![]() | 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
I'm hereby officially proposing that this article be split. It is now 77 KB, which is over twice the reccomended article size of 32 KB, so I don't think that there can be any reason (other than POV) for keeping all this stuff in one jumbo article. The two general areas discussed in the most depth here are allegations regarding Jewish/Israeli complicity and allegations regarding U.S. government complicity - so I propose that the discussion of those areas be moved to Allegations of Jewish or Israeli complicity in 9/11 and Allegations of U.S. government complicity in 9/11 respectively, with a summarized discussion and wikilink remaining at this article, as is standard practice. The latter article may eventually need to be split too, but before we deal with that, they both need to be split off from this bloated mess of an article. I can see no legitimate reason for maintaining this super-sized jumbo article in its current form. Blackcats 21:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
In response to Tom harrison's comments above, as much as a few people here might like it, there is no policy or guideline stating that every Wikipedia article that deals with something commonly labeled a "conspiracy theory" must include "conspiracy theory" in its title. And the fact that ZM's proposal to ban all such titles has not yet been approved does not mean new articles cannot be created which do not include those words in their title. In fact a good number of such articles already exist, including the frequently cited Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda. As I stated above, I agree that "Jewish" should not be subsumed under "Israeli," since those are two different groups of people and this would unduely limit that article's scope. Regarding your other proposed splits, the "let it happen" vs "made it happen" might be a good idea in the future, but both are subsets of allegations of US gvt complicity. I haven't seen anyone alleging that Jews/Israelis "let it happen" (but didn't make it happen). As for your idea to split into "Economic, Political, and Social," I'm not sure I understand what that would look like - other than perhaps different alleged motives (and motive is only a small fraction of what the article discusses). So please ellaborate on that one. Thanks. Blackcats 03:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
As Raul654 points out, the articles were merged for good reason, and should stay merged. If there is nonsense in the article, it should be pruned. As for the title, community consensus is that the titles are completely neutral, and that conspiracy theories should be called conspiracy theories, regardless of Zen-master's failed "Title Neutrality" proposal, which isn't about "Title Neutrality" at all, but rather simply about getting the word "Conspiracy theory" out of article titles; it is completely unconcerned with so-called "neutrality" in any other titles. Indeed, if the "Title Neutrality" title actually had a neutral title, it would be "A proposal to remove the phrase Conspiracy Theory from article titles made by those who promote conspiracy theories, and therefore don't like having them accurately labelled".
Jayjg
(talk)
01:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Jayjg - your demagoguery aside, you have not given any good reason why the article should not be split. If someone wants to object to the significance or verifiablility of any specific piece of content then they're welcome to do that, but an artificial should not be imposed based on some people's desire to have everything fit in one article. And it's circular reasoning for you to then argue that the article should not be split because the large size was due to too much content, which should not have been because the article shouldn't be split. At any rate, like I said before - what may have happened several months ago does not pre-detirmine what should happen now, as the circumstances have changed. In addition to the fact that more quality notable and verifiable content has been added to the article, the notability of this entire subject has also increased. Professor Steven E. Jones's announcement this fall of his publication of a peer-reviewed paper has recieved a good deal of media attention (along with the accompanying increased public interest in these issues). So there's no good reason why Wikipedia's coverage of these issues should not increase. Blackcats 04:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
The problem with this article is not that it has so much encycopedic material that it needs to be split. The problem with this article is that it contains sheer gossip and trivial pointless speculation that even gossip weeklys would be embarassed to print. Take Military personnel were photographed carrying a large light-weight object shrouded by a blue tarp in the vicinity of the crash site. Some conjecture the tarp was needed to hide its contents from the public. Others suggest this was merely one of the many temporary structures, such as tents, being placed on the site. for example. How is this encyclopedic? Why move it to another article when it can and should be simply deleted? I suggest every trivial piece of unencyclopedic speculation be deleted and the seemingly encyclopedic claims without a source be provided with a source or {{fact}}. Then again we could simply keep this as Wikipedia honeypot. WAS 4.250 08:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Sure, you can create an article that does not have conspiracy theory in the title. I just don't think the titles proposed describe the content; They have been chosen to avoid calling the content a conspiracy theory. When the content plainly is a conspiracy theory, bending over backwards to avoid saying so, even if well-intended, isn't neutrality; it promotes a point of view.
An example of an economic c.t. might be that the corps engineered it so they could build their pipeline. A political c.t., that Karl Rove orchestrated it to make people forget about the 2002 election. Social, that it was part of the Illuminati's long-term plan to make people accept the imposition of rule by an elite. You could probably have a fourth page of religious c.t.'s.
Of course, I'm making all these up (I hope); they're just examples without the detail and depth necessary for an actual conspiracy theory. I just mention those three or four possible pages as an example; I don't know that they are the way to go; There is something to be said for breaking on the sections, as Orzetto suggests above. I do think the break into two pages as mentioned is not the best idea. If the page is broken up, I'm not even certain that we should limit the resulting pages to only 9/11. There are several lists of c.t.'s already. Maybe they could be incorporated into the resulting pages. Excuse me if I don't reply promptly. Tom Harrison (talk) 12:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Reply to T.H. - "I just don't think the titles proposed describe the content." How is "allegations of U.S. government complicity in 9/11" not descriptive? It's obvious from that title that the article deals with allegations that have been made against people the US gvt. regarding their alleged complicity in 9/11. "When the content plainly is a conspiracy theory..." Lots of things are plainly theories of conspiracy - like the official account that some guy living in a cave in Afghanistan hatched a successful scheme to catch the world's most powerful military completely off guard - or the version where Saddam Hussein was involved - which is even commonly labeled a "conspiracy theory," but still does not have those words in its title. So apparently there's a precedent that those words are not necessary in the titles of articles discussion ideas which many have labeled "conspiracy theory."
"[Avoiding "conspiracy theory" in titles] isn't neutrality; it promotes a point of view." On the contrary, it's bending over backwards to make sure those words are always included that promotes a point of view. "Allegations" is very neutral and accurate. It simply states the fact that people have made allegations. It doesn't imply that the allegations are likely true or that they're likely false. And the intro can clearly state (and cite) the fact that many have labeled such allegations "conspiracy theories."
