![]() | 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 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | → | Archive 35 |
I believe this article should not be here. Not only is it extremely disrespectful and an absolute disgrace to the United States as a nation but also to the poor people who lost family and friends in the TERRORIST attacks of that day. I'm not saying this on bias, but it is almost mocking those whose lives have been forever changed by such a terrible happening. Besides, not a single one of these has been confirmed or accepted as true, while all official investigations have led to the proof that it was solely an attack of terrorism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.142.87 ( talk) 17:29, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
The official story is the one that is disrespectful and disgraceful. Portillo ( talk) 07:09, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
9/11 conspiracy theories question whether al-Qaeda was behind the September 11, 2011 attacks upon the World Trade Center and The Pentagon.
76.231.188.84 ( talk) 04:30, 26 September 2011 (UTC) Please change September 11, 2011 to September 11, 2001, because the attacks did in fact take place in the year 2001 and not 2011
As the title is 911 conspiracy theories, the basic requirement must surely be to document ALL of them without bias or impartiality. The accepted definition of what constitutes a conspiracy theory is clear. The consensus official theory that Al-Qaeda cells alone conspired to perpetrate the attack therefore represents a conspiracy theory. Is this really open to debate? I argue it is a statement of unequivocal fact and I have provided a citation for this position. Any disagreement over that I would regard as more a matter of semantics not of WP:Undue?
Basically, we can hardly have an article with the current title 911 conspiracy theories' without making the distinction clear between the official and minority theories of who conspired to implement the 911 attack.
I have now attempted to clarify all that in the intro (adding the officially accepted conspiracy theory). I've added that clarification by using a reliable secondary source, from the University of Lind, Sweden (e.g."...The second thread is the U.S. government’s explanation of the conspiracy, as the work of 19 Arab suicide bombers armed with box-cutting knives.") I therefore think my addition is in accordance with wiki policy. Can anyone explain to me otherwise. I am up for discussion on that.
My intent is to improve the article and introduction by making it more accurate and neutral. WP:NPOV"Neutral point of view" is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies, is non-negotiable and all editors and articles must follow it. So I think we have to either change the title or add something along the lines that I have which has been undone.
Finally, the statements come NOT from a 'minority view' source, but one representing the consensus viewpoint. Check out the source if you doubt this. Even if we argue that the source quotes the minority view, it still quotes a significant one and quotes a prominent exponent of it (David Ray Griffin). And anyway, this wiki article itself is specifically about a minority view. Regarding wiki policy on this: "In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained. I have specifically attempted to follow this policy "the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it". So to use WP:Undue as a reason for deleting my contribution strikes me as rather ironic;-) -- Mystichumwipe ( talk) 11:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
I made edits which were reverted by Arthur Rubin
The edits were for the Introduction: "(The official account also describes a conspiracy, one by Al-Qaida)," and "But see rebuttal, Popular Mechanics' Assault on 9/11 Truth at 911research.wtc7.net." In Non-cosnspiracy, the section title was changed to Atypical Alternative Explanations, and "greater" was placed in front of "conspiracy." Very innocuous and uncontraversial edits reverted without reason by an administrator yet. The article should be called Inside job and complicity theories regarding 9/11, 9/11 inside job and complicity theories, or 9/11 alternative theories.
This Wikipedia article implies there was no conspiracy in 9/11 and that there are no conspiracies period, which is the view of the anti-truth movement, or that the official version is right, which is a violation of neutrality in either case.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpell ( talk • contribs)
The official, widely accepted "government explanation" of the 9/11 attacks is not a conspiracy theory, by definition. "A conspiracy theory is a fringe theory which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by exceptionally powerful and cunning conspirators to achieve a malevolent end." (emphasis added) Nandesuka ( talk) 00:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
"The Wikipedia definition of "conspiracy theory" as "fringe" seems to be fringe in itself..." The Wikipedia article on conspiracy theory does not indicate such theories to be fringe, in and of themselves. Even if it did, and did so without sources, the word "fringe" does not mean "not backed up by the sources", so that argument is moot. The opening passage of that article sources the definition provided there to Dictionary.com, the Mcmillian Dictionary, an article by University of Tromsø psychologist Floyd Rudmin, a book by professor emeritus of political science at the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs Michael Barkun, and an article by BBC reporter Peter Knight, which are hardly "fringe" sources.
The last paragraph of that article's Lead section does indicate that conspiracy theories that were once limited to fringe audiences have become commonplace in today's mass media, and that passage is sourced to the aforementioned Barkun book, a book by Professor of History Gregory S. Camp, a book by University of Utah Professor Robert Alan Goldberg, and a book by lawyer and PhD Mark Fenster. Again, hardly "fringe" sources.
"We don't define anything, reliable sources do that." Um, no, you're confusing WP:IRS with WP:FRINGE. WP:IRS determines criteria for sources that can used to support material included in articles. WP:FRINGE, on the other hand, is indeed the guideline by which Wikipedia defines fringe theories for its purposes, and the criteria given is that fringe theories are those that do not follow the scientific method, which has nothing to do with WP:IRS.
The assassination of Abraham Lincoln, for example is known to have been a conspiracy, because it's a question of documented historical fact that survives the historical, or empirical method. The mainstream explanation for 9/11 is a also conspiracy, because 9/11 was committed by 19 hijackers working in concert under the guidance of al Quaeda in general, and Osama bin Laden in particular. That's a conspiracy, and a documented one.
