![]() | 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 30 | ← | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | → | Archive 40 |
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Dear Wiki,
These two links needs to be added to history 9/11. The NIST FOIA release photo don't match flight 175 videos.
Why Did someone remove all the flight 175 photos from the NIST FOIA releases? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wd3kyf4QQso
And why does the only photo of 175 have a black spot on it? That's not United Air. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkRRKVXwcmk Danp5648 ( talk) 16:04, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
The article noted that that unlike the collapse -> The article noted that unlike the collapse
The article also said that conspiracy theories that claim that that World trade Center 7 -> The article also said that conspiracy theories that claim that World Trade Center 7
(That's a lot of thats.) 69.181.161.106 ( talk) 06:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Last paragraph in the History section has a spelling mistake that can be corrected.
"Since President Bush left office, the overall number of believers in 9/11 conspiracy theories has dipped while the number of people whole believe in the most "radical" theories has held fairly steady.[65]"
It should say "who" instead of "whole" : "while the number of people who believe"
The second pillar is this:
Second pillar Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view.
We strive for articles that document and explain the major points of view in a balanced and impartial manner. We avoid advocacy and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in other areas we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context, and not presenting any point of view as "the truth" or "the best view".
This article is very biased, false and misleading, in blatant and obvious violation of this second pillar. The article is not the slightest bit impartial and does a very poor job presenting the explosive controlled demolition conspiracy theory. The so called "conspiracy theory" of explosive controlled demolition of the World Trade Center's Twin Towers and Building 7 is very well documented.
This 9/11 conspiracy theories highlights one major weakness of Wikipedia and the Wikipedia philosophy: the assumption that if somebody publishes a statement it must be true. The problem in this article is that critical thinking was not applied to the official conspiracy theory, the one proffered by the government and mass media starting on 9/11 itself, the one that blames 19 Arabs armed with box cutters. There are dozens if not hundreds of flaws in the government's conspiracy theory in virtually every area. Just because NIST has published their own theory of what happened does not mean it is true. What this page ought to contain is a detailed critique of the NIST investigations and report along with a defense of that critique. I am willing and able to provide part of the former: the government's apologists will have to provide the latter.
Another way in which the article is misleading is its treatment of the term or phrase "conspiracy theory". By definition the official story is a conspiracy theory. The proposed FAQ flatly denies this but it is true. The article poisons the waters and effectively prevents a reader new to the subject from objectively reading it and evaluating the explosive controlled demolition theory with an open mind. The use of the term "conspiracy theory" in connection with 9/11, coupled with the false statement that the government's account is somehow now a conspiracy theory, seems intended to prevent Wikipedia readers from actually looking at the evidence objectively and with an open mind. You are doing the work of the government and mass media and it is a total violation of this pillar of Wikipedia. (You meaning those who have written this article and rejected edits to make it more accurate.)
Does an Administrator have anything to add on this? When was the last time an Administrator closely reviewed this article to determine how well it complies with this pillar of Wikipedia? Was that ever done?
Peace Beasley Reece ( talk) 18:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Toa,
Your examples have nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks or specifically the explosive controlled demolition theory. You have made a logical fallacy; grouping all conspiracy theories together as one, as equally valid and supported by science, and dismissed them all. You are either unaware of the substantial scientific evidence that supports the explosive controlled demolition theory and the many fatal flaws in the government's story or you are incapable of looking at the evidence objectively. Or you are just an apologist for the official conspiracy theory and you are using and abusing Wikipedia rules to censor my work. In any case, bad behavior.
Claiming that the U.S. government and mainstream media account of the 9/11 attacks is correct is extremely biased. It is the direct opposite of neutral. Same with claiming that the explosive controlled demolition theory is incorrect. You have no idea what neutrality means, nor did you pay any attention to the second pillar of Wikipedia.
Explosive controlled demolition is not a fringe theory. There is no factual basis for you to say that. It is well documented and supported by science. Due weight requires presenting a subject fairly so that others may evaluate it. Claims by the government should always be treated with suspicion, nowhere more than on this subject. The last thing any thinking person should do is accept the government's claims on matters of war and peace without checking them.