"An example of an economic c.t. might be that the corps engineered it so they could build their pipeline...[(and so on...)]" Like I had expected before, all of those deal motives. And if our section on the alleged motives was bulging to the breaking point then I'd likely agree to some kind of split along those lines. But as it stands, the motives section is among the article's smallest. And I think it’s interesting that you had to make up hypothetical “conspiracy theory” narratives.
Of course such in depth narratives exist for 9/11, but the bulk of the work by most of the Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11 has been more that of debunkers than that of theorists. If you read through a website like Jim Hoffman’s, you’ll see that far more of content is devoted to arguing against the official accounts than to laying out any sort of elaborate scheme as to how the plots were supposedly carried out. And professor Steven E. Jones hasn’t even made any allegations as to who carried out 9/11 – even when he was asked about that. All he said was that it was probably not carried out by a Muslim conspiracy. From a Utah newspaper:
So I think the real POV-pushing would be to insist that anything opposing the 9/11 Commission’s account of what happened be labeled by Wikipedia as “conspiracy theory” – even if (as is the case with Steven Jones) there’s no clear case that it is. Blackcats 21:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree that the daughter articles of this article should not have been merged and/or deleted without consent or discussion, and furthermore that administrator Snowspinner should not have exceeded his authority in his involvement. I am all for renormalization. Kevin baas 23:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
^^ What he said. Archival McTannith 18:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't have time to wade through all of the above, so I'll just reply to Blackcat's proposal "to split the 9/11 conspiracy theories article, with the two most in depth areas being moved to separate articles at Allegations of Jewish or Israeli complicity in 9/11 and Allegations of U.S. government complicity in 9/11." The problem with the Israeli complicity claim is that there is not much good evidence of this, merely suggestive evidence. An encyclopedia is not the place for presentation of conjectures, but unfortunately there is actually little hard evidence (since evidence was destroyed or confiscated). What evidence there is is mainly video. This sort of evidence has to be interpreted, and for every person interpreting it one way there is another interpreting it a different way. Even so, any "reasonable" person will "surely" concede that the Towers fell in about the time of free fall (how to explain this?) and that the photographic evidence of the Pentagon attack is not consistent with the hypothesis of a Boeing 757 impact. But these are pieces of the puzzle which must be assembled to come to a conclusion based upon a preponderance of the evidence. Certainly we all (apart from the trolls) have an interest in doing this. But, again, an encyclopedia is not the place for this sort of thing. But considering that 9/11 was the (so far) defining event of the 21st Century, it's understandable that we have a Wikipedia article trying to explain it. But to return to the proposal: It's also not accurate to say (as some do) that 9/11 was the work of "the U.S. government", or that it was complicit. Rather, what is plausible is that it was the work of elements within the U.S. government, individuals in positions of influence (one or more cabals, perhaps) who were able to use their knowledge and authority to pull this off. This is plausible because, for sure, it wasn't the 19 Arab patsies who did it. And if not them, then who? Who has knowledge of demolition? Remote control of aircraft? Fuel-air bombs? Cruise missiles? So I'd suggest a small section on 'Allegations of Israeli Complicity' and a large section on 'Allegations of Complicity by Elements Within the U.S. Administration'. But there's a lot wrong with this article (such as stupid assertions about the 'credibility' of someone proposing an idea with which some editor disagrees) and it would be a lot of work to fix it. Leon Ehrlich 00:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Remember we are here for the users not for ourselves and not to make the articles as “wikipidia“ as possible although in most cases making the articles as wikipidia as possible is best for the users this is not the case 100% of the time. Our "customers" like any customers "shopping" for anything be it a big screen TV or in this case information wants a "one stop" solution. We do not know or should care if the "customer" wants to shop for information about a "controlled explosion" or an "Israeli conspiracy" or just general information on this topic. Once the user gets used to this format the “hyperlinks” on top is intuitive enough solution and if the user is looking for all the information possible he/she will not care if the topic goes over the suggested article size. 12:23, 3 January 2006 Edward Kollin
Evidence of specific lies, specific coverups backed by evidence and not idle speculation make for a great many wikipedia articles not titled with "conspiracy". Which theory in this article is up to the challenge of not being mere speculation or category of speculation? (Not a rhetorical question.) WAS 4.250 21:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda is about issues concerning allegations of pre- invasion links between Iraq and al-Qaeda and is backed up with many facts. The administration used a lie to justify a war and help win reelection. How is this a conspiracy theory? Anyway, on to your other cite. WAS 4.250 22:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
That paper according to google is widely distributed (and I would guess cited). I sugest you start an article on that paper, its notability, its claims, its evidence, and critics response to the claims and evidence. Without reading it further, I would guess there will be issues with the fact bachground is physics rather than engineering. Also, I keep hearing about how remarkable it was that they fell straight down. I could swear that in a TV program I saw decades ago said that it was built to be able to be brought straight down - that was part of the design. Possibly those design elements contributed to its falling and that was covered up, but I never could find an on line source to back up waht I thought i remembered. By the way, I live in Newark, NJ and I saw the aftermath with my own eyes from the top floor of my building. When the wind direction changed at some point we could smell it. So I have tiny pieces of it in my lungs. Ha! WAS 4.250 23:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Let's get down to brass tacks, you know actual facts. I assert that this is fairly unique. You make fun of that assertion. OK, name your best three similar events for us to compare. WAS 4.250 04:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Out of courtesy to Morton I will ask him to explain how he thinks "dominant view" is neutral? Why must one person's or another's view be presented as somehow having "won" or being the "most powerful" explanation? The official explanation of 9/11 is most certainly not "unmistakably ascendant". The 9/11 commission pretty much refers to itself as the "official view" so "official" is their language even. Our job is not to judge or rank one view over another but merely to signify who holds it, which in this case is many (but not all) of our elected officials and their 9/11 commission representatives for example. "Official" may be slightly suggestive itself but it is orders of magnitude better than "dominant". zen master T 21:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Not trying to be disrespectful here, but could you give me a chance to explain things before doing a revert. Seems like Blackcats, Bov, Ombudman, Zen-master and WAS 4.250 "dominate" : ) the board here, and don't allow others to make edits. It's impolite to simply undo all of my edits.