By contrast, conspiracies surrounding the Kennedy assassination, the so-called Moon Landing Hoax, and culpability for 9/11 other than al Quaeda are indeed fringe theories, because they do not abide by the scientific method. Nightscream ( talk) 01:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
I am reposting material from earlier in the discussion so you see 1. What editor I am having this discussion with 2. Where I got the idea that the article said CT are fringe theories Edkollin ( talk) 20:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
My bad for confusing you with somebody else. I should try to not jump in discussions that have gotten to long. Since I am confused are you advocating stating that a theory is fringe if it was deducted from psuedoscience even sans reliable source that specifically states said theory is fringe? Edkollin ( talk) 20:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
"A conspiracy theory is the idea that someone, or a group of someones, acts secretly, with the goal of achieving power, wealth, influence, or other benefit. It can be as small as two petty thugs conspiring to stickup a liquor store, or as big as a group of revolutionaries conspiring to take over their country's government."(Hodapp, Christopher; Alice Von Kannon (2008) Conspiracy Theories & Secret Societies For Dummies Wiley; pg 9)
"a conspiracy theory that has been proven (for example, that President Nixon and his aides plotted to disrupt the course of justice in the Watergate case) is usually called something else—investigative journalism, or just well-researched historical analysis." (Knight, Peter (2003) Conspiracy theories in American history: an encyclopedia, Volume 1; ABC-CLIO; ISBN 978-1-57607-812-9 pg 17)
"As a publicly known and “proven” conspiracy, Watergate has a unique status, in that it serves to validate other conspiracy theories. From the time these interconnected conspiracies became known, Watergate was the measure against which other conspiracy theories could be judged." (Knight, Peter (2003) Conspiracy theories in American history: an encyclopedia, Volume 1; ABC-CLIO; ISBN 978-1-57607-812-9 pg 730)
"Conspiracy theory is thus a bridge term--it links subjugating conceptual strategies (paranoid style, political paranoia, conspiracism) to narratives that investigate conspiracies (conspiratology, conspiracy research, conspiracy account). Conspiracy theory is a condensation of all of the above, a metaconcept signifying the struggles of the meaning of the category. We need to recognized that we are on the bridge when we use the term." (Bratich, Jack Z. (2010) Conspiracy panics: political rationality and popular culture SUNY pg 6)
"But if a conspiracy theory is simply a theory that posits a conspiracy – a secret plan on the part of some group to influence events by partly secret means – and if a conspiracy theorist is someone who subscribes to a conspiracy theory, then the conventional wisdom itself is not just suspect, but obviously absurd."(Pigden, Charles R (2007) "Conspiracy Theories and the Conventional Wisdom" Episteme: A Journal of Social Epistemology Volume 4, Issue 2, Edinburgh University Press pp. 222 DOI: 10.1353/epi.2007.0017.)
"What is a conspiracy theory? The discussion so far suggests that a conspiracy theory is simply a conspiratorial explanation, and that an explanation is conspiratorial if it postulates a group of agents working together in secret, often, though perhaps not always, for a sinister purpose." (Coady, David Conspiracy theories: the philosophical debate Ashgate Publishing Page 2) later on page 140 Coady reiterates that at its most basic level a conspiracy theory is the theory of a conspiracy.
Keeley, Brian L. Of Conspiracy Theories Journal of Philosophy (March, 1999) pg 109-126 reprinted as chapter 4 of David Coady's Conspiracy theories: the philosophical debate tries to makes a distinction between warranted conspiracy theories "(say, those explaining Watergate)" and unwarranted conspiracy theories (UCT) "(say, theories about extraterrestrials abducting humans)".
A conspiracy theory in of itself is not fringe and Peter Knight's Conspiracy theories in American history presented the following warranted conspiracy theories: Sicilian Mafia (pg 451), Project MKULTRA (pg 490), Operation Mockingbird (pg 486), Watergate (pg 725), Tuskegee syphilis experiment (pg 38, 45, 538), Operation Northwoods (pg 117), Iran-Contra Affair (pg 349), CIA drug trafficking (pg 237), Business Plot (pg 625), and Operation Gladio (pg 231).
Similarly, the conspiracy theory that the Nazis were the ones who set the Reichstag fire is very popular even among serious scholars (Davidson, Eugene (2004) The Unmaking of Adolf Hitler University of Missouri Press pg 457)
If this is truly an article on "9/11 conspiracy theories" then per the above both warranted and unwarranted conspiracy theories need to be dealt with.-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 07:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Information published in a book by John Farmer, who was the Senior council for the 911 Commission, Attorney General of New Jersey, and Dean of Rutgers School of Law, has been removed from the 9/11 conspiracy theories article as a violation wp:blp because it suggests the Bush administration lied to cover up incompetence. Arthur Rubin claims Farmer is not a reliable source unless there's a court ruling to back up what he said. The text in the article made it clear that these were Farmers words and was not bluntly put in the voice of Wikipedia. Mystylplx ( talk) 17:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
In his 2009 book The Ground Truth: The Untold Story of America Under Attack on 9/11 John Farmer Jr., senior counsel to the 9/11 commission, previous attorney general of New Jersey, and dean of the Rutgers School of Law, wrote that the staff of the 9/11 commission concluded that the Bush Administration's description of events on the morning of 9/11 was “almost entirely and, inexplicably, untrue.” The staff believed that the cover-up involved classifying information and having politicians and military officials lie to the commission. These lies were repeated in news reports and official histories of 9/11. The book does not lay out a specific alternate theory but its extensive reconstruction of events discusses incompetence and much more extensive prior warnings than were revealed. [1] [2] [3]
I've removed this [1] from the article for the following two reasons:
It seems like the place to mention it would be Criticism of the 9/11 Commission. Tom Harrison Talk 18:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
It sounds like we need a citation to a reliable source that says this is a conspiracy theory. Tom Harrison Talk 11:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
