![]() | 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 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 |
The Devil's Advocate has removed the category, Conspiracy theories involving Jews explaining that "The conspiracy theories focus on Israel, not Jews in general." [1] But anti-Semitism against Jews seems to be a major component of these theories, particularly in the Arab world. I did a random search of reliable sources for "9/11 conspiracy theories Israel" (not "9/11 conspiracy theories Jew") and even with this search, the first three that I found seemed to confirm this. [2] [3] [4] What does everyone else think? A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 17:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Devil's Advocate, it boils down to this: Wiki policies are contrary to the way you view the world. And, that's fine. You're entitled to believe anything you like, consider evidence any way you like, and think any way you like. But, these constant back-and-forths with you are getting us nowhere. In virtually every discussion on this board, you're not convincing anyone that your views should prevail over the ones we find in established media sources. JoelWhy ( talk) 22:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't know if this helps but most of the theories involving "Jews" were in the immediate post 9/11 period. Lately it is more the Mossad and "Zionist" global bankers/Illuminati etc (Which of course to many making these claims means Jews but that is a whole other debate) Article should emphasize the current situation. Edkollin ( talk) 23:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't really do much editing in regards to categories so this might be completely wrong, but I wonder if "Conspiracy theories involving Jews" is a bad name. Wouldn't "Anti-semitic conspiracy theories" better describe this category? A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 03:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
With about 3 minutes of Google searching, sites which discuss both anti-Israel and antisemitism related to the WTC attacks:
Snopes I: http://www.snopes.com/rumors/wingdings.asp Snopes II: http://www.snopes.com/rumors/israel.asp JTA: http://www.jta.org/news/article/2011/09/05/3089201/ten-years-later-anti-semitic-conspiracy-theories-continue-to-spread Slate: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/trutherism/2011/09/where_did_911_conspiracies_come_from.html ADL: http://www.adl.org/anti_semitism/9-11conspiracytheories.pdf U.S. Dept. of State: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/102301.pdf NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/04/magazine/the-uncomfortable-question-of-anti-semitism.html?pagewanted=all Southern Poverty Law Center: http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2008/fall/anti-semitism-goes-to-school LA Times: http://articles.latimes.com/2001/sep/29/news/mn-51260
"But....but....but....where are the transitional fossils?! Why does the flag planted on the moon wave even though there's no atmosphere?! How do you explain the traces of thermite?! How about the photos at Roswell, you can't explain that, can you?! I'm not saying I believe in these conspiracy theories, I'm just a guy asking questions..." -- Every Conspiracy Theorist ever
Feel free to continue to argue. It's always amusing to see how many different ways conspiracy theorists can ignore evidence to stay married to their fringe theory-of-choice. JoelWhy ( talk) 14:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
When I get a chance I'll pick up Among the Truthers and some other recent works on conspiracism and see what weight the authors give to antisemitism. That should give us lots to talk about on this page, and at 9/11 Truth movement. Tom Harrison Talk 14:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
From Jonathan Kay's Among the Truthers, Jonathan Kay:
Like AQFK, I don't mess with categories much, but clearly some changes to the article are in order. Tom Harrison Talk 19:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I reverted the removal of "U.S. government agencies" and "mainstream" that were previously accepted. There is an idea that somehow we don't need to mention these things, but I don't think it is correct. "National" does not inherently imply government as organizations like National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences and National Art Education Association demonstrate it can be used for private organizations. Suggesting people should just check the linked article is inappropriate as no one should be expected to go to another page to get some basic context like this. I don't see any reason why referring to "mainstream" media is a problem since it accurately suggests that media outside the mainstream do not necessarily adopt the same attitude. As to "generally accepts" there are people who are members of the civil engineering community that do not accept the official version of events. We cannot imply those individuals do accept it when they do not. Perhaps changing "generally" to something else is in order, but there needs to be some qualifier since there are some civil engineers who openly advocate the conspiracy theories.-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 17:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
“ | As generally accepted by the community of specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering (though not by a few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives), the failure scenario was as follows.... | ” |