I object to the term "Official", because it sets up a conspiracy theorist's strawman, the "Government." Yes, those are scare quotes, aren't you scared? : ) It may be the official position of the US government, or it may not be, I don't know. I don't recall ever seeing the Whitehouse endorse the 911 report. However, my main point is that "Official" is just too narrow -- the prevailing/dominant/predominant view of the facts have been investigated and reported on by thousands of disinterested journalists and have been accepted by most of the non-Islamic world. The theories presented on this page are accepted by a relatively small number of people. Is there a way to express that and still remain neutral in your eyes? Morton devonshire 23:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
You are agreeing with us, dude. (and us with you) WAS 4.250 23:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
On the topic of speculative theories, I wanted to point out a little more about the 911 research site. On their main page they say “9-11 Research focuses on the facts of the attack and analysis of the official explanation.” Their about page says:
And the only page I found on the site that engages in any sort of speculative theorizing is a page with a hypothetical theory entitled “ Attack Scenario 404: How the Attack Might Have Been Engineered (But Probably Wasn't)” It was simply written to illustrate one of many plausible theories that could be made.
Its intro states the following:
The conclusion states:
So I would think that by WAS’s criteria, the rest of this site (other than this one page which they themselves say is speculative) would not be considered “conspiracy theory.” They do come to a conclusion – based on their analysis of the available evidence – that 9/11 was carried out by people within the US gvt., but they don’t engage in idle speculation or assert speculative narratives about how the specifics of the plot were allegedly carried out. Blackcats 23:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Or WTC towers collapse irregularity and controversy may work better, the singular tense hopefully conveys abstract issue conceptualization. zen master T 02:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
ZM - Actually, now that I'm looking at it, it looks like Jones's analysis is already fairly well covered at Collapse of the World Trade Center, under a section titled "Controlled demolition theory." So I think that the best solution would simply be to move discussion of the Twin Towers' collapses to that article, and if that section got too big then it could be spun off to a new article called something like Controlled demolition theories of the WTC collapses. But I think the most important thing is to remove most of that content from this article - except for analysis of specific narratives about who allegedly placed explosives or conspired to cover it up. There's simply no reason to have scientific analysis like Dr. Steven Jones's or Jim Hoffman's discussed in a "conspiracy theories" article - other than say that their work has been cited by some theorists and to give a brief summary and a link to the more indepth discussion. Blackcats 06:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, except that consensus was and is that the name should be "9/11 conspiracy theories". Jayjg (talk) 04:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia official policy, Wikipedia is not a place for original research, but strangely enough, this page seems to try to advance the idea that there is any independent corroboration for any of these theories. A more NPOV perspective would be to describe these conspiracy theories, without directly challenging the widely-reported facts. While there may be an "official explanation" advanced by the US government of the 911 facts, the facts don't rest solely on Whitehouse spokesman -- the facts have been investigated by and reported on by thousands upon thousands of professional journalists -- the "official explanation" comes from them, not from politicos. Contrasting, the conspiracy theories are just theories, and don't rest upon any credible journalism -- they are concocted out of thin air, with no actual investigation or reporting done by their adherants. To explain that these theories exist, and their genesis, can be done by relying upon mainstream media sources, and is a NPOV. To try to give credence to these theories by describing the reported facts as anything less than facts widely recognized by thousands of journalists, is to adopt the non-NPOV position that the conspiracy theories have some basis in fact, and that the widely reported facts are somehow not credible. That's not neutral, it's advocacy.
Everything Morton Devonshire just said is complete BS. And that is a fact. He might as well have written a research paper on the type of cheese the moon is made out of. Sorry-SK
You can explain what the conspiracy theories are, without asserting that they are factually true -- that would be a NPOV. It's non-neutral to assert that the theories are actually true, as they are not supported by investigative reporting by mainstream media. Please address the issue of NPOV, rather than trying to blow holes in my argument -- my argument is not the important thing -- NPOV is. Also, we could do without the name-calling, especially by one who hides behind an anonymous ISP address. Wikipedia has a rule against Sockpuppeting. Morton devonshire 20:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Here's an example of what would be a neutral point of view, taken from another Wikipedia page: "In November 2001, U.S. forces recovered a videotape from a destroyed house in Jalalabad, Afghanistan which showed Osama bin Laden talking to Khaled al-Harbi. [6] In the tape, bin Laden admits to planning the attacks. The factuality of the tape is questioned in the Muslim world: "But the BBC's Middle East correspondent, Frank Gardner, says that at street level in the Arab world, many believe the tape is a fake, a PR gimmick dreamed up by the US administration." [7]. The tape was broadcast on various news networks in December 2001." My suggestion is that this page should follow a similar pattern -- state the widely-reported version, then state the criticism/alternate theory, and where it comes from. That's neutral. Morton devonshire 22:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree that ignoring the information presented on this page would suggest complicity or at the very least apathy on the part of the mainstream media. I can't think of any reasons to take them seriously, and it occurs to me that their purpose is more to mold or sway opinion than report "facts". But thats just my POV. - SK
I agree that ignoring the information presented on this page would suggest complicity or at the very least apathy on the part of the mainstream media. I can't think of any reasons to take them seriously, and it occurs to me that their purpose is more to mold or sway opinion than report "facts". But thats just my POV. - SK
OK Morton "If there is doubt, a developer or checkuser user can check to see whether accounts are related. Experience has shown that on article talk pages, including polls, the linkage is usually not supported by the information available to developers, so self-restraint in making such accusations is usually the right course." Often, acussations of sock puppetry are thinly veiled personal attacks. On the other hand, I apologize for being rude. But I have trouble taking you seriously becuase you seem like a [ shill] with your insistance that we can "rely" on the mainstream media and your approach in challenging the neutrality. "shill is an associate of a person selling goods or services, who pretends no association to the seller and assumes the air of an enthusiastic customer. The intention of the shill is, using crowd psychology, to encourage other potential customers, unaware of the set-up, to purchase said goods or services." I haven't been around Wiki for very long and I'm not familiar with anything you've done here before. I'll quit saying your full of BS and you quit accusing me of being a sock puppet. I think that would be fair. - SK
If a journalist was concerned for his health it is possible he would keep that kind of information to himself. And there can be other[ motives] for the mainstream media to establish an "accepted theory". An individual journalists' greed and ambition doesn't mean much when they are playing in a field like this one. More reasons I don't take them seriously. - SK
SK's new account is SkeenaR Thanks Blackcats.