No it is not. The two words do not mean the same thing. A conspiracy requires a minimum of two or more persons. A cover-up can be conducted by one person. Even if a cover-up is conducted by multiple persons, the two words emphasize different things, even if a given act can be both. Nightscream ( talk) 17:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
The video does not contain a single frame showing a plane. And what are the technical specs of the camera making the recording? How many frames per second? The passing car suggests a pretty low frequency. Why is this video included in this article? Is this video supposed to support 9/11 conspiracy theories? ♆ CUSH ♆ 00:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
If you think this belongs somewhere else (not with the line discussing possible motives in the opening paragraph) then why not move it where you think it belongs instead of completely deleting it from the article? Diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories&diff=469103181&oldid=469102671 Ghostofnemo ( talk) 11:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I just noticed that the lede is terribly unbalanced. It no longer explains the majority viewpoint. I checked with previous versions:
And all three contained a short, 2 sentence paragraph containing the mainstream viewpoint. Does anyone know who or why this was deleted? Was there even a discussion? A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 05:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Lede before reorganization
"On the morning of September 11, 2001, al-Qaeda crashed United Airlines Flight 175 and American Airlines Flight 11 into the twin towers of the World Trade Center, and crashed American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon. The impact and resulting fires caused the collapse of the Twin Towers and the destruction and damage of other buildings in the World Trade Center complex. The Pentagon was severely damaged by the impact of the airliner and the resulting fire. The hijackers also crashed a fourth plane into a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania after the passengers and flight crew attempted to regain control of the aircraft.[1][2] Published reports and articles by the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the magazine Popular Mechanics, and the mainstream media accept that the impacts of jet aircraft at high speeds in combination with subsequent fires, rather than controlled demolition, led to the collapse of the Twin Towers.[3][4] Zdeněk Bažant and Mathieu Verdure, writing in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics, propose that collapse can be triggered if the total internal energy loss during the crushing of one story exceeds the kinetic energy impacted to that story.[5]
The 9/11 Commission Report disclosed prior warnings of varying detail of planned attacks against the United States by al-Qaeda. The report said that the government ignored these warnings due to a lack of communication between various law enforcement and intelligence personnel. For the lack of inter-agency communication, the report cited bureaucratic inertia and laws passed in the 1970s to prevent abuses that caused scandals during that era. The report faulted the Clinton and the Bush administrations with “failure of imagination”. Most members of the Democratic and the Republican parties applauded the commission's work.[6]
Proponents of various 9/11 conspiracy theories, which are, according to the director of the Anti-Defamation League’s civil rights division, Deborah Lauter, in many cases antisemitic,[7][8] offer versions of the events that differ from what is described above. Conspiracy theorists say this is because of inconsistencies in the official conclusions or some evidence that was overlooked.[9][10][11] Researchers say motives for constructing conspiracy theories include the desire for financial gain, scapegoating, and a psychological need for a satisfying explanation.[12]
The most prominent conspiracy theory is that the collapse of the World Trade Center and 7 World Trade Center were the result of a controlled demolition rather than structural weakening due to fire.[13][14] Another prominent belief is that the Pentagon was hit by a missile launched by elements from inside the U.S. government[15][16] or that a commercial airliner was allowed to do so via an effective standdown of the American military.[17][18] Motives cited by conspiracy theorists include justifying the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and geostrategic interests in the Mideast, including pipeline plans launched in the early 1990s by Unocal and other oil companies.[19]
Polls worldwide show substantial minorities believe Al Queda was not responsible for the attacks and a slight majority of Americans find fault with the 9/11 commission and U.S governments investigations of the attack[20] [10][21]"
An editor made a change noting in his edit summary that "this is unbelievable". I agreed because the first half was just describing the "mainstream" version 9/11 attacks and repeating what was in the mainstream section. I also felt having an agenda organization in the lede describing the theories as in many cases anti Semitic made the lede not neutral. When I was done the lede looked similar to now without the last paragraph that was just added. So in my POV it was a radical change and the last thing that I expected is that my changes would not be noticed.
I agree it is a mainstream article that why I think too much time weight is given to motives and polls.
Tentative Proposal/rough draft sans citing and links.
"9/11 conspiracy theories are theories that disagree with the widely accepted account that the September 11 attacks were perpetrated solely by al-Qaeda using hijacked planes as missiles creating fires that weakened the structures of the Twin Towers and World Trade Center 7 causing their collapse.
The most prominent conspiracy theory is that the World Trade Center buildings collapse was caused at least in part by controlled demolitions. Other prominent theories state that the Pentagon was hit by a missile launched by elements from inside the U.S. government instead of a hijacked plane or that the American military stood down.
Proponents of the conspiracy theories believe there have been inconsistencies in the official conclusions and that evidence were overlooked. Justifying subsequent military action and profit are among the various alleged motives cited for the alleged conspiracies. Scientific, government and media critics of the theories have stated that the theories are scientifically invalid and proponents have been affected by conspiracism.
This answers the consensus for a mainstream point of view (I believe it is a bit more mainstream POV then what exists) while keeping the who for the detail sections. It is a rough draft and thus inelegant.
