you think?
P.S. Please forgive my comment formating. I'm slowly figuring it out :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThinkForYourself123 ( talk • contribs) 19:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
The word "reportedly" is not biased and is not a weasel word in this case. It's the word that accurately describes the situation. The videos, in fact, do not "show an aircraft striking the building at high speed," because it's impossible to tell what the object is from viewing the videos. Now, it is true that the sources you point to report that the videos show the impact of Flight 77, and that is how this needs to be portrayed in the article.
We're supposed to take it on faith that it was indeed a commercial airliner, because that is what we've been told by the media, but this entire conversation has to include the possibility that the media hasn’t been told the entire truth. Otherwise this is no longer an article about 9/11 conspiracy theories, it’s an article about regurgitating the media’s debunking campaign. In this case, it’s only fair to the article that something be done to temper the phrase:
"The videos show an aircraft striking the building at high speed."
This sentence implies that these videos are the end of the discussion, and that it’s a fact that the impact of Flight 77 is what is portrayed in them. Please watch the videos again. There is no way of being able to tell what is hitting the Pentagon from viewing them. The only thing we do know, as fact, is that the sources you point to report that’s what is happening in the video. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThinkForYourself123 ( talk • contribs) 00:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree, The videos show an aircraft is misleadingly implying that the aircraft is discernable in the video. The US justice department has released the first video of the plane crashing into the Pentagon (BBC) does not imply that a plane is discernable in the video. Here's what is said in the BBC video (linked from the article, under the picture): "At first it's hard to make out the hijacked plane. But look closely at the lower right-hand corner. The white blob entering the frame appears to be the nose of the plane, skidding along the ground before crashing into the Pentagon. That adds to images from a second security camera, ten feet away, which show a white streak in the lower right-hand corner, then the explosion." (emphasis added). The Judicial Watch page does not say a plane is seen in the videos at all. -- V111P ( talk) 09:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Can't we use WP:SENSE in this case? -- Solde9 ( talk) 21:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
"When Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, one wing hit the ground and the other was sheared off by the Pentagon's load-bearing columns." So where are they in the photos? Big things, no?-- andreasegde ( talk) 23:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
The above was deleted, as it was supposedly not about the article. The sentence quoted is actually in the article. If this comment is deleted again, I will take the matter further.-- andreasegde ( talk) 09:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Excuse me, but "our article" is alarming, and very shocking. Do you really think you control this? Please read WP:OWN, to learn more.-- andreasegde ( talk) 20:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNuosBnlw5s —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.6.63.181 ( talk) 22:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Why was this entire subsection on WTC Building 7 completely deleted, along with the supporting reliable sources? Is it irrelevant? Is it somehow biased or misleading? Are the sources unreliable? You really should give a precise reason for deleting an entire section of an article along with all the support references:
You 9/11 truthers are wasting your time because you don't get it. There is a strong consensus here that the "conspiracy theories" are wacko fringe. This discussion board is as predictable as the sun coming up in the east. Newbie adds truther information, veteran editor takes it out. Truther squawks. Veteran editors win and item does not get in because the vast majority of editors support the veteran editor and the veterans do have a greater knowledge of the guidelines then the truthers for the most part. All is quiet for awhile before the process starts over again. LIHOP May 31 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.225.141.253 ( talk) 21:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Based on recent polls, such as a 2011 CNN poll, now 84% of Americans believe that the US government knew the attack would occur or planned the attack. Only 16% now believe that foreign cave dwellers were involved in the attacks. Thousands of engineers, pilots, military officers, professors and others also agreed that there is overwhelming evident to show that nano-thermite and RXD were used to bring the towers down. Nano-thermite and RXD were found in every dusk sample taken.