What theory of Sybil Edmonds? Sybil Edmonds was a translator. He came forward with information that the Admin knew about the nature of upcoming attacks. What theory? SkeenaR 21:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I think stating that all types of people and groups have challenged the official story as something along the lines of "people from across the political spectrum" is accurate, adequate and preferable over including specific groups. There are too many. The 9/11 Truth Movement is probably the best known group in this regard and it probably isn't necessary to mention them in that section unless qualified by something like "one of the best known groups to challenge the official story is". Also, including one group in that section and excluding other groups is one thing that might make the article seem less than NPOV. It's my feeling that the section should be reworded again with that in mind and perhaps we can eliminate the disputed neutrality tag soon. SkeenaR 07:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Will change the word "common" back to "official". Zogby poll says half of New Yorkers say some thing extremely fishy with the situation, so that is also common. "Common" seems more POV than "official". The story reffered to in this section is undeniably OFFICIAL.
Definition of official:
Of or relating to an office or a post of authority: official duties.
Authorized by a proper authority; authoritative: official permission.
Holding office or serving in a public capacity: an official representative.
Characteristic of or befitting a person of authority; formal: an official banquet SkeenaR 20:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
The 911 Commission Report is official.
It was:
Authorized by a proper authority; authoritative: official permission.
Holding office or serving in a public capacity: an official representative.
It couldn't be any more official than that. "Official" is by far the most accurate description and the best in terms of brevity. We can do without lame edit wars, and if the use of the word official is the primary thing that compels you to keep your tag up I would consider that disruptive. SkeenaR 21:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
As I have pointed out, there is nothing more accurate than to call it the Official Explanation. SkeenaR 21:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Morton, now that we have gotten rid of this "Official" stuff will you please take your tag down like you said you would?
SkeenaR
22:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks Morton. SkeenaR 22:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I still think "official" is better. Using 9/11 Commission is not a broad enough term. But as well as the Commission(which is an official commission), the officials in the official administration also have an official story that is given in official radio and television addresses by the official president of the country of which you are an official resident, and that official story is also challenged from places across the board. Using 9/11 Commission is too narrow to describe what is challenged. "Official" is the perfect word to use. SkeenaR 00:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Are you saying that is because some mainstream journalism and academic research has been in dissaccordance with what I call the official story? When Fox reports news that is in accordance or in dissaccordance with the official story, that is not official, just as Prof. Jones' paper on the WTC collapse is not official either, at least at this point. But the government and the commision both are. SkeenaR 01:25, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Another thing. What are we gonna about that cleanup tag? SkeenaR 01:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Ok, maybe we can get back to that later, but in the meantime I'm thinking it might be a good idea to try and get that cleanup tag down. Who put the tag up? What's the reason for the tag at this point? Any suggestions about getting rid of it? SkeenaR 02:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
This will be good to go on. SkeenaR 03:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Morton, thats ok. I agreed to a compromise. I'm not going to change it, but I still think it merits further discussion. That's all. Right now I think it would be more constructive if we tried to bring it up to quality standards. SkeenaR 20:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Tom Harrison, do you mind if I post your reply here? SkeenaR 22:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
HAVE FUN TONIGHT-SEE YOU NEXT YEAR SkeenaR 23:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
A section was retitled "9/11 Commission Report challenged." T.H. said this was a good compromise. That would be true if it weren't inaccurate and misleading. The fact is that the 9/11 Commission was not created until more than 2 years after 9/11, and only after considerable pressure from victims families. And people started questioning the offical account (as the article says) "before the sun had set on the evening of September 11." So I think it's fair to simply use "9/11 Commission" in place of "official" to describe the official view currently and for everything after the summer of 2004, but not for before the report was issued. Blackcats 06:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I concur. Can't argue with that. SkeenaR 03:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
It seems we had quite a number of editors a few days ago discussing splitting off the WTC tower collapse controversies from this article to its own new article, about half of the people claimed the collapse hypotheses were "conspiracy theories" and should remain titled as such while the other half argued they did not theorize motive and just noted irregularities and criticized the official collapses explanations' science so shouldn't be titled dismissively. Just to clarify, did that discussion drop off suddenly because someone pointed out the WTC collapses controversies were already covered in the Collapse of the World Trade Center article? Is there a plan to merge the content either there or here or keep it in both places? Separately, it sure would be nice if the same level of discussion would just suddenly spring up over on Wikipedia talk:Title Neutrality, though I get the sense that the "title neutrality" proposal still needs some tweaking (or the timing just isn't right for some reason) so I'd like to solicit comments, suggestions or boldness, please let me know. zen master T 01:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
How can the keepers of Wikipedia, in clear consicence, get away with advocating so many bald faced lies? I just don't get it.
There is too much labeling and outright venom here and it's not in the article, it's on this discussion page. Apparently it's offensive and provokes harsh words to ask questions or point out anomolies. SkeenaR 02:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Please do not feed the troll.
SkeenaR 21:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I already apologized to you once. Either let it go or don't but you can stop reminding everybody because we have heard this already. And I'm not necessarily trying to engender debate either. There are legitimate questions concerning the events of Sept 11 that have given rise to various theories. There is no reason why those theories should not be covered here without it being insinuated that people who might consider them are unpatriotic, racist, and of having their ability to reason hijacked by hatred. That does not engender good debate, it provokes hostility. I don't necessarily believe any particular one of these theories but I find it an interesting topic and I think it's a decent article. We might disagree on that but that's OK. If you want to continue insulting people, and enjoy fighting like a little bitch, you should do it where someone might like it because I don't and I doubt anyone else here does either. PEACE SkeenaR 02:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
There is clearly a vast amount of material about 9/11 that just makes no sense at all. Hijackers not listed on the passenger manifests. Buildings falling down with no rigorous scientific explanation as to why. Silverstein even went on TV and ADMITTED he ordered building 7 demolished! $3m allocated for an investigation, compared to $40m for Clinton's sexual antics. NORAD standing down for first time in history, etc, etc.