Edkollin (
talk)
00:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Under the History section, the results of a "ZDF online poll" are included. The results of this poll should should be removed. An online poll is a completely unscientific poll you can find on virtually any website. Per the article, ZDF ran a "documentary" advocating that 9/11 was an inside job, and then had a poll asking people if they though 9/11 was an inside job. The results of this poll were hardly shocking (and, again, completely unscientific.) JoelWhy ( talk) 14:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Susan Lindauer is asserting a youtube video that she had been told at some point that Flight 93 was shot down and that the pilot who shot it down was / is held in Florida somewhere. I'm planning on looking into her article and am curious if anyone has come across any other statements / theories like this ... or has seen the evidence / names she promises to provide in this video.-- Senor Freebie ( talk) 07:19, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I totally understand if people don't believe in the theories, I don't completely believe in them, I'm undecided; but to say 9/11 Truth is denialism, you know, putting it in the same category as the Flat Earth Society and Holocaust denial, in my opinion, is ridiculous. If you didn't notice, the 'criticism' section of this article says virtually nothing about criticizing the claims that 9/11 truthers make. So what if Popular Mechanics accepts the official story? Do you really think any mainstream publication is going to deny what the United States Government says? No of course not.
I think criticism of the official story of September 11 and skepticism of Bin Laden's involvement is not denialism, but true skepticism in action. Not just blind defence of the establishment.
Thank you for reading this.
Abootmoose ( talk) 17:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Personally I find the Wiki policy of verifiability before truth BS. But, I don't own Wikipedia, so there's nothing I can do about it, unfortunately. If we lived in Nazi Germany (sorry to invoke Godwin's Law, lol) according to that policy we would have to accept Nazi references as legit because of their 'officiality' even if they were complete lies.
Wikipedia does not need to bow to authority and simply be told what they are heard. We just had a historical blackout of the site, to protest SOPA. How hard really is it to believe that the government that would consider such an oppressive law would commit something like 9/11? You guys tell me to get my tin foil hat off. I tell you to stop blindly waving your flag.
Six years ago, when the 9/11 truth movement was much stronger, and people hadn't had the idea that 'Mooslims did it' beaten into their head for a full decade yet, the editors here would not have insulted people who dare to question the 9/11 OS. (Because if you're a good American, you never question anything, right?
Frankly my issue is I just find the categorization insulting. Academically speaking, to label a group deniers is a HUGE charge.
Abootmoose (
talk)
19:53, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
^Well personally, I would consider anything from the United States government in the past fifty years a 'suspect source' lol. America is not infallible, America is not God. Abootmoose ( talk) 20:01, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
^Sorry, I just got a bit passionate. What I'm saying is what composes a reliable source is to large extent, a matter of opinion. Abootmoose ( talk) 20:09, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
^Okay. But still, I think labelling 9/11 truth as denialism is insulting for one, and incorrect for another. Just because it's not the mainstream POV, doesn't make it a form of denialism. Denialism encompasses absurd, impossible claims. Even if you think a non-Muslim explanation of 9/11 is unlikely, it's definitely nowhere close to Flat Earth impossible. I think the 'pseudohistory' and the other pseudo tag are wrong too. They are what I call judgment categories. Abootmoose ( talk) 20:20, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
But where is the proof that 1) Bin Laden was the mastermind of 9/11 and that 2) Bush and everyone else in our government were completely taken by surprise? Abootmoose ( talk) 20:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
9/11 conspiracy theorists deny that the the official report is true. That's denialism. HiLo48 ( talk) 21:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Does anyone dispute that the most prevalent 9/11 CT involves the U.S. planting explosives to bring down the WTC buildings? I'm not asking whether you personally believe this, or whehter this is what your friends believe. But, if you search the internet for stories on 9/11 CTs, this is the most prominent story told. Well, this theory falls squarely under the Denialism category.
Moreover, the generally accepted theory explained in the official report is supported by a plethora of articles and studies which are independent of the official report. Therefore, the other theories involving a cover up, foreknowledge, etc, also are fairly categorized under the denialism banner. It's not an insult; it just indicates that it involves a theory not supported by the evidence. JoelWhy ( talk) 14:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
“ | However, a lack of consideration or acceptance does not necessarily imply rejection, either; ideas should not be portrayed as rejected or labeled with pejoratives such as pseudoscience unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources. . . . By the same token, the purpose of Wikipedia is not to offer originally synthesized prose "debunking" notable ideas which the scientific community may consider to be absurd or unworthy. Criticisms of fringe theories should be reported on relative to the visibility, notability, and reliability of the sources that do the criticizing. | ” |
Should I understand that the dispute is now about the "denialism" category and that most editors would agree the "pseudoscience" and "pseudohistory" categories can be removed?-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 19:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Kerrey was dismissive of the conspiracy theories as well. Asked about the possibility of a controlled demolition at the World Trade Center, he scoffed, “There’s no evidence for that.” But he also noted that, quite apart from what Avery and others in the “truth movement” have proposed, many legitimate mysteries still surround the events of that day. “There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version,” Kerrey said. The commission had limited time and limited resources to pursue its investigation, and its access to key documents and witnesses was fettered by the administration. “I didn’t read a single PDB,” Kerrey said, referring to the president’s daily intelligence briefing reports. “We didn’t have access to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed,” the mastermind of the plot. “We accepted a compromise, submitting our questions to him through the CIA. Now, that’s not the best way to go about getting your questions answered. So I’m 100 percent certain that [bin Laden] directed that attack, but am I completely comfortable saying there was no direct Saudi involvement, or that Saddam Hussein wasn’t involved in some fashion, or that the Iranians weren’t involved? I’m pretty close to 100 percent certain, but I’d be more comfortable if we’d interviewed Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.”
Am I the only person who thinks it's incredibly weird they were only able to talk to Khalid via the CIA? Or are you guys just too blindly patriotic to see anything strange and worthy of skepticism about 9/11?