Furthermore you never responded to my claim; that the second pillar of Wikipedia requires this issue be presented accurately and in context. The 9/11 Conspiracy theories page does a very poor job of that. Your denials notwithstanding. By the way you cannot make something so by saying it, even if you say it 100 times. The laws of physics apply every day to every building. The official story requires you (me, everybody) to believe that the laws of physics such as those concerning free fall gravitational acceleration and vectors (direction of motion related to the direction of an applied force) did not apply on 9/11 at the World Trade Center. The official story has been proven false and the explosive controlled demolition theory has been proven true. See for example Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth [1] and Scientists for 9/11 Truth [2]
The fall of WTC 7 was achieved by explosive controlled demolition. These facts are unknown to the vast majority of the U.S. population and the world. Most do not even know that Building 7 existed; let alone that it came down in 7 seconds let alone the specifics of the collapse: sudden, symmetrical, rapid and complete.
Building 7 of the World Trade Center, a 47 story building, contained offices of the CIA, the Secret Service, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) several financial institutions and then-Mayor Giuliani's Office of Emergency Management.
Despite never being hit by an airplane, Building 7 was reduced to a pile of rubble in about 7 seconds at 5:20 p.m. on September 11, 2001. After 9/11 this fact has been widely covered up by the U.S. mass media and was even omitted from the 9/11 Commission Report.
NIST, the National Institute for Standards and Technology (a U.S. government agency) was authorized by Congress to determine “why and how WTC 7 collapsed.” NIST produced a preliminary draft of their final report in August, 2008 omitting the fact that Building 7 fell at free fall acceleration for part of its descent. After a physicist challenged NIST on this point the final report, in November 2008 admitted free fall acceleration for 105' or 2.25 seconds.
NIST wrote, “A more detailed analysis of the descent of the north face found . . . (2) a freefall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 s . . . .” (Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, NIST NCSTAR 1A, page 48) [3]
Beasley Reece ( talk) 20:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
A review by Administrators who preferably have never edited 9/11 articles or gotten involved in their talk page discussion for this and most 9/11 related articles is needed. It has been mostly the same editors and the same arguments for 5 years. People who are outside of our bubble are needed to move things forward or establish added weight to this version. The talk pages should also be part of the review 1. To gain knowledge of the relevant disputes. 2. To clean up the language here which occasionally dissolves into accusations of lack of good faith by other editors and reliable sources and language which may lead others to believe a lack of good faith has occurred. Edkollin ( talk) 21:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Why is the remaining quarter of responses from the poll cited omitted from the lede? It's a substantial omission, and not reporting it is sloppy at best and a conspiracy (:P) at worst. 67.164.156.42 ( talk) 23:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
I think these poll results, especially because of their position, are misleading (and the link to the original article doesn't clear this up either). Basically, "responsibility" is a tricky concept - I can fully maintain that the US are responsible for 9/11 (due to foreign policy) without having to believe they were responsible for the "actual" attacks (or for organising it themselves, etc. etc.). As the article is dealing with a "conspiracy theory", it seems to suggest to me that there is substantial (i.e. majority) belief in a possible conspiracy, which is not necessarily what the poll results suggest at all. (I also think that this is worsened by not mentioning, explicitly, the remaining 25%)... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.30.75.137 ( talk) 22:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
The sentence "People who believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories are also more likely to believe other conspiracy theories such as conspiracy theories about the death of Osama bin Laden, with some believing he is still alive." is not supported by its reference in my view, which is why I want to remove it. I'd appreciate being pointed out the reasons for the edit revert - clearly if the reference supports it, it should easy to point out exactly how it does. Burritoburritoburrito ( talk) 13:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
"In Study 1(n= 137), the more participants believed that Princess Diana faked her own death, the more they believed that she was murdered. In Study 2 (n= 102), 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 (Study 2). The monological nature of conspiracy belief appears to be driven not by conspiracy theories directly supporting one another, but by broader beliefs supporting conspiracy theories in general."