Ok, so this has quickly devolved into yet another pointless "debate". DA, your opinion has been heard and we disagree with your assessment. If someone else has a reasonable argument to be made for the change, we can address that. But, DA, it's time for you to drop the matter. If you don't drop the matter, I propose the rest of us should ignore further postings on this topic by DA. I'm not ready to ignore everything DA has to say (yet), but if he insists on perpetuating a pointless argument, I think it's best if we don't take the bait. NEXT TOPIC! JoelWhy ( talk) 22:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
This isn't what the source says. [12]. It's not that some believe one theory about bin Laden and some believe another. The source says "the more participants believed that Osama Bin Laden was already dead when U.S. special forces raided his compound in Pakistan, the more they believed he is still alive. Hierarchical regression models showed that mutually incompatible conspiracy theories are positively associated because both are associated with the view that the authorities are engaged in a cover-up." Tom Harrison Talk 23:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
“ | The conspiracy theories surrounding the death of Osama bin Laden can be divided into two major categories: those that propose he was already dead at the time of the raid, and those that propose he is still alive (Kingsley & Jones, 2011). The former seems to have currency among the 9/11 conspiracist Truth Movement; many “Truthers” allege that bin Laden died in 2000 or even earlier, and his video appearances since then were in fact staged productions made with a body double. The latter theory varies; some people believe that he is still at large, while others think that he was captured alive and is being secretly held for interrogation by the CIA. Naturally, these two theories are irreconcilable; bin Laden cannot be both alive and dead at the same time. However, as in Study 1, we predicted that belief in the two conspiracy theories would be positively correlated. | ” |
Can it be assumed there's a consensus for restoring the Princess Diana mention with the following modification?
“ | People who believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories are also more likely to believe other conspiracy theories such as about the deaths of Osama bin Laden and Princess Diana. [1] | ” |
-- MichaelNetzer ( talk) 02:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
The discussion about the Reichstag fire comparison and precedents section, as well as the insertion of material about correlations between belief in 9/11 conspiracy theories and belief in Princess Di theories, leads me to think we can resolve some of this dispute by creating a new section in the article focusing on the 9/11 conspiracy theories in relation to conspiracism in general. We have some scattered mentions in various sections that could be incorporated into it and it would be place for additions like the Reichstag and Princess Di. Basically my thinking is it would mentions 9/11 CTs as part of a broader conspiracist narrative espoused by many proponents. I think there would be plenty of sources to back up such a section and it would be a lot more useful than the mentions we currently have strewn about.-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 01:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
While there had been strong support in the RfC for keeping the denialism category, it was much softer on the pseudoscience category. As another editor has stepped in to try and remove the category I think we should focus on that specific category. Not only do we have very little sourcing at all to back up this category, the application here seems off. Many aspects of certain 9/11 conspiracy theories include bad science, but I don't think bad science is the same as pseudoscience. Only a few very fringe views could actually be described as pseudoscientific, in my opinion. The vast majority of the conspiracy theories are just conspiracy theories and the whole group of them should not be described as pseudoscience based on the attitudes of editors, as that was the only basis provided by editors supporting the category.-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 20:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I inserted the following wording to the no-planes section:
“ | Most 9/11 conspiracy theorists have strongly rejected the "no-plane" claims with advocates of the theory occasionally being banned from conspiracy theory websites and sometimes threatened by posters | ” |
This was reverted and I restored it. While the editor reverting claims the original version reflects what the source actually says, this is inaccurate. At no point does the Phoenix article say "discussion" of the no-planes theory is banned from certain websites. It specifically references people who advocate the theory as sometimes being banned and sometimes being threatened. The source also clearly supports the "strongly rejected" wording.-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 14:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
DA, here's what the sources you cite state, as far as I can tell:
From Yoda of 9/11:
"To us, they're all insane," offers Bennett. "But, to them, there are different levels of bizarreness."
Indeed, there are LIHOPers, those who believe the government "let it [9/11] happen on purpose"; MIHOPers, who insist that the government "made it happen on purpose"; "no-planers," who assert that no planes were involved in any part of the attack; people who believe there was no plane at the Pentagon attack but, otherwise, there were planes. There are even "pod people," who cling to a notion, widely rejected in the movement, that one of the photos of United Airlines Flight 175 just before it flew into the South Tower of the WTC shows a pod or bulge on the underside of the plane near the fuselage.