There is going to be constant pressure for 9/11 'conspiracy pages' until more space is allocated to it. Constant WIKI war. Why not just give over a 9/11 conspiracy category, state 'This page is a conspiracy theory rejected by the American government and all reputable commentators' at the top, and be done with it? Can we sort out a template tag to that effect? I don't see the issue with a page grounded in fact reported from mainstream press articles, SO LONG as it is properly tagged up front. Timharwoodx 13:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
etc etc etc Adam Adler 20:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I note that on 9 January SkeenaR added two links:
Scientific American 9/11 Article
www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000DA0E2-1E15-128A-9E1583414B7F0000
and
Scientific American 9/11 Article Analyses
www.serendipity.li/wot/sciam_reply.htm
12 minutes later 204.50.98.171 came along and changed the URL of the second link to:
911research.wtc7.net/essays/sciam/
without changing the text.
I'll let SkeenaR revert the page to correct this case of link hijacking, unless someone else does it first.
I think the term "link hijacking" is an appropriate description of this. It is clearly an attempt to remove a link to a page that some editor dislikes and to replace it with a link to a page that that editor favors, without informing anyone of the switch.
I note also that the 9/11 pages are full of links to 911research.wtc7.net. A particularly obnoxious example is the section on Jim Hoffman in Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11 which, in six lines, has four links to 911research.wtc7.net and two links to wtc7.net (another of Jim Hoffman's sites), including a link to a page for ordering Hoffman's book. Links to 911research.wtc7.net are all over the 9/11 pages. Could this be an attempt to spam Wikipedia's 9/11 pages? Adam Adler 20:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I changed the link from serendipity to wt7.net within just a few minutes, because it was then that I remembered the wt7.net link which I feel is a better article. FYI I have had nothing to do with changes regarding any other wtc7.net links anywhere. If someone likes the serendipity link better or thinks it should be included for whatever reason then add it. SkeenaR 21:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out though. SkeenaR 21:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Hey Adam, thanks for the help, but how come no user page? SkeenaR 20:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I deleted the sentence by Tom Harrison that mentioned missile pods and holograms because as it is explained in the first paragraph of the article, this article deals with the most prominent alternative views. Neither missile pods or holograms are mentioned anywhere else in the article. We have previously decided that "including one group in that section and excluding other groups is one thing that might make the article seem less than NPOV" in regards to the official account challenged section. Deleting the sentence in the introductory paragraph is analogous to that decision. SkeenaR 02:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I also think mention of Meyssan's book should be left out in that section too, but maybe somebody can explain otherwise. Just thinking. SkeenaR 02:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I assumed this was agreed upon here:
I think stating that all types of people and groups have challenged the official story as something along the lines of "people from across the political spectrum" is accurate, adequate and preferable over including specific groups. There are too many. The 9/11 Truth Movement is probably the best known group in this regard and it probably isn't necessary to mention them in that section unless qualified by something like "one of the best known groups to challenge the official story is". Also, including one group in that section and excluding other groups is one thing that might make the article seem less than NPOV. It's my feeling that the section should be reworded again with that in mind and perhaps we can eliminate the disputed neutrality tag soon.SkeenaR 07:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
The entire discussion is above SkeenaR 02:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I think it's unnecessary and redundant, because less common theories are mentioned at the bottom of the page. SkeenaR 02:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Why don't you put them in the Less Common Theories section with the other ones? Not only do I think it in no way helps mark out the scope of the article, the way the wording is it almost seems to imply that those ARE the main theories to be covered in the article. It also seems more magazine-like the way you have it.
"Conspiracists have speculated on possibilities ranging from missile pods on the airplanes to holograms, rather than airplanes, hitting the Trade Center. What follows is an examination of the most current and most prominent alternate views of explanations, and anomalies of that tragic day."
SkeenaR 02:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Lots of people if not reading carefully would totally think the article was about "things other than planes". The appropriate place is in the Less Common section. SkeenaR 02:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I feel that this sentence is misleading and taints by association. Much the same as the previously deleted reference to white supremacists in the Official Story Challenged section. SkeenaR 05:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
SkeenaR; Please assume good faith. Saying in the edit summary "removed attempt to taint article with references to pods and holograms" suggests that I am trying to do something other than improve the article. Tom Harrison Talk 15:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
If this is to be a comprehensive description of the alternate views, and not just those of the Truth movement, then all of the alt theories should be described. Other views held by a small number of persons are also described in this article (e.g. Jim Hoffman's views), so why not the others?
Morton devonshire
17:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Tom, I had stated it was an attempt to taint the article in my last post in this section too, but I changed it to the above because I decided that I should assume good faith and give you the benefit of the doubt, so I take that back. But it does seem odd to me that someone who claims to be concerned with clarity and readability would even consider placing that sentence in that spot. Of course it is acceptable for theories like these to be described in this article, but as most of us agree, the right place is in the Less Common section. So what we say we put it there? SkeenaR 20:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Also, as an administrator can you tell me why the article history page is lying to me? It tells me I was the last to modify the article when I deleted the sentence but the sentence has been restored and there is no record of it. SkeenaR 20:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
No, there's something funny Tom. I deleted the sentence when I posted the mention about the taint by association in the edit summary, but there is no record of any other edit between when I deleted it and Bov deleted it. Glitch? (now might be a good time to break out our tinfoil hats) http://people.csail.mit.edu/rahimi/helmet/ SkeenaR 21:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Got it. Everybody can take their hats off. SkeenaR 22:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
How is the quality of the article now in regards to the standards tag with all the work Doctor9 has done towards improvement? SkeenaR 23:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
The major assumption behind the 9/11 conspiracy theories is that the United States government, in the manner of Stalinist Russia, is totalitarian and will kill its own citizens en masse. Regardless of the fact that the attack was at the heart of the very elite that supposedly planned it, isn't our ability to discuss this issue indicative that there's no government involvement in 9/11? While the mainstream media does not address it, there's tons of (overpriced) books and (overpriced) DVD's on plenty of websites that operate without government interference and *none* have been subject to government-ordered shutdowns (as opposed to what the Chinese government does when their citizens criticize it). My point is that if the government can kill thousands of people in an elaborate circus, surely it should be able to shut down a few sites that use $5/month hosting. I'm pretty sure Stalin wouldn't have allowed books about his purges to float freely around in the 1930's. Can this logical point be addressed anywhere in the article? Andkon 15:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
It's never been proven that the USG was involved of course. But hypothetically speaking a government with the type of character described above would still be impeded by the Constitiution and the Bill of Rights unless of course there was a state of emergency deemed high enough to justify instituting martial law. Simple huh? An American government at this point in history would not be confident that they could boot stomp over an armed American populace unless there were extreme circumstances. It's that "goddamned piece of paper" again! I will say though that I agree the phenomenon described by Tom Harrison probably isn't rare. SkeenaR 06:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Theoretically, it would be desired to create an atmosphere of massive crisis, and spectacular attacks would help in creating that perception in the population. You could also ask yourself why terrorists would go to the trouble of simultaneously hijacking four airliners, flying them on complicated flight routes and attacking multiple targets including one that should have (in theory) been heavily defended. To create terror.