Mcdo5454 ( talk) 20:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
EDIT REQUEST RE:== In a 2008 poll of 17 countries, 15% of those surveyed believed the US government was responsible for the attacks, 7% believed Israel was and another 7% believed some other perpetrator, other than al Qaeda, was responsible ==
This has no citation, no information on WHO conducted the poll, no mention of which countries were surveyed. These are all important things to include in any survey data as the entity conducting the poll and the demographic surveyed can make an enormous impact on the results of the survey. For example: I could conduct a survey that shows that 85% of the people surveyed believe women use sexual harassment as a control mechanism and most cases are false accusations, sounds pretty overwhelming until you realize 90 percent of those surveyed are people who have been terminated from employment for claims of sexual harassment. ALWAYS LIST A SOURCE IN A SURVEY AND A DEMOGRAPHIC PLEASE
Sagecorliss ( talk)Sage
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
It seems that the Criticism section is becoming contaminated by pro-conspiracy theory rebuttals, some of which are not pertinent to specific criticisms. Can these be removed from this section and possibly moved to a new 'Responses to Criticism' section? This paragraph in particular is a criticism of the critics and so does not belong in a Criticism section:
"Historian Kenneth J. Dillon argues that 9/11 conspiracy theories represent an overly easy target for skeptics and that their criticisms obfuscate the underlying issue of what actually happened if there was not a conspiracy. He suggests that the answer is criminal negligence on the part of the president and vice president, who were repeatedly warned, followed by a cover-up conspiracy after 9/11.[247] This was expanded upon by columnist Matt Mankelow writing for the online edition of the British Socialist Worker. He concludes that 9/11 truthers while "desperately trying to legitimately question a version of events" end up playing into the hands of the neoconservatives they are trying to take down by creating a diversion. Mankelow noted that this has irritated many people who are politically left wing.[248]"
That intention is difficult to determine from the wording. It seems circular. Can it be clarified? Who is the "their" in this sentence: "Historian Kenneth J. Dillon argues that 9/11 conspiracy theories represent an overly easy target for skeptics and that their criticisms obfuscate the underlying issue of what actually happened if there was not a conspiracy."? Simplifying the sentence could read: "Skeptical critics of conspiracy theories obfuscate what actually happened if there was no conspiracy.", or "9/11 conspiracy theorists' criticisms obfuscate what actually happened if there was no conspiracy." I see your point that the second simplification appears to be the intent, but I had to reread it several times to be sure. Should it be that difficult?
There is a similar problem with the Mankelow quote "...this has irritated many people who are politically left wing" in that the position of these "many people" regarding the conspiracy theories is not specified. Do these "many people" disbelieve the theories, or do they believe them but view them as impolitic, or a mixture of both? Specificity here would aid comprehension.
Edkollin, please bear with me on this. This article is on 911 conspiracy theories, and this section is on Criticism of these theories. The use of the word "conspiracy" to describe a cover-up is confusing here. The phrase "real conspiracy" in this discussion is similarly distracting. A conspiracy to hide government incompetence is a conspiracy as much as any truther conspiracy, so why is this not in a list of conspiracies, at least as an alternate kind of conspiracy (I'm not asking to move it, I'm asking to encourage thinking about how this is presented)? In a sense, because it apparently denies the validity of truther conspiracies but postulates another conspiracy, it is really neither fish nor fowl for the opposing sections of this article. You've convinced me that it is not a rebuttal of criticism; yet, most critics of 911 conspiracy theories take he government's side, more or less, and so a criticism that doesn't is again, different.
I have a few thoughts. Do you think it might make more sense to create a new Wiki article on AMOC where this can be spelled out in more detail along the lines of your discussion post above, and then reference it in this article? There currently is no such article. There is a lot packed into the sentence on Kenneth Dillion, and doing this may make it more readable. I am not familiar with Dillion's article, and perhaps it holds other examples outside of 911 that can be described in a separate article, and so can be linked from other articles as well. Also, please don't take offense, but I have the feeling that you are much more familiar with this material than most people, and that you are not looking at this the way that someone new to the material sees it. BTW, I do like the change that you apparently made. That new second sentence in the paragraph does help.
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The title of this article should be changed to 9/11 Alternate Theories to more accurately reflect reality and to avoid the negative connotation of the word conspiracy. Lovepompitus ( talk) 20:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Why was the description of this petition deleted? It's notable information that is supported by the reliable sources cited: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories&diff=440239510&oldid=440238603 Ghostofnemo ( talk) 03:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
What do editors feel about adding the following to the 3.1.3 Israeli agents subection?