Posters on 911blogger.com and other conspiracy theory sites angrily reject certain ideas, like those of the outcast no-planers. They sometimes even threaten violence against the likes of the no-planers and ban them from forums for fear of being tainted by their lunacy.
From Truth is Out There:
As if this plot wasn't sufficiently challenging, there were Truth activists who became persuaded of even more technologically complex possibilities. On the fifth anniversary of the attacks, the New Statesman carried an interview with David Shayler and his partner Annie Machon, the former employees of MI5. The interviewer describes Machon as looking uncomfortable when Shayler decides to reveal his true opinion. “‘Oh f*** it, I'm just going to say this', (Shayler) tells her. ‘Yes, I believe no planes were involved in 9/ll.' But we all saw with our own eyes the two planes crash into the WTC. ‘The only explanation is that they were missiles surrounded by holograms made to look like planes,' he says. ‘Watch footage frame by frame and you will see a cigar-shaped missile hitting the World Trade Center.' He must notice that my jaw has dropped. ‘I know it sounds weird, but this is what I believe.'”
I didn't bother reading through the 3rd source, which is hardly notable. However, if you can please point me to language in either of the articles you cited which support your claim, I would appreciate it. JoelWhy ( talk) 16:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
“ | Regardless, claims which have been widely and publicly rejected by the vast majority of the 9/11 truth community | ” |
Journal of 9/11 Studies A Critical Review of WTC 'No Plane' Theories Quote:
"These theories never were and never will be broadly accepted among the 9/11 skeptic community"
"never supported by any more than a small minority of 9/11 researchers"
"it is clear that there is no supporting physical evidence whatsoever for the no-plane hypothesis"
"It is standard operating procedure for false and misleading evidence to be planted to discredit conspiracy researchers. We can be nearly certain that this has been done with 9/11 evidence"
Wayne (
talk)
17:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Anyone else care to examine the 'reliable sources' presented? JoelWhy ( talk) 14:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
The article says " One allegation that was widely circulated by e-mail and on the Web is that not a single Jew had been killed in the attack " This is a completely lie, and pretty stupid. The real allegation said that not a single Israeli died, which was probably true (I dont know). NY have 1000s of jews. That zone, also. Who knows that not a singe jew had died ? Add the Pentagon, the other plane, and for sure jews had died. The real allegation was that not a single Israeli died. Keep that not a single jew died, in this article, is a conspiracy theorie, itself - and propaganda. Replace it , and make it clear the response. Thanks and dont delete this - Paulsefa — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.154.57.149 ( talk) 02:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
I just read the article. Snopes confirms its False...so, whats your point exactly? 131.137.245.208 ( talk) 18:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Nevermind, missunderstood your meaning. yes there were two letters used as an example, the second specificaly states Jews 131.137.245.207 ( talk) 18:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
When discussing 9/11 conspiracy how can any official document, 911 Commission, NIST, etc be regarded as reliable? If the government is covering things up then its publications must be regarded with suspicion in the same way as any document coming out of Nazi Germany could be regarded as possible propaganda. In determining what is reliable we must look at the quality of the evidence directly, and not through some sort of official filter.
In this regard, the high school teacher who first showed that by video analysis, that building 7 was falling at free fall acceleration for about 2.4 seconds, must be regarded as reliable. Especially when his evidence has been supported to Steven Jones and NIST in its final report. Similarly they red/grey chips are either in the dust or they are not. Anyone with access to both the dust and a microscope can verify their existence. If these red/grey chips are nano-thermite, what are they doing in the dust?