The 9/11 conspriacy theories are one of the examples studied in the article. The conclusion is that people who believe in one 9/11 ct are more likely to believe in other 9/11 cts, even if the theories directly contradict each other. It should certainly be included in the article. Tom Harrison Talk 10:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Though it needs a reference, it seems like common sense knowledge that anyone believing in 9/11 CT's would also be likely to believe in other preposterous fables like the booger-man, the existence of a left-handed flyswatter and shapeshifters. MONGO 17:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
The point of the article is that c. theorists, for example 9/11 Truthers, are more likely to believe other cts, even if they are mutually contradictory. That's why the title is "Dead and alive". Tom Harrison Talk 10:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
The reference says 9/11 Truthers tend to believe bin Laden was already dead at the time of the Abbottabad raid - that he died in 2000 or earlier and the videos were faked - and that this belief that he has been dead for years is positively correlated with the contradictory belief that he is still alive, on the run or in a secret CIA prison. The reference clearly supports the sentence in the lead, "People who believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories are also more likely to believe other conspiracy theories such as conspiracy theories about the death of Osama bin Laden, with some believing he is still alive." Tom Harrison Talk 10:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
The 9/11 conspiracy theories are conspiracy theories...the article doesn't have to be specifically about 9/11 conspiracy theories to be relative to this point. MONGO 13:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Why has the war games section been removed? "Northern Vigilance" and "Vigilant Guardian".
"Is this real world or exercise?"
etc... Gwryla ( talk) 12:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia says Criticism should be integrated into the article. Because having just Critique violates NPOV. It means that arguments for and against should be together, not separate. Hence the tag. In any event tags placed are not removed by one editor, what happens is a debate on a talk page. You cannot by yourself decide if NPOV is satisfied. It requires a talk page debate to remove tags. WP:STRUCTURE -- Inayity ( talk) 19:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm open to leaving this in, taking it out, or rewording it, subject to editorial judgement, how we choose to organize the article, etc.; but the statement is supported by the source. Tom Harrison Talk 11:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
I propose that a FAQ be created, and posted at the top of this page, and other pages related to 9-11 conspiracies. I find we have people posting the same questions over, and over again. Many of them complain that the articles are not neutral. Other topics covering fringe science or controversial science have similar faqs, such as evolution or AIDS denialism. I have taken two questions from the AIDS Denialism FAQ and modified them as a start. I want there to be discussion on them, and consensus before moving forward and creating a FAQ. Other questions can be added, this is just a start. Feel free to edit them. Some questions from the Evolution FAQ may also be useful to include. -- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 12:29, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Propose Q3: Wikipedia is part of the coverup? A3: That is a statement, not a question. However, if we are part of the coverup, what makes you think we're going to chanage our mind just because of your magic words (see also - freeman on the land) and Q4: But it's true, take a look at this! A4: (someone else write this) Egg Centri c 16:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Heh. Okay, back to more serious questions. Here's a few I came up with by trawling through the archives:
— The Hand That Feeds You: Bite 19:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
It will definitely need a section addressing why Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth aren't a valid source on par with real scientists. Another addressing common arguments that people keep posting. -- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 11:04, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
I reverted the change of Q4. It sounded like a conspiratorial POV. [3]. Saying that the mainstream explanation is a conspiracy theory and "the question really is, 'What conspiracy theory do you believe in?' - that of the government or that of an entire worldwide movement", sounds incredibly weasely. IRWolfie- ( talk) 11:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
The article states that "9/11 conspiracy theories are conspiracy theories that disagree with the widely accepted account that the September 11 attacks were perpetrated solely by al-Qaeda" Well these days there are more disagrees than agrees on the official version from the US-government. Several books and tv documentations have shown, what is strange about how the incident apparently happened. These days way more people seem to believe the conspiracy, than the official version. I think the "widely accepted" should be removed. ( And93hil ( talk) 19:14, 2 September 2012 (UTC))
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I think it is important to point out that the ethical considerations of hiring a cousin of Michael Chertoff, a former Assistant Attorney General and the new Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), as senior researcher. AND I think that Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth should be mentioned along with their website: http://www.ae911truth.org/ . They say that the official story/investigation stated that it didn't find thermite at ground zero and then later admitted that they didn't look for it in the first place. I find a lot of evidence is not given here. I think this page protects those who are guilty. Some more home work needs to be done and I think that the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth should be considered for finding more information about it. LynnetteA11 ( talk) 15:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I've just discovered reading the article that there exist 'no planers', people who think there were no planes. What do they think happened to all the people who were on the real planes, and where are the real planes now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.41.212.2 ( talk) 10:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
"In a 2008 global poll of 16,063 people in 17 countries, majorities in only nine countries believe al Qaeda was behind the attacks. 46% of those surveyed believed al-Qaeda was responsible for the attacks, 15% believed the U.S. government was responsible, 7% believed Israel was and another 7% believed some other perpetrator, other than al Qaeda, was responsible."