SkeenaR
23:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Hey you guys, look at this. Anyway you slice it it's really interesting. http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/printer_7986.shtml SkeenaR 21:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
This article says the USG now considers Capitol Hill Blue author an enemy of the state. SkeenaR 22:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Morton, what would you consider a good NPOV title for your proposal? SkeenaR 21:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but Mao said "Political power comes from the barrel of a gun". :) I'm joking around, but he really did say that. You see, the first Amendment is the right to free speech, the second is the right to bear arms. Again, theoretically, the second should guarantee the ability to preserve the first. Like when Archie Bunker was holding a rifle and said "With this here I can make any kind of speech I want". SkeenaR 02:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
According to this article by Kurt Nimmo from Jan 11,2006 the USG considers free speech a weapon of mass destruction SkeenaR 04:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm posting this comment by Kurt Nimmo from Jan 16, 06 soley because of it's relevance to this discussion. It's possible that this discussion page is veering away from its stated subject matter, but I figured I would post this anyway.
"I'm sorry to respond in boilerplate fashion to those of you who have emailed to ask why I have decided to stop posting on the Another Day in the Empire blog. I wish I could answer all of you personally, but the response to my decision has been overwhelming. In lieu of a personal response, please accept the following explanation.
"The primary reason I have decided to stop posting the blog has to do with threats. I have received many of them, including death threats. Usually, I am able to brush aside threats, since most are not of a serious nature, but lately I have received several that are not to be taken lightly, especially considering the fact somebody has taken the liberty to post my address and telephone number (information easily attained from the domain registry) in various places on the internet. First and foremost, I have a responsibility to my family and posting political commentary obviously comes in a distant second.
"Earlier today, due to the above, my wife asked me to take down the blog. Her name is being used to post libelous and hateful messages on various forums and this disturbs her immensely (over the last two years, somebody has also hijacked my name to post hateful and threatening comments; as well, a writer, who shall remain anonymous, complained last year that he had received threatening phone calls by somebody claiming to be me). Moreover, I have received threatening phone calls at my place of work, thus jeopardizing my livelihood. I can no longer allow any of this to continue." nimmo
SkeenaR 02:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Senate bill 742 in Oregon which was slimly defeated by just three votes would have classified terrorism as a plethora of completely unrelated actions. Downloading music, blocking traffic, writing a hot check or any form of protest. All these would be punishable by life in prison unless you agreed to attend a "forest labor camp" for 25 years of enforced labor. SkeenaR 22:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Tom, how is the quality of the article now in regards to the standards tag with all the work Doctor9 has done towards improvement? SkeenaR 03:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Donald Rumsfeld admits that a missile hit the Pentagon and "similar" devices contributed to the WTC attacks as well. This admission can be found in the official Defense Link Government Website.
"They [find a lot] and any number of terrorist efforts have been dissuaded, deterred or stopped by good intelligence gathering and good preventive work. It is a truth that a terrorist can attack any time, any place, using any technique and it's physically impossible to defend at every time and every place against every conceivable technique. Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center. The only way to deal with this problem is by taking the battle to the terrorists, wherever they are, and dealing with them."
Read what other people had to say about Rumsfeld's admission:
I figured it would make sense to put this in the Less common section, so I deleted the Rumsfeld section and stuck it in Less common. SkeenaR 21:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Yup, that settles it!:) But I see your point Bov. SkeenaR 23:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
What's a good link to video showing this 'crimp?' Tom Harrison Talk 20:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm kinda busy at the moment, but I have seen good video of the collapse that clearly shows this crimp and I'll do my best to find it and provide a link. What network does Dan Rather work for? It was from that station on Sept 11. Rather actually commented that this reminded him of a controlled demolition. Quote "where well placed explosives were used to deliberately knock a building down". SkeenaR 22:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Here Tom. This is the best I can do at the moment. If you go to the Conspiracy Central Tracker, Alex Jones' 911-Martial Law video is available for free download. About a third of the way through the video the actual CBS footage of the collapse with Rathers comment is available there. SkeenaR 23:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Here is the clip from the Martial Law video www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2005/180305groundzero.htm WTC 7 Collapse and Analysis] including Rathers comment. 22 minutes. SkeenaR 07:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Tom, any thoughts on the video of the collapse or analyses of the building? SkeenaR 21:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Check out this link and look at the still photo. See a crimp now? SkeenaR 22:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2005/180305groundzero.htm]
My apologies Tom. It's www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2006/050106silversteinanswers.htm this one]. Second from the top. SkeenaR 03:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I love you guys like I love Art Bell. Keep it coming dudes! Morton devonshire 03:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Ha ha Mort! Sorry to disappoint you though dude. I haven't bought any lizard people stories. Or Vast Sock Puppet Conspiracies. You and Bell work for the Illuminati to discredit conspiracy theorists. Or maybe that's what they want me to think... SkeenaR 03:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
-- Striver 06:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone have a reference on how long it takes to set the charges for a controlled demolition? Tom Harrison Talk 17:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I know that they are very careful and take their time. I believe it could take weeks. I will try and find a reference. SkeenaR 20:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Right under our nose. Demolition SkeenaR 21:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Images SkeenaR 21:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Question from wtc7.net and reply from Implosionworld. [4] Jan 6, 2006-very recent. SkeenaR 21:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Close up of WTC 7 from video appears to show www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2004/281104unmistakablecharges.htm squibs]. SkeenaR 21:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Photo of www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2006/050106silversteinanswers.htm crimp]. SkeenaR 21:38, 21 January 2006 (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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