FBI spokesman Margolin said: "Their explanation of why they were happy was that the United States would now have to commit itself to fighting [Middle East] terrorism, that Americans would have an understanding and empathy for Israel's circumstances, and that the attacks were ultimately a good thing for Israel". Yet the Israelis' were witnessed celebratiing on the New Jersey waterfront during the first sixteen minutes after the initial crash, from the time the first plane hit the north tower at 8:46 a.m., to the time the second plane hit the south tower, at 9:02 a.m. At that time the overwhelming assumption of news outlets and government officials was that the plane's impact was simply a terrible accident. It was only after the second plane hit that suspicions were aroused. The journalist Christopher Ketcham has pointed out that if the men were cheering for the reasons given to the FBI, then they obviously believed they were witnessing a terrorist act and not an accident. Oded Ellner admitted on Israeli TV: "We are coming from a country that experiences terror daily. Our purpose was to document the event". This would imply that they thought they were documenting with film and video a terrorist act before anyone knew it was a terrorist act. [1] -- Mystichumwipe ( talk) 14:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected|answered=no}} There is no mention in this article of the various attempts made at testing the conspiracy using the courts. Just this spring the 2nd Circuit dismissed the Gallop case that claimed the Pentagon was hit by a rocket or other explosive as frivolous. There was the Stitch case that I have yet to read, and a consolidated multidistrict case that claimed a laser type weapon destroyed the WTC; both in New York. And there is a new case in Denver that claims Article III standing by challenging the post 9/11 security measures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stapler80 ( talk • contribs) 15:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC) Stapler80 ( talk) 03:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Why was the link to the Rumsfled interview deleted? http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=3845 "...Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.135.72.159 ( talk) 22:58, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected|answered=no}} I am opening this section to discuss the aforesaid claim that no explosives scenario has been explained. Jim Hoffman has published such scenario http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/blasting_scenario.html The question is can this reference be cited?
I am also adding to this discussiong the NPOV issue aparent when the holes to the theorists are readily exposed and the holes of the official versions are not. The following language was deleted by QuestforKnowledge because as he puts it "are of questionable relevance":
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) concluded the accepted version was more than sufficient to explain the initiation of collapse of the buildings. The NIST investigation was limited to the collapse initiation analysis and did not dwelved into the actual fall of the towers. cite web|title=NCSTAR 1,WTC Investigation, Executive Summary at xxxvi "Simulation ..."|url= http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201.pdf%7Caccessdate=22 July 2011
Another NPOV issue is the total silence as to the fact that the underground fires were burning for more than 90 days and a firefighther described the amount poured on it as that of a giant lake. http://web.archive.org/web/20081226231906/http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/12/19/archive/main321907.shtml
The scope of the NIST investigation the is relevant in the light that the article appears to state that all official organizations back the NIST report and the average user would easily assume that the NIST investigation was a full blown rather than the limited investigation that it was.
The fact that the fightfighters describe the water poured on Ground Zero as a Giant Lake neutralizes the allegation that the excavation equipment would melt. Here another NPOV issue.
The allegation that Jones has not explained the thermite scenario is charged in the light that a self plublishe scenario is published plausibly arguing that ceiling tiles and paint were the explosives. NPOV issue. Stapler80 ( talk) 19:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
"You couldn't even begin to imagine how much water was pumped in there," said Tom Manley of the Uniformed Firefighters Association, the largest fire department union. "It was like you were creating a giant lake."
The first sentence was not at all not representative of the content of the one source that it cited. Moreover, the cited web page is obviously incomplete (ending with a heading that has no content following, and not containing other content relevant to the original first sentence that its introduction foretells). Research on TheWaybackMachine shows that the page has been in this incomplete form for quite some time (perhaps always).
MY CHANGES: (1) I cited to another page from the same website. (2) I added a second citation. (3) I subsumed the one-sentence "Types of Criticism" section and its citation into the new first sentence (i.e. moving it there). Coastwise ( talk) 22:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
An editor has requested that a Request for Comment be held on this issue on my talkpage, but asked me to do it since they were unfamiliar with the process. Since we seem to be unable to resolve this among ourselves, I agree that this might help us resolve the issue:
Should a subsection with information about the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 be included in the article 9/11 conspiracy theories? Such information has been repeatedly deleted from the article, as was done here: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories&diff=430572843&oldid=430470741 Ghostofnemo ( talk) 02:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Looks like there's still no consensus on this issue. Ghostofnemo ( talk) 13:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Alright this just ridiculous, it should not take two fucking paragraphs to introduce the subject of the article and calling it anti-semitic in the opening sentence without extensive documentation of this being a hallmark is completely absurd. I understand that certain editors aren't happy with the outcome of the RFC and that a link to this article was added to the main 9/11 article, but that doesn't mean you should go out of your way to destroy this one. The definition of what the 9/11 conspiracy theories are should be first and foremost in the introduction of it, not a two paragraph preamble that is designed solely to debunk the theories. Soxwon ( talk) 19:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)