In summary we should be looking at science, not propaganda when determining reliable sources. Tony.wallace.nz ( talk) 11:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
If then a large body of scientists and engineers were to say that the NIST report was unreliable, would it then get marked as an unreliable source? This is the nub of the question, who decides? How is that decision made? Any discussion of truth needs a falsifiable test. Accordingly what test would show the NIST reports to be unreliable? If it cannot be tested as to accuracy how can it be relied upon? Tony.wallace.nz ( talk) 02:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
-- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 02:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
The subsection on phone calls says nothing about 9/11 conspiracy theories, but discusses and summarizes calls the victims made. I've moved the subsection to Communication during the September 11 attacks. Tom Harrison Talk 20:57, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
![]() | 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 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 |
The Devil's Advocate has removed the category, Conspiracy theories involving Jews explaining that "The conspiracy theories focus on Israel, not Jews in general." [1] But anti-Semitism against Jews seems to be a major component of these theories, particularly in the Arab world. I did a random search of reliable sources for "9/11 conspiracy theories Israel" (not "9/11 conspiracy theories Jew") and even with this search, the first three that I found seemed to confirm this. [2] [3] [4] What does everyone else think? A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 17:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Devil's Advocate, it boils down to this: Wiki policies are contrary to the way you view the world. And, that's fine. You're entitled to believe anything you like, consider evidence any way you like, and think any way you like. But, these constant back-and-forths with you are getting us nowhere. In virtually every discussion on this board, you're not convincing anyone that your views should prevail over the ones we find in established media sources. JoelWhy ( talk) 22:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't know if this helps but most of the theories involving "Jews" were in the immediate post 9/11 period. Lately it is more the Mossad and "Zionist" global bankers/Illuminati etc (Which of course to many making these claims means Jews but that is a whole other debate) Article should emphasize the current situation. Edkollin ( talk) 23:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't really do much editing in regards to categories so this might be completely wrong, but I wonder if "Conspiracy theories involving Jews" is a bad name. Wouldn't "Anti-semitic conspiracy theories" better describe this category? A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 03:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
With about 3 minutes of Google searching, sites which discuss both anti-Israel and antisemitism related to the WTC attacks:
Snopes I: http://www.snopes.com/rumors/wingdings.asp Snopes II: http://www.snopes.com/rumors/israel.asp JTA: http://www.jta.org/news/article/2011/09/05/3089201/ten-years-later-anti-semitic-conspiracy-theories-continue-to-spread Slate: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/trutherism/2011/09/where_did_911_conspiracies_come_from.html ADL: http://www.adl.org/anti_semitism/9-11conspiracytheories.pdf U.S. Dept. of State: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/102301.pdf NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/04/magazine/the-uncomfortable-question-of-anti-semitism.html?pagewanted=all Southern Poverty Law Center: http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2008/fall/anti-semitism-goes-to-school LA Times: http://articles.latimes.com/2001/sep/29/news/mn-51260
"But....but....but....where are the transitional fossils?! Why does the flag planted on the moon wave even though there's no atmosphere?! How do you explain the traces of thermite?! How about the photos at Roswell, you can't explain that, can you?! I'm not saying I believe in these conspiracy theories, I'm just a guy asking questions..." -- Every Conspiracy Theorist ever
Feel free to continue to argue. It's always amusing to see how many different ways conspiracy theorists can ignore evidence to stay married to their fringe theory-of-choice. JoelWhy ( talk) 14:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
When I get a chance I'll pick up Among the Truthers and some other recent works on conspiracism and see what weight the authors give to antisemitism. That should give us lots to talk about on this page, and at 9/11 Truth movement. Tom Harrison Talk 14:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
From Jonathan Kay's Among the Truthers, Jonathan Kay:
Like AQFK, I don't mess with categories much, but clearly some changes to the article are in order. Tom Harrison Talk 19:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I reverted the removal of "U.S. government agencies" and "mainstream" that were previously accepted. There is an idea that somehow we don't need to mention these things, but I don't think it is correct. "National" does not inherently imply government as organizations like National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences and National Art Education Association demonstrate it can be used for private organizations. Suggesting people should just check the linked article is inappropriate as no one should be expected to go to another page to get some basic context like this. I don't see any reason why referring to "mainstream" media is a problem since it accurately suggests that media outside the mainstream do not necessarily adopt the same attitude. As to "generally accepts" there are people who are members of the civil engineering community that do not accept the official version of events. We cannot imply those individuals do accept it when they do not. Perhaps changing "generally" to something else is in order, but there needs to be some qualifier since there are some civil engineers who openly advocate the conspiracy theories.-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 17:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