But 46 + 15 + 7 + 7 = 75. What's with these numbers? 98.239.102.254 ( talk) 08:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
There are certain "softer" theories that are often classed with 9/11 conspiracies, yet are distinct. For instance, the idea that the Bush administration was actively in denial about intelligence that "Bin Laden determined to strike inside U.S", motivated by the idea that if such a strike were successful it would provide an excuse for a desired war on Iraq. This is not technically a conspiracy theory as it requires no coordination between Bin Laden and Bush, only a common interest in an open military conflict between the US and some part of the Muslim world. I think this should be mentioned somehow in the article, and distinguished from the core topic. Homunq ( ࿓) 23:03, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
It's barely mentioned in the article, but one of the main questions raised by proponents of these theories is how and why it collapsed. 24.27.63.92 ( talk) 06:36, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
I read through the previous discussions about the theory of directed-energy weapons. I'd like to revisit that idea now because there are a lot more sources available. The theory is that a Directed-energy weapon was used in the attack. The evidence is that steel does not vaporize and turn into dust with fire alone. “The idea is you heat it up so hot the material begins to evaporate from the surface, the same as if you heat up water it begins to boil and eventually it’s all gone,” The professors say the technology needed for their project exists today [4]
We should not add any theory unless it appears in a good secondary source about 9/11 conspiracy theories as such - a work like Among the Truthers, just for example. Tom Harrison Talk 23:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
It's not so much more vs. less nutty, as it is peanuts versus cashews. What seems crazy to US college-educated males with broadband internet isn't necessarily the same thing that seems crazy to an unemployed laborer in Cairo. Anyway, we can't pick through primary sources and decide. That's a job for journalists and academics. All we do is summarize the secondary sources those researchers write. Tom Harrison Talk 18:35, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
There does need to be a recognition that certain conspiracy theories are so fringe and non-notable that even mentioning them in this article gives them undue weight. I have yet to find a significant mention of the "no-planes" theories in any major secondary sources. When they are brought up, which is rare in itself, it is to very briefly note them as being an oddity even within the conspiracist community. At best we can justify a sentence or two noting that these views exist and that they are not well-received even by other conspiracy theorists. What we have in this article right now is way more than is appropriate.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 00:57, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Thats strange? everything i said here has been deleted? 22:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.221.30.239 ( talk)
![]() | 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 30 | ← | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | → | Archive 40 |
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Dear Wiki,
These two links needs to be added to history 9/11. The NIST FOIA release photo don't match flight 175 videos.
Why Did someone remove all the flight 175 photos from the NIST FOIA releases? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wd3kyf4QQso
And why does the only photo of 175 have a black spot on it? That's not United Air. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkRRKVXwcmk Danp5648 ( talk) 16:04, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
The article noted that that unlike the collapse -> The article noted that unlike the collapse
The article also said that conspiracy theories that claim that that World trade Center 7 -> The article also said that conspiracy theories that claim that World Trade Center 7
(That's a lot of thats.) 69.181.161.106 ( talk) 06:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Last paragraph in the History section has a spelling mistake that can be corrected.
"Since President Bush left office, the overall number of believers in 9/11 conspiracy theories has dipped while the number of people whole believe in the most "radical" theories has held fairly steady.[65]"
It should say "who" instead of "whole" : "while the number of people who believe"
The second pillar is this:
Second pillar Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view.
We strive for articles that document and explain the major points of view in a balanced and impartial manner. We avoid advocacy and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in other areas we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context, and not presenting any point of view as "the truth" or "the best view".
This article is very biased, false and misleading, in blatant and obvious violation of this second pillar. The article is not the slightest bit impartial and does a very poor job presenting the explosive controlled demolition conspiracy theory. The so called "conspiracy theory" of explosive controlled demolition of the World Trade Center's Twin Towers and Building 7 is very well documented.
This 9/11 conspiracy theories highlights one major weakness of Wikipedia and the Wikipedia philosophy: the assumption that if somebody publishes a statement it must be true. The problem in this article is that critical thinking was not applied to the official conspiracy theory, the one proffered by the government and mass media starting on 9/11 itself, the one that blames 19 Arabs armed with box cutters. There are dozens if not hundreds of flaws in the government's conspiracy theory in virtually every area. Just because NIST has published their own theory of what happened does not mean it is true. What this page ought to contain is a detailed critique of the NIST investigations and report along with a defense of that critique. I am willing and able to provide part of the former: the government's apologists will have to provide the latter.