Abootmoose ( talk) 21:25, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Here are three two more useful sources:
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
Tom Harrison
Talk
19:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)"There's far too much use of this page as a forum" - Yup. We should just shut up and be good Americans, right!? LOL Abootmoose ( talk) 21:58, 22 January 2012 (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 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | → | Archive 35 |
I believe this article should not be here. Not only is it extremely disrespectful and an absolute disgrace to the United States as a nation but also to the poor people who lost family and friends in the TERRORIST attacks of that day. I'm not saying this on bias, but it is almost mocking those whose lives have been forever changed by such a terrible happening. Besides, not a single one of these has been confirmed or accepted as true, while all official investigations have led to the proof that it was solely an attack of terrorism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.142.87 ( talk) 17:29, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
The official story is the one that is disrespectful and disgraceful. Portillo ( talk) 07:09, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
9/11 conspiracy theories question whether al-Qaeda was behind the September 11, 2011 attacks upon the World Trade Center and The Pentagon.
76.231.188.84 ( talk) 04:30, 26 September 2011 (UTC) Please change September 11, 2011 to September 11, 2001, because the attacks did in fact take place in the year 2001 and not 2011
As the title is 911 conspiracy theories, the basic requirement must surely be to document ALL of them without bias or impartiality. The accepted definition of what constitutes a conspiracy theory is clear. The consensus official theory that Al-Qaeda cells alone conspired to perpetrate the attack therefore represents a conspiracy theory. Is this really open to debate? I argue it is a statement of unequivocal fact and I have provided a citation for this position. Any disagreement over that I would regard as more a matter of semantics not of WP:Undue?
Basically, we can hardly have an article with the current title 911 conspiracy theories' without making the distinction clear between the official and minority theories of who conspired to implement the 911 attack.
I have now attempted to clarify all that in the intro (adding the officially accepted conspiracy theory). I've added that clarification by using a reliable secondary source, from the University of Lind, Sweden (e.g."...The second thread is the U.S. government’s explanation of the conspiracy, as the work of 19 Arab suicide bombers armed with box-cutting knives.") I therefore think my addition is in accordance with wiki policy. Can anyone explain to me otherwise. I am up for discussion on that.
My intent is to improve the article and introduction by making it more accurate and neutral. WP:NPOV"Neutral point of view" is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies, is non-negotiable and all editors and articles must follow it. So I think we have to either change the title or add something along the lines that I have which has been undone.
Finally, the statements come NOT from a 'minority view' source, but one representing the consensus viewpoint. Check out the source if you doubt this. Even if we argue that the source quotes the minority view, it still quotes a significant one and quotes a prominent exponent of it (David Ray Griffin). And anyway, this wiki article itself is specifically about a minority view. Regarding wiki policy on this: "In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained. I have specifically attempted to follow this policy "the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it". So to use WP:Undue as a reason for deleting my contribution strikes me as rather ironic;-) -- Mystichumwipe ( talk) 11:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
I made edits which were reverted by Arthur Rubin
The edits were for the Introduction: "(The official account also describes a conspiracy, one by Al-Qaida)," and "But see rebuttal, Popular Mechanics' Assault on 9/11 Truth at 911research.wtc7.net." In Non-cosnspiracy, the section title was changed to Atypical Alternative Explanations, and "greater" was placed in front of "conspiracy." Very innocuous and uncontraversial edits reverted without reason by an administrator yet. The article should be called Inside job and complicity theories regarding 9/11, 9/11 inside job and complicity theories, or 9/11 alternative theories.
This Wikipedia article implies there was no conspiracy in 9/11 and that there are no conspiracies period, which is the view of the anti-truth movement, or that the official version is right, which is a violation of neutrality in either case.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpell ( talk • contribs)
The official, widely accepted "government explanation" of the 9/11 attacks is not a conspiracy theory, by definition. "A conspiracy theory is a fringe theory which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by exceptionally powerful and cunning conspirators to achieve a malevolent end." (emphasis added) Nandesuka ( talk) 00:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
"The Wikipedia definition of "conspiracy theory" as "fringe" seems to be fringe in itself..." The Wikipedia article on conspiracy theory does not indicate such theories to be fringe, in and of themselves. Even if it did, and did so without sources, the word "fringe" does not mean "not backed up by the sources", so that argument is moot. The opening passage of that article sources the definition provided there to Dictionary.com, the Mcmillian Dictionary, an article by University of Tromsø psychologist Floyd Rudmin, a book by professor emeritus of political science at the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs Michael Barkun, and an article by BBC reporter Peter Knight, which are hardly "fringe" sources.
The last paragraph of that article's Lead section does indicate that conspiracy theories that were once limited to fringe audiences have become commonplace in today's mass media, and that passage is sourced to the aforementioned Barkun book, a book by Professor of History Gregory S. Camp, a book by University of Utah Professor Robert Alan Goldberg, and a book by lawyer and PhD Mark Fenster. Again, hardly "fringe" sources.
"We don't define anything, reliable sources do that." Um, no, you're confusing WP:IRS with WP:FRINGE. WP:IRS determines criteria for sources that can used to support material included in articles. WP:FRINGE, on the other hand, is indeed the guideline by which Wikipedia defines fringe theories for its purposes, and the criteria given is that fringe theories are those that do not follow the scientific method, which has nothing to do with WP:IRS.
The assassination of Abraham Lincoln, for example is known to have been a conspiracy, because it's a question of documented historical fact that survives the historical, or empirical method. The mainstream explanation for 9/11 is a also conspiracy, because 9/11 was committed by 19 hijackers working in concert under the guidance of al Quaeda in general, and Osama bin Laden in particular. That's a conspiracy, and a documented one.