“ | As generally accepted by the community of specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering (though not by a few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives), the failure scenario was as follows.... | ” |
Ok, so this has quickly devolved into yet another pointless "debate". DA, your opinion has been heard and we disagree with your assessment. If someone else has a reasonable argument to be made for the change, we can address that. But, DA, it's time for you to drop the matter. If you don't drop the matter, I propose the rest of us should ignore further postings on this topic by DA. I'm not ready to ignore everything DA has to say (yet), but if he insists on perpetuating a pointless argument, I think it's best if we don't take the bait. NEXT TOPIC! JoelWhy ( talk) 22:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
This isn't what the source says. [12]. It's not that some believe one theory about bin Laden and some believe another. The source says "the more participants believed that Osama Bin Laden was already dead when U.S. special forces raided his compound in Pakistan, the more they believed he is still alive. Hierarchical regression models showed that mutually incompatible conspiracy theories are positively associated because both are associated with the view that the authorities are engaged in a cover-up." Tom Harrison Talk 23:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
“ | The conspiracy theories surrounding the death of Osama bin Laden can be divided into two major categories: those that propose he was already dead at the time of the raid, and those that propose he is still alive (Kingsley & Jones, 2011). The former seems to have currency among the 9/11 conspiracist Truth Movement; many “Truthers” allege that bin Laden died in 2000 or even earlier, and his video appearances since then were in fact staged productions made with a body double. The latter theory varies; some people believe that he is still at large, while others think that he was captured alive and is being secretly held for interrogation by the CIA. Naturally, these two theories are irreconcilable; bin Laden cannot be both alive and dead at the same time. However, as in Study 1, we predicted that belief in the two conspiracy theories would be positively correlated. | ” |
Can it be assumed there's a consensus for restoring the Princess Diana mention with the following modification?
“ | People who believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories are also more likely to believe other conspiracy theories such as about the deaths of Osama bin Laden and Princess Diana. [1] | ” |
-- MichaelNetzer ( talk) 02:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
The discussion about the Reichstag fire comparison and precedents section, as well as the insertion of material about correlations between belief in 9/11 conspiracy theories and belief in Princess Di theories, leads me to think we can resolve some of this dispute by creating a new section in the article focusing on the 9/11 conspiracy theories in relation to conspiracism in general. We have some scattered mentions in various sections that could be incorporated into it and it would be place for additions like the Reichstag and Princess Di. Basically my thinking is it would mentions 9/11 CTs as part of a broader conspiracist narrative espoused by many proponents. I think there would be plenty of sources to back up such a section and it would be a lot more useful than the mentions we currently have strewn about.-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 01:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
While there had been strong support in the RfC for keeping the denialism category, it was much softer on the pseudoscience category. As another editor has stepped in to try and remove the category I think we should focus on that specific category. Not only do we have very little sourcing at all to back up this category, the application here seems off. Many aspects of certain 9/11 conspiracy theories include bad science, but I don't think bad science is the same as pseudoscience. Only a few very fringe views could actually be described as pseudoscientific, in my opinion. The vast majority of the conspiracy theories are just conspiracy theories and the whole group of them should not be described as pseudoscience based on the attitudes of editors, as that was the only basis provided by editors supporting the category.-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 20:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I inserted the following wording to the no-planes section:
“ | Most 9/11 conspiracy theorists have strongly rejected the "no-plane" claims with advocates of the theory occasionally being banned from conspiracy theory websites and sometimes threatened by posters | ” |
This was reverted and I restored it. While the editor reverting claims the original version reflects what the source actually says, this is inaccurate. At no point does the Phoenix article say "discussion" of the no-planes theory is banned from certain websites. It specifically references people who advocate the theory as sometimes being banned and sometimes being threatened. The source also clearly supports the "strongly rejected" wording.-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 14:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
DA, here's what the sources you cite state, as far as I can tell:
From Yoda of 9/11:
"To us, they're all insane," offers Bennett. "But, to them, there are different levels of bizarreness."
Indeed, there are LIHOPers, those who believe the government "let it [9/11] happen on purpose"; MIHOPers, who insist that the government "made it happen on purpose"; "no-planers," who assert that no planes were involved in any part of the attack; people who believe there was no plane at the Pentagon attack but, otherwise, there were planes. There are even "pod people," who cling to a notion, widely rejected in the movement, that one of the photos of United Airlines Flight 175 just before it flew into the South Tower of the WTC shows a pod or bulge on the underside of the plane near the fuselage.