Another way in which the article is misleading is its treatment of the term or phrase "conspiracy theory". By definition the official story is a conspiracy theory. The proposed FAQ flatly denies this but it is true. The article poisons the waters and effectively prevents a reader new to the subject from objectively reading it and evaluating the explosive controlled demolition theory with an open mind. The use of the term "conspiracy theory" in connection with 9/11, coupled with the false statement that the government's account is somehow now a conspiracy theory, seems intended to prevent Wikipedia readers from actually looking at the evidence objectively and with an open mind. You are doing the work of the government and mass media and it is a total violation of this pillar of Wikipedia. (You meaning those who have written this article and rejected edits to make it more accurate.)
Does an Administrator have anything to add on this? When was the last time an Administrator closely reviewed this article to determine how well it complies with this pillar of Wikipedia? Was that ever done?
Peace Beasley Reece ( talk) 18:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Toa,
Your examples have nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks or specifically the explosive controlled demolition theory. You have made a logical fallacy; grouping all conspiracy theories together as one, as equally valid and supported by science, and dismissed them all. You are either unaware of the substantial scientific evidence that supports the explosive controlled demolition theory and the many fatal flaws in the government's story or you are incapable of looking at the evidence objectively. Or you are just an apologist for the official conspiracy theory and you are using and abusing Wikipedia rules to censor my work. In any case, bad behavior.
Claiming that the U.S. government and mainstream media account of the 9/11 attacks is correct is extremely biased. It is the direct opposite of neutral. Same with claiming that the explosive controlled demolition theory is incorrect. You have no idea what neutrality means, nor did you pay any attention to the second pillar of Wikipedia.
Explosive controlled demolition is not a fringe theory. There is no factual basis for you to say that. It is well documented and supported by science. Due weight requires presenting a subject fairly so that others may evaluate it. Claims by the government should always be treated with suspicion, nowhere more than on this subject. The last thing any thinking person should do is accept the government's claims on matters of war and peace without checking them.
Furthermore you never responded to my claim; that the second pillar of Wikipedia requires this issue be presented accurately and in context. The 9/11 Conspiracy theories page does a very poor job of that. Your denials notwithstanding. By the way you cannot make something so by saying it, even if you say it 100 times. The laws of physics apply every day to every building. The official story requires you (me, everybody) to believe that the laws of physics such as those concerning free fall gravitational acceleration and vectors (direction of motion related to the direction of an applied force) did not apply on 9/11 at the World Trade Center. The official story has been proven false and the explosive controlled demolition theory has been proven true. See for example Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth [1] and Scientists for 9/11 Truth [2]
The fall of WTC 7 was achieved by explosive controlled demolition. These facts are unknown to the vast majority of the U.S. population and the world. Most do not even know that Building 7 existed; let alone that it came down in 7 seconds let alone the specifics of the collapse: sudden, symmetrical, rapid and complete.
Building 7 of the World Trade Center, a 47 story building, contained offices of the CIA, the Secret Service, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) several financial institutions and then-Mayor Giuliani's Office of Emergency Management.
Despite never being hit by an airplane, Building 7 was reduced to a pile of rubble in about 7 seconds at 5:20 p.m. on September 11, 2001. After 9/11 this fact has been widely covered up by the U.S. mass media and was even omitted from the 9/11 Commission Report.
NIST, the National Institute for Standards and Technology (a U.S. government agency) was authorized by Congress to determine “why and how WTC 7 collapsed.” NIST produced a preliminary draft of their final report in August, 2008 omitting the fact that Building 7 fell at free fall acceleration for part of its descent. After a physicist challenged NIST on this point the final report, in November 2008 admitted free fall acceleration for 105' or 2.25 seconds.