By contrast, conspiracies surrounding the Kennedy assassination, the so-called Moon Landing Hoax, and culpability for 9/11 other than al Quaeda are indeed fringe theories, because they do not abide by the scientific method. Nightscream ( talk) 01:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
I am reposting material from earlier in the discussion so you see 1. What editor I am having this discussion with 2. Where I got the idea that the article said CT are fringe theories Edkollin ( talk) 20:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
My bad for confusing you with somebody else. I should try to not jump in discussions that have gotten to long. Since I am confused are you advocating stating that a theory is fringe if it was deducted from psuedoscience even sans reliable source that specifically states said theory is fringe? Edkollin ( talk) 20:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
"A conspiracy theory is the idea that someone, or a group of someones, acts secretly, with the goal of achieving power, wealth, influence, or other benefit. It can be as small as two petty thugs conspiring to stickup a liquor store, or as big as a group of revolutionaries conspiring to take over their country's government."(Hodapp, Christopher; Alice Von Kannon (2008) Conspiracy Theories & Secret Societies For Dummies Wiley; pg 9)
"a conspiracy theory that has been proven (for example, that President Nixon and his aides plotted to disrupt the course of justice in the Watergate case) is usually called something else—investigative journalism, or just well-researched historical analysis." (Knight, Peter (2003) Conspiracy theories in American history: an encyclopedia, Volume 1; ABC-CLIO; ISBN 978-1-57607-812-9 pg 17)
"As a publicly known and “proven” conspiracy, Watergate has a unique status, in that it serves to validate other conspiracy theories. From the time these interconnected conspiracies became known, Watergate was the measure against which other conspiracy theories could be judged." (Knight, Peter (2003) Conspiracy theories in American history: an encyclopedia, Volume 1; ABC-CLIO; ISBN 978-1-57607-812-9 pg 730)
"Conspiracy theory is thus a bridge term--it links subjugating conceptual strategies (paranoid style, political paranoia, conspiracism) to narratives that investigate conspiracies (conspiratology, conspiracy research, conspiracy account). Conspiracy theory is a condensation of all of the above, a metaconcept signifying the struggles of the meaning of the category. We need to recognized that we are on the bridge when we use the term." (Bratich, Jack Z. (2010) Conspiracy panics: political rationality and popular culture SUNY pg 6)
"But if a conspiracy theory is simply a theory that posits a conspiracy – a secret plan on the part of some group to influence events by partly secret means – and if a conspiracy theorist is someone who subscribes to a conspiracy theory, then the conventional wisdom itself is not just suspect, but obviously absurd."(Pigden, Charles R (2007) "Conspiracy Theories and the Conventional Wisdom" Episteme: A Journal of Social Epistemology Volume 4, Issue 2, Edinburgh University Press pp. 222 DOI: 10.1353/epi.2007.0017.)
"What is a conspiracy theory? The discussion so far suggests that a conspiracy theory is simply a conspiratorial explanation, and that an explanation is conspiratorial if it postulates a group of agents working together in secret, often, though perhaps not always, for a sinister purpose." (Coady, David Conspiracy theories: the philosophical debate Ashgate Publishing Page 2) later on page 140 Coady reiterates that at its most basic level a conspiracy theory is the theory of a conspiracy.
Keeley, Brian L. Of Conspiracy Theories Journal of Philosophy (March, 1999) pg 109-126 reprinted as chapter 4 of David Coady's Conspiracy theories: the philosophical debate tries to makes a distinction between warranted conspiracy theories "(say, those explaining Watergate)" and unwarranted conspiracy theories (UCT) "(say, theories about extraterrestrials abducting humans)".
A conspiracy theory in of itself is not fringe and Peter Knight's Conspiracy theories in American history presented the following warranted conspiracy theories: Sicilian Mafia (pg 451), Project MKULTRA (pg 490), Operation Mockingbird (pg 486), Watergate (pg 725), Tuskegee syphilis experiment (pg 38, 45, 538), Operation Northwoods (pg 117), Iran-Contra Affair (pg 349), CIA drug trafficking (pg 237), Business Plot (pg 625), and Operation Gladio (pg 231).
Similarly, the conspiracy theory that the Nazis were the ones who set the Reichstag fire is very popular even among serious scholars (Davidson, Eugene (2004) The Unmaking of Adolf Hitler University of Missouri Press pg 457)
If this is truly an article on "9/11 conspiracy theories" then per the above both warranted and unwarranted conspiracy theories need to be dealt with.-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 07:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Information published in a book by John Farmer, who was the Senior council for the 911 Commission, Attorney General of New Jersey, and Dean of Rutgers School of Law, has been removed from the 9/11 conspiracy theories article as a violation wp:blp because it suggests the Bush administration lied to cover up incompetence. Arthur Rubin claims Farmer is not a reliable source unless there's a court ruling to back up what he said. The text in the article made it clear that these were Farmers words and was not bluntly put in the voice of Wikipedia. Mystylplx ( talk) 17:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
In his 2009 book The Ground Truth: The Untold Story of America Under Attack on 9/11 John Farmer Jr., senior counsel to the 9/11 commission, previous attorney general of New Jersey, and dean of the Rutgers School of Law, wrote that the staff of the 9/11 commission concluded that the Bush Administration's description of events on the morning of 9/11 was “almost entirely and, inexplicably, untrue.” The staff believed that the cover-up involved classifying information and having politicians and military officials lie to the commission. These lies were repeated in news reports and official histories of 9/11. The book does not lay out a specific alternate theory but its extensive reconstruction of events discusses incompetence and much more extensive prior warnings than were revealed. [1] [2] [3]
I've removed this [1] from the article for the following two reasons:
It seems like the place to mention it would be Criticism of the 9/11 Commission. Tom Harrison Talk 18:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
It sounds like we need a citation to a reliable source that says this is a conspiracy theory. Tom Harrison Talk 11:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