I'm hereby officially proposing that this article be split. It is now 77 KB, which is over twice the reccomended article size of 32 KB, so I don't think that there can be any reason (other than POV) for keeping all this stuff in one jumbo article. The two general areas discussed in the most depth here are allegations regarding Jewish/Israeli complicity and allegations regarding U.S. government complicity - so I propose that the discussion of those areas be moved to Allegations of Jewish or Israeli complicity in 9/11 and Allegations of U.S. government complicity in 9/11 respectively, with a summarized discussion and wikilink remaining at this article, as is standard practice. The latter article may eventually need to be split too, but before we deal with that, they both need to be split off from this bloated mess of an article. I can see no legitimate reason for maintaining this super-sized jumbo article in its current form. Blackcats 21:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
In response to Tom harrison's comments above, as much as a few people here might like it, there is no policy or guideline stating that every Wikipedia article that deals with something commonly labeled a "conspiracy theory" must include "conspiracy theory" in its title. And the fact that ZM's proposal to ban all such titles has not yet been approved does not mean new articles cannot be created which do not include those words in their title. In fact a good number of such articles already exist, including the frequently cited Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda. As I stated above, I agree that "Jewish" should not be subsumed under "Israeli," since those are two different groups of people and this would unduely limit that article's scope. Regarding your other proposed splits, the "let it happen" vs "made it happen" might be a good idea in the future, but both are subsets of allegations of US gvt complicity. I haven't seen anyone alleging that Jews/Israelis "let it happen" (but didn't make it happen). As for your idea to split into "Economic, Political, and Social," I'm not sure I understand what that would look like - other than perhaps different alleged motives (and motive is only a small fraction of what the article discusses). So please ellaborate on that one. Thanks. Blackcats 03:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
As Raul654 points out, the articles were merged for good reason, and should stay merged. If there is nonsense in the article, it should be pruned. As for the title, community consensus is that the titles are completely neutral, and that conspiracy theories should be called conspiracy theories, regardless of Zen-master's failed "Title Neutrality" proposal, which isn't about "Title Neutrality" at all, but rather simply about getting the word "Conspiracy theory" out of article titles; it is completely unconcerned with so-called "neutrality" in any other titles. Indeed, if the "Title Neutrality" title actually had a neutral title, it would be "A proposal to remove the phrase Conspiracy Theory from article titles made by those who promote conspiracy theories, and therefore don't like having them accurately labelled".
Jayjg
(talk)
01:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Jayjg - your demagoguery aside, you have not given any good reason why the article should not be split. If someone wants to object to the significance or verifiablility of any specific piece of content then they're welcome to do that, but an artificial should not be imposed based on some people's desire to have everything fit in one article. And it's circular reasoning for you to then argue that the article should not be split because the large size was due to too much content, which should not have been because the article shouldn't be split. At any rate, like I said before - what may have happened several months ago does not pre-detirmine what should happen now, as the circumstances have changed. In addition to the fact that more quality notable and verifiable content has been added to the article, the notability of this entire subject has also increased. Professor Steven E. Jones's announcement this fall of his publication of a peer-reviewed paper has recieved a good deal of media attention (along with the accompanying increased public interest in these issues). So there's no good reason why Wikipedia's coverage of these issues should not increase. Blackcats 04:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
The problem with this article is not that it has so much encycopedic material that it needs to be split. The problem with this article is that it contains sheer gossip and trivial pointless speculation that even gossip weeklys would be embarassed to print. Take Military personnel were photographed carrying a large light-weight object shrouded by a blue tarp in the vicinity of the crash site. Some conjecture the tarp was needed to hide its contents from the public. Others suggest this was merely one of the many temporary structures, such as tents, being placed on the site. for example. How is this encyclopedic? Why move it to another article when it can and should be simply deleted? I suggest every trivial piece of unencyclopedic speculation be deleted and the seemingly encyclopedic claims without a source be provided with a source or {{fact}}. Then again we could simply keep this as Wikipedia honeypot. WAS 4.250 08:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Sure, you can create an article that does not have conspiracy theory in the title. I just don't think the titles proposed describe the content; They have been chosen to avoid calling the content a conspiracy theory. When the content plainly is a conspiracy theory, bending over backwards to avoid saying so, even if well-intended, isn't neutrality; it promotes a point of view.
An example of an economic c.t. might be that the corps engineered it so they could build their pipeline. A political c.t., that Karl Rove orchestrated it to make people forget about the 2002 election. Social, that it was part of the Illuminati's long-term plan to make people accept the imposition of rule by an elite. You could probably have a fourth page of religious c.t.'s.
Of course, I'm making all these up (I hope); they're just examples without the detail and depth necessary for an actual conspiracy theory. I just mention those three or four possible pages as an example; I don't know that they are the way to go; There is something to be said for breaking on the sections, as Orzetto suggests above. I do think the break into two pages as mentioned is not the best idea. If the page is broken up, I'm not even certain that we should limit the resulting pages to only 9/11. There are several lists of c.t.'s already. Maybe they could be incorporated into the resulting pages. Excuse me if I don't reply promptly. Tom Harrison (talk) 12:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Reply to T.H. - "I just don't think the titles proposed describe the content." How is "allegations of U.S. government complicity in 9/11" not descriptive? It's obvious from that title that the article deals with allegations that have been made against people the US gvt. regarding their alleged complicity in 9/11. "When the content plainly is a conspiracy theory..." Lots of things are plainly theories of conspiracy - like the official account that some guy living in a cave in Afghanistan hatched a successful scheme to catch the world's most powerful military completely off guard - or the version where Saddam Hussein was involved - which is even commonly labeled a "conspiracy theory," but still does not have those words in its title. So apparently there's a precedent that those words are not necessary in the titles of articles discussion ideas which many have labeled "conspiracy theory."
"[Avoiding "conspiracy theory" in titles] isn't neutrality; it promotes a point of view." On the contrary, it's bending over backwards to make sure those words are always included that promotes a point of view. "Allegations" is very neutral and accurate. It simply states the fact that people have made allegations. It doesn't imply that the allegations are likely true or that they're likely false. And the intro can clearly state (and cite) the fact that many have labeled such allegations "conspiracy theories."