NIST wrote, “A more detailed analysis of the descent of the north face found . . . (2) a freefall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 s . . . .” (Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, NIST NCSTAR 1A, page 48) [3]
Beasley Reece ( talk) 20:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
A review by Administrators who preferably have never edited 9/11 articles or gotten involved in their talk page discussion for this and most 9/11 related articles is needed. It has been mostly the same editors and the same arguments for 5 years. People who are outside of our bubble are needed to move things forward or establish added weight to this version. The talk pages should also be part of the review 1. To gain knowledge of the relevant disputes. 2. To clean up the language here which occasionally dissolves into accusations of lack of good faith by other editors and reliable sources and language which may lead others to believe a lack of good faith has occurred. Edkollin ( talk) 21:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Why is the remaining quarter of responses from the poll cited omitted from the lede? It's a substantial omission, and not reporting it is sloppy at best and a conspiracy (:P) at worst. 67.164.156.42 ( talk) 23:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
I think these poll results, especially because of their position, are misleading (and the link to the original article doesn't clear this up either). Basically, "responsibility" is a tricky concept - I can fully maintain that the US are responsible for 9/11 (due to foreign policy) without having to believe they were responsible for the "actual" attacks (or for organising it themselves, etc. etc.). As the article is dealing with a "conspiracy theory", it seems to suggest to me that there is substantial (i.e. majority) belief in a possible conspiracy, which is not necessarily what the poll results suggest at all. (I also think that this is worsened by not mentioning, explicitly, the remaining 25%)... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.30.75.137 ( talk) 22:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
The sentence "People who believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories are also more likely to believe other conspiracy theories such as conspiracy theories about the death of Osama bin Laden, with some believing he is still alive." is not supported by its reference in my view, which is why I want to remove it. I'd appreciate being pointed out the reasons for the edit revert - clearly if the reference supports it, it should easy to point out exactly how it does. Burritoburritoburrito ( talk) 13:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
"In Study 1(n= 137), the more participants believed that Princess Diana faked her own death, the more they believed that she was murdered. In Study 2 (n= 102), 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 (Study 2). The monological nature of conspiracy belief appears to be driven not by conspiracy theories directly supporting one another, but by broader beliefs supporting conspiracy theories in general."
The 9/11 conspriacy theories are one of the examples studied in the article. The conclusion is that people who believe in one 9/11 ct are more likely to believe in other 9/11 cts, even if the theories directly contradict each other. It should certainly be included in the article. Tom Harrison Talk 10:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Though it needs a reference, it seems like common sense knowledge that anyone believing in 9/11 CT's would also be likely to believe in other preposterous fables like the booger-man, the existence of a left-handed flyswatter and shapeshifters. MONGO 17:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
The point of the article is that c. theorists, for example 9/11 Truthers, are more likely to believe other cts, even if they are mutually contradictory. That's why the title is "Dead and alive". Tom Harrison Talk 10:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
The reference says 9/11 Truthers tend to believe bin Laden was already dead at the time of the Abbottabad raid - that he died in 2000 or earlier and the videos were faked - and that this belief that he has been dead for years is positively correlated with the contradictory belief that he is still alive, on the run or in a secret CIA prison. The reference clearly supports the sentence in the lead, "People who believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories are also more likely to believe other conspiracy theories such as conspiracy theories about the death of Osama bin Laden, with some believing he is still alive." Tom Harrison Talk 10:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
The 9/11 conspiracy theories are conspiracy theories...the article doesn't have to be specifically about 9/11 conspiracy theories to be relative to this point. MONGO 13:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Why has the war games section been removed? "Northern Vigilance" and "Vigilant Guardian".
"Is this real world or exercise?"
etc... Gwryla ( talk) 12:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia says Criticism should be integrated into the article. Because having just Critique violates NPOV. It means that arguments for and against should be together, not separate. Hence the tag. In any event tags placed are not removed by one editor, what happens is a debate on a talk page. You cannot by yourself decide if NPOV is satisfied. It requires a talk page debate to remove tags. WP:STRUCTURE -- Inayity ( talk) 19:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm open to leaving this in, taking it out, or rewording it, subject to editorial judgement, how we choose to organize the article, etc.; but the statement is supported by the source. Tom Harrison Talk 11:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
I propose that a FAQ be created, and posted at the top of this page, and other pages related to 9-11 conspiracies. I find we have people posting the same questions over, and over again. Many of them complain that the articles are not neutral. Other topics covering fringe science or controversial science have similar faqs, such as evolution or AIDS denialism. I have taken two questions from the AIDS Denialism FAQ and modified them as a start. I want there to be discussion on them, and consensus before moving forward and creating a FAQ. Other questions can be added, this is just a start. Feel free to edit them. Some questions from the Evolution FAQ may also be useful to include. -- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 12:29, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Propose Q3: Wikipedia is part of the coverup? A3: That is a statement, not a question. However, if we are part of the coverup, what makes you think we're going to chanage our mind just because of your magic words (see also - freeman on the land) and Q4: But it's true, take a look at this! A4: (someone else write this) Egg Centri c 16:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Heh. Okay, back to more serious questions. Here's a few I came up with by trawling through the archives:
— The Hand That Feeds You: Bite 19:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
It will definitely need a section addressing why Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth aren't a valid source on par with real scientists. Another addressing common arguments that people keep posting. -- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 11:04, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
I reverted the change of Q4. It sounded like a conspiratorial POV. [3]. Saying that the mainstream explanation is a conspiracy theory and "the question really is, 'What conspiracy theory do you believe in?' - that of the government or that of an entire worldwide movement", sounds incredibly weasely. IRWolfie- ( talk) 11:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
The article states that "9/11 conspiracy theories are conspiracy theories that disagree with the widely accepted account that the September 11 attacks were perpetrated solely by al-Qaeda" Well these days there are more disagrees than agrees on the official version from the US-government. Several books and tv documentations have shown, what is strange about how the incident apparently happened. These days way more people seem to believe the conspiracy, than the official version. I think the "widely accepted" should be removed. ( And93hil ( talk) 19:14, 2 September 2012 (UTC))
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I think it is important to point out that the ethical considerations of hiring a cousin of Michael Chertoff, a former Assistant Attorney General and the new Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), as senior researcher. AND I think that Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth should be mentioned along with their website: http://www.ae911truth.org/ . They say that the official story/investigation stated that it didn't find thermite at ground zero and then later admitted that they didn't look for it in the first place. I find a lot of evidence is not given here. I think this page protects those who are guilty. Some more home work needs to be done and I think that the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth should be considered for finding more information about it. LynnetteA11 ( talk) 15:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I've just discovered reading the article that there exist 'no planers', people who think there were no planes. What do they think happened to all the people who were on the real planes, and where are the real planes now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.41.212.2 ( talk) 10:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
"In a 2008 global poll of 16,063 people in 17 countries, majorities in only nine countries believe al Qaeda was behind the attacks. 46% of those surveyed believed al-Qaeda was responsible for the attacks, 15% believed the U.S. government was responsible, 7% believed Israel was and another 7% believed some other perpetrator, other than al Qaeda, was responsible."
But 46 + 15 + 7 + 7 = 75. What's with these numbers? 98.239.102.254 ( talk) 08:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
There are certain "softer" theories that are often classed with 9/11 conspiracies, yet are distinct. For instance, the idea that the Bush administration was actively in denial about intelligence that "Bin Laden determined to strike inside U.S", motivated by the idea that if such a strike were successful it would provide an excuse for a desired war on Iraq. This is not technically a conspiracy theory as it requires no coordination between Bin Laden and Bush, only a common interest in an open military conflict between the US and some part of the Muslim world. I think this should be mentioned somehow in the article, and distinguished from the core topic. Homunq ( ࿓) 23:03, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
It's barely mentioned in the article, but one of the main questions raised by proponents of these theories is how and why it collapsed. 24.27.63.92 ( talk) 06:36, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
I read through the previous discussions about the theory of directed-energy weapons. I'd like to revisit that idea now because there are a lot more sources available. The theory is that a Directed-energy weapon was used in the attack. The evidence is that steel does not vaporize and turn into dust with fire alone. “The idea is you heat it up so hot the material begins to evaporate from the surface, the same as if you heat up water it begins to boil and eventually it’s all gone,” The professors say the technology needed for their project exists today [4]
We should not add any theory unless it appears in a good secondary source about 9/11 conspiracy theories as such - a work like Among the Truthers, just for example. Tom Harrison Talk 23:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
It's not so much more vs. less nutty, as it is peanuts versus cashews. What seems crazy to US college-educated males with broadband internet isn't necessarily the same thing that seems crazy to an unemployed laborer in Cairo. Anyway, we can't pick through primary sources and decide. That's a job for journalists and academics. All we do is summarize the secondary sources those researchers write. Tom Harrison Talk 18:35, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
There does need to be a recognition that certain conspiracy theories are so fringe and non-notable that even mentioning them in this article gives them undue weight. I have yet to find a significant mention of the "no-planes" theories in any major secondary sources. When they are brought up, which is rare in itself, it is to very briefly note them as being an oddity even within the conspiracist community. At best we can justify a sentence or two noting that these views exist and that they are not well-received even by other conspiracy theorists. What we have in this article right now is way more than is appropriate.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 00:57, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Thats strange? everything i said here has been deleted? 22:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.221.30.239 ( talk)