No it is not. The two words do not mean the same thing. A conspiracy requires a minimum of two or more persons. A cover-up can be conducted by one person. Even if a cover-up is conducted by multiple persons, the two words emphasize different things, even if a given act can be both. Nightscream ( talk) 17:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
The video does not contain a single frame showing a plane. And what are the technical specs of the camera making the recording? How many frames per second? The passing car suggests a pretty low frequency. Why is this video included in this article? Is this video supposed to support 9/11 conspiracy theories? ♆ CUSH ♆ 00:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
If you think this belongs somewhere else (not with the line discussing possible motives in the opening paragraph) then why not move it where you think it belongs instead of completely deleting it from the article? Diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories&diff=469103181&oldid=469102671 Ghostofnemo ( talk) 11:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I just noticed that the lede is terribly unbalanced. It no longer explains the majority viewpoint. I checked with previous versions:
And all three contained a short, 2 sentence paragraph containing the mainstream viewpoint. Does anyone know who or why this was deleted? Was there even a discussion? A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 05:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Lede before reorganization
"On the morning of September 11, 2001, al-Qaeda crashed United Airlines Flight 175 and American Airlines Flight 11 into the twin towers of the World Trade Center, and crashed American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon. The impact and resulting fires caused the collapse of the Twin Towers and the destruction and damage of other buildings in the World Trade Center complex. The Pentagon was severely damaged by the impact of the airliner and the resulting fire. The hijackers also crashed a fourth plane into a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania after the passengers and flight crew attempted to regain control of the aircraft.[1][2] Published reports and articles by the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the magazine Popular Mechanics, and the mainstream media accept that the impacts of jet aircraft at high speeds in combination with subsequent fires, rather than controlled demolition, led to the collapse of the Twin Towers.[3][4] Zdeněk Bažant and Mathieu Verdure, writing in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics, propose that collapse can be triggered if the total internal energy loss during the crushing of one story exceeds the kinetic energy impacted to that story.[5]
The 9/11 Commission Report disclosed prior warnings of varying detail of planned attacks against the United States by al-Qaeda. The report said that the government ignored these warnings due to a lack of communication between various law enforcement and intelligence personnel. For the lack of inter-agency communication, the report cited bureaucratic inertia and laws passed in the 1970s to prevent abuses that caused scandals during that era. The report faulted the Clinton and the Bush administrations with “failure of imagination”. Most members of the Democratic and the Republican parties applauded the commission's work.[6]
Proponents of various 9/11 conspiracy theories, which are, according to the director of the Anti-Defamation League’s civil rights division, Deborah Lauter, in many cases antisemitic,[7][8] offer versions of the events that differ from what is described above. Conspiracy theorists say this is because of inconsistencies in the official conclusions or some evidence that was overlooked.[9][10][11] Researchers say motives for constructing conspiracy theories include the desire for financial gain, scapegoating, and a psychological need for a satisfying explanation.[12]
The most prominent conspiracy theory is that the collapse of the World Trade Center and 7 World Trade Center were the result of a controlled demolition rather than structural weakening due to fire.[13][14] Another prominent belief is that the Pentagon was hit by a missile launched by elements from inside the U.S. government[15][16] or that a commercial airliner was allowed to do so via an effective standdown of the American military.[17][18] Motives cited by conspiracy theorists include justifying the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and geostrategic interests in the Mideast, including pipeline plans launched in the early 1990s by Unocal and other oil companies.[19]
Polls worldwide show substantial minorities believe Al Queda was not responsible for the attacks and a slight majority of Americans find fault with the 9/11 commission and U.S governments investigations of the attack[20] [10][21]"
An editor made a change noting in his edit summary that "this is unbelievable". I agreed because the first half was just describing the "mainstream" version 9/11 attacks and repeating what was in the mainstream section. I also felt having an agenda organization in the lede describing the theories as in many cases anti Semitic made the lede not neutral. When I was done the lede looked similar to now without the last paragraph that was just added. So in my POV it was a radical change and the last thing that I expected is that my changes would not be noticed.
I agree it is a mainstream article that why I think too much time weight is given to motives and polls.
Tentative Proposal/rough draft sans citing and links.
"9/11 conspiracy theories are theories that disagree with the widely accepted account that the September 11 attacks were perpetrated solely by al-Qaeda using hijacked planes as missiles creating fires that weakened the structures of the Twin Towers and World Trade Center 7 causing their collapse.
The most prominent conspiracy theory is that the World Trade Center buildings collapse was caused at least in part by controlled demolitions. Other prominent theories state that the Pentagon was hit by a missile launched by elements from inside the U.S. government instead of a hijacked plane or that the American military stood down.
Proponents of the conspiracy theories believe there have been inconsistencies in the official conclusions and that evidence were overlooked. Justifying subsequent military action and profit are among the various alleged motives cited for the alleged conspiracies. Scientific, government and media critics of the theories have stated that the theories are scientifically invalid and proponents have been affected by conspiracism.
This answers the consensus for a mainstream point of view (I believe it is a bit more mainstream POV then what exists) while keeping the who for the detail sections. It is a rough draft and thus inelegant.