Posters on 911blogger.com and other conspiracy theory sites angrily reject certain ideas, like those of the outcast no-planers. They sometimes even threaten violence against the likes of the no-planers and ban them from forums for fear of being tainted by their lunacy.
From Truth is Out There:
As if this plot wasn't sufficiently challenging, there were Truth activists who became persuaded of even more technologically complex possibilities. On the fifth anniversary of the attacks, the New Statesman carried an interview with David Shayler and his partner Annie Machon, the former employees of MI5. The interviewer describes Machon as looking uncomfortable when Shayler decides to reveal his true opinion. “‘Oh f*** it, I'm just going to say this', (Shayler) tells her. ‘Yes, I believe no planes were involved in 9/ll.' But we all saw with our own eyes the two planes crash into the WTC. ‘The only explanation is that they were missiles surrounded by holograms made to look like planes,' he says. ‘Watch footage frame by frame and you will see a cigar-shaped missile hitting the World Trade Center.' He must notice that my jaw has dropped. ‘I know it sounds weird, but this is what I believe.'”
I didn't bother reading through the 3rd source, which is hardly notable. However, if you can please point me to language in either of the articles you cited which support your claim, I would appreciate it. JoelWhy ( talk) 16:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
“ | Regardless, claims which have been widely and publicly rejected by the vast majority of the 9/11 truth community | ” |
Journal of 9/11 Studies A Critical Review of WTC 'No Plane' Theories Quote:
"These theories never were and never will be broadly accepted among the 9/11 skeptic community"
"never supported by any more than a small minority of 9/11 researchers"
"it is clear that there is no supporting physical evidence whatsoever for the no-plane hypothesis"
"It is standard operating procedure for false and misleading evidence to be planted to discredit conspiracy researchers. We can be nearly certain that this has been done with 9/11 evidence"
Wayne (
talk)
17:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Anyone else care to examine the 'reliable sources' presented? JoelWhy ( talk) 14:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
The article says " One allegation that was widely circulated by e-mail and on the Web is that not a single Jew had been killed in the attack " This is a completely lie, and pretty stupid. The real allegation said that not a single Israeli died, which was probably true (I dont know). NY have 1000s of jews. That zone, also. Who knows that not a singe jew had died ? Add the Pentagon, the other plane, and for sure jews had died. The real allegation was that not a single Israeli died. Keep that not a single jew died, in this article, is a conspiracy theorie, itself - and propaganda. Replace it , and make it clear the response. Thanks and dont delete this - Paulsefa — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.154.57.149 ( talk) 02:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
I just read the article. Snopes confirms its False...so, whats your point exactly? 131.137.245.208 ( talk) 18:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Nevermind, missunderstood your meaning. yes there were two letters used as an example, the second specificaly states Jews 131.137.245.207 ( talk) 18:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
When discussing 9/11 conspiracy how can any official document, 911 Commission, NIST, etc be regarded as reliable? If the government is covering things up then its publications must be regarded with suspicion in the same way as any document coming out of Nazi Germany could be regarded as possible propaganda. In determining what is reliable we must look at the quality of the evidence directly, and not through some sort of official filter.
In this regard, the high school teacher who first showed that by video analysis, that building 7 was falling at free fall acceleration for about 2.4 seconds, must be regarded as reliable. Especially when his evidence has been supported to Steven Jones and NIST in its final report. Similarly they red/grey chips are either in the dust or they are not. Anyone with access to both the dust and a microscope can verify their existence. If these red/grey chips are nano-thermite, what are they doing in the dust?
In summary we should be looking at science, not propaganda when determining reliable sources. Tony.wallace.nz ( talk) 11:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
If then a large body of scientists and engineers were to say that the NIST report was unreliable, would it then get marked as an unreliable source? This is the nub of the question, who decides? How is that decision made? Any discussion of truth needs a falsifiable test. Accordingly what test would show the NIST reports to be unreliable? If it cannot be tested as to accuracy how can it be relied upon? Tony.wallace.nz ( talk) 02:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
-- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 02:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
The subsection on phone calls says nothing about 9/11 conspiracy theories, but discusses and summarizes calls the victims made. I've moved the subsection to Communication during the September 11 attacks. Tom Harrison Talk 20:57, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)