Edkollin (
talk)
00:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Under the History section, the results of a "ZDF online poll" are included. The results of this poll should should be removed. An online poll is a completely unscientific poll you can find on virtually any website. Per the article, ZDF ran a "documentary" advocating that 9/11 was an inside job, and then had a poll asking people if they though 9/11 was an inside job. The results of this poll were hardly shocking (and, again, completely unscientific.) JoelWhy ( talk) 14:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Susan Lindauer is asserting a youtube video that she had been told at some point that Flight 93 was shot down and that the pilot who shot it down was / is held in Florida somewhere. I'm planning on looking into her article and am curious if anyone has come across any other statements / theories like this ... or has seen the evidence / names she promises to provide in this video.-- Senor Freebie ( talk) 07:19, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I totally understand if people don't believe in the theories, I don't completely believe in them, I'm undecided; but to say 9/11 Truth is denialism, you know, putting it in the same category as the Flat Earth Society and Holocaust denial, in my opinion, is ridiculous. If you didn't notice, the 'criticism' section of this article says virtually nothing about criticizing the claims that 9/11 truthers make. So what if Popular Mechanics accepts the official story? Do you really think any mainstream publication is going to deny what the United States Government says? No of course not.
I think criticism of the official story of September 11 and skepticism of Bin Laden's involvement is not denialism, but true skepticism in action. Not just blind defence of the establishment.
Thank you for reading this.
Abootmoose ( talk) 17:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Personally I find the Wiki policy of verifiability before truth BS. But, I don't own Wikipedia, so there's nothing I can do about it, unfortunately. If we lived in Nazi Germany (sorry to invoke Godwin's Law, lol) according to that policy we would have to accept Nazi references as legit because of their 'officiality' even if they were complete lies.
Wikipedia does not need to bow to authority and simply be told what they are heard. We just had a historical blackout of the site, to protest SOPA. How hard really is it to believe that the government that would consider such an oppressive law would commit something like 9/11? You guys tell me to get my tin foil hat off. I tell you to stop blindly waving your flag.
Six years ago, when the 9/11 truth movement was much stronger, and people hadn't had the idea that 'Mooslims did it' beaten into their head for a full decade yet, the editors here would not have insulted people who dare to question the 9/11 OS. (Because if you're a good American, you never question anything, right?
Frankly my issue is I just find the categorization insulting. Academically speaking, to label a group deniers is a HUGE charge.
Abootmoose (
talk)
19:53, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
^Well personally, I would consider anything from the United States government in the past fifty years a 'suspect source' lol. America is not infallible, America is not God. Abootmoose ( talk) 20:01, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
^Sorry, I just got a bit passionate. What I'm saying is what composes a reliable source is to large extent, a matter of opinion. Abootmoose ( talk) 20:09, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
^Okay. But still, I think labelling 9/11 truth as denialism is insulting for one, and incorrect for another. Just because it's not the mainstream POV, doesn't make it a form of denialism. Denialism encompasses absurd, impossible claims. Even if you think a non-Muslim explanation of 9/11 is unlikely, it's definitely nowhere close to Flat Earth impossible. I think the 'pseudohistory' and the other pseudo tag are wrong too. They are what I call judgment categories. Abootmoose ( talk) 20:20, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
But where is the proof that 1) Bin Laden was the mastermind of 9/11 and that 2) Bush and everyone else in our government were completely taken by surprise? Abootmoose ( talk) 20:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
9/11 conspiracy theorists deny that the the official report is true. That's denialism. HiLo48 ( talk) 21:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Does anyone dispute that the most prevalent 9/11 CT involves the U.S. planting explosives to bring down the WTC buildings? I'm not asking whether you personally believe this, or whehter this is what your friends believe. But, if you search the internet for stories on 9/11 CTs, this is the most prominent story told. Well, this theory falls squarely under the Denialism category.
Moreover, the generally accepted theory explained in the official report is supported by a plethora of articles and studies which are independent of the official report. Therefore, the other theories involving a cover up, foreknowledge, etc, also are fairly categorized under the denialism banner. It's not an insult; it just indicates that it involves a theory not supported by the evidence. JoelWhy ( talk) 14:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
“ | However, a lack of consideration or acceptance does not necessarily imply rejection, either; ideas should not be portrayed as rejected or labeled with pejoratives such as pseudoscience unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources. . . . By the same token, the purpose of Wikipedia is not to offer originally synthesized prose "debunking" notable ideas which the scientific community may consider to be absurd or unworthy. Criticisms of fringe theories should be reported on relative to the visibility, notability, and reliability of the sources that do the criticizing. | ” |
Should I understand that the dispute is now about the "denialism" category and that most editors would agree the "pseudoscience" and "pseudohistory" categories can be removed?-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 19:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Kerrey was dismissive of the conspiracy theories as well. Asked about the possibility of a controlled demolition at the World Trade Center, he scoffed, “There’s no evidence for that.” But he also noted that, quite apart from what Avery and others in the “truth movement” have proposed, many legitimate mysteries still surround the events of that day. “There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version,” Kerrey said. The commission had limited time and limited resources to pursue its investigation, and its access to key documents and witnesses was fettered by the administration. “I didn’t read a single PDB,” Kerrey said, referring to the president’s daily intelligence briefing reports. “We didn’t have access to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed,” the mastermind of the plot. “We accepted a compromise, submitting our questions to him through the CIA. Now, that’s not the best way to go about getting your questions answered. So I’m 100 percent certain that [bin Laden] directed that attack, but am I completely comfortable saying there was no direct Saudi involvement, or that Saddam Hussein wasn’t involved in some fashion, or that the Iranians weren’t involved? I’m pretty close to 100 percent certain, but I’d be more comfortable if we’d interviewed Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.”
Am I the only person who thinks it's incredibly weird they were only able to talk to Khalid via the CIA? Or are you guys just too blindly patriotic to see anything strange and worthy of skepticism about 9/11?
Abootmoose ( talk) 21:25, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Here are three two more useful sources:
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
Tom Harrison
Talk
19:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)"There's far too much use of this page as a forum" - Yup. We should just shut up and be good Americans, right!? LOL Abootmoose ( talk) 21:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)