"An example of an economic c.t. might be that the corps engineered it so they could build their pipeline...[(and so on...)]" Like I had expected before, all of those deal motives. And if our section on the alleged motives was bulging to the breaking point then I'd likely agree to some kind of split along those lines. But as it stands, the motives section is among the article's smallest. And I think it’s interesting that you had to make up hypothetical “conspiracy theory” narratives.
Of course such in depth narratives exist for 9/11, but the bulk of the work by most of the Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11 has been more that of debunkers than that of theorists. If you read through a website like Jim Hoffman’s, you’ll see that far more of content is devoted to arguing against the official accounts than to laying out any sort of elaborate scheme as to how the plots were supposedly carried out. And professor Steven E. Jones hasn’t even made any allegations as to who carried out 9/11 – even when he was asked about that. All he said was that it was probably not carried out by a Muslim conspiracy. From a Utah newspaper:
So I think the real POV-pushing would be to insist that anything opposing the 9/11 Commission’s account of what happened be labeled by Wikipedia as “conspiracy theory” – even if (as is the case with Steven Jones) there’s no clear case that it is. Blackcats 21:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree that the daughter articles of this article should not have been merged and/or deleted without consent or discussion, and furthermore that administrator Snowspinner should not have exceeded his authority in his involvement. I am all for renormalization. Kevin baas 23:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
^^ What he said. Archival McTannith 18:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't have time to wade through all of the above, so I'll just reply to Blackcat's proposal "to split the 9/11 conspiracy theories article, with the two most in depth areas being moved to separate articles at Allegations of Jewish or Israeli complicity in 9/11 and Allegations of U.S. government complicity in 9/11." The problem with the Israeli complicity claim is that there is not much good evidence of this, merely suggestive evidence. An encyclopedia is not the place for presentation of conjectures, but unfortunately there is actually little hard evidence (since evidence was destroyed or confiscated). What evidence there is is mainly video. This sort of evidence has to be interpreted, and for every person interpreting it one way there is another interpreting it a different way. Even so, any "reasonable" person will "surely" concede that the Towers fell in about the time of free fall (how to explain this?) and that the photographic evidence of the Pentagon attack is not consistent with the hypothesis of a Boeing 757 impact. But these are pieces of the puzzle which must be assembled to come to a conclusion based upon a preponderance of the evidence. Certainly we all (apart from the trolls) have an interest in doing this. But, again, an encyclopedia is not the place for this sort of thing. But considering that 9/11 was the (so far) defining event of the 21st Century, it's understandable that we have a Wikipedia article trying to explain it. But to return to the proposal: It's also not accurate to say (as some do) that 9/11 was the work of "the U.S. government", or that it was complicit. Rather, what is plausible is that it was the work of elements within the U.S. government, individuals in positions of influence (one or more cabals, perhaps) who were able to use their knowledge and authority to pull this off. This is plausible because, for sure, it wasn't the 19 Arab patsies who did it. And if not them, then who? Who has knowledge of demolition? Remote control of aircraft? Fuel-air bombs? Cruise missiles? So I'd suggest a small section on 'Allegations of Israeli Complicity' and a large section on 'Allegations of Complicity by Elements Within the U.S. Administration'. But there's a lot wrong with this article (such as stupid assertions about the 'credibility' of someone proposing an idea with which some editor disagrees) and it would be a lot of work to fix it. Leon Ehrlich 00:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Remember we are here for the users not for ourselves and not to make the articles as “wikipidia“ as possible although in most cases making the articles as wikipidia as possible is best for the users this is not the case 100% of the time. Our "customers" like any customers "shopping" for anything be it a big screen TV or in this case information wants a "one stop" solution. We do not know or should care if the "customer" wants to shop for information about a "controlled explosion" or an "Israeli conspiracy" or just general information on this topic. Once the user gets used to this format the “hyperlinks” on top is intuitive enough solution and if the user is looking for all the information possible he/she will not care if the topic goes over the suggested article size. 12:23, 3 January 2006 Edward Kollin
Evidence of specific lies, specific coverups backed by evidence and not idle speculation make for a great many wikipedia articles not titled with "conspiracy". Which theory in this article is up to the challenge of not being mere speculation or category of speculation? (Not a rhetorical question.) WAS 4.250 21:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda is about issues concerning allegations of pre- invasion links between Iraq and al-Qaeda and is backed up with many facts. The administration used a lie to justify a war and help win reelection. How is this a conspiracy theory? Anyway, on to your other cite. WAS 4.250 22:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
That paper according to google is widely distributed (and I would guess cited). I sugest you start an article on that paper, its notability, its claims, its evidence, and critics response to the claims and evidence. Without reading it further, I would guess there will be issues with the fact bachground is physics rather than engineering. Also, I keep hearing about how remarkable it was that they fell straight down. I could swear that in a TV program I saw decades ago said that it was built to be able to be brought straight down - that was part of the design. Possibly those design elements contributed to its falling and that was covered up, but I never could find an on line source to back up waht I thought i remembered. By the way, I live in Newark, NJ and I saw the aftermath with my own eyes from the top floor of my building. When the wind direction changed at some point we could smell it. So I have tiny pieces of it in my lungs. Ha! WAS 4.250 23:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Let's get down to brass tacks, you know actual facts. I assert that this is fairly unique. You make fun of that assertion. OK, name your best three similar events for us to compare. WAS 4.250 04:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Out of courtesy to Morton I will ask him to explain how he thinks "dominant view" is neutral? Why must one person's or another's view be presented as somehow having "won" or being the "most powerful" explanation? The official explanation of 9/11 is most certainly not "unmistakably ascendant". The 9/11 commission pretty much refers to itself as the "official view" so "official" is their language even. Our job is not to judge or rank one view over another but merely to signify who holds it, which in this case is many (but not all) of our elected officials and their 9/11 commission representatives for example. "Official" may be slightly suggestive itself but it is orders of magnitude better than "dominant". zen master T 21:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Not trying to be disrespectful here, but could you give me a chance to explain things before doing a revert. Seems like Blackcats, Bov, Ombudman, Zen-master and WAS 4.250 "dominate" : ) the board here, and don't allow others to make edits. It's impolite to simply undo all of my edits.
I object to the term "Official", because it sets up a conspiracy theorist's strawman, the "Government." Yes, those are scare quotes, aren't you scared? : ) It may be the official position of the US government, or it may not be, I don't know. I don't recall ever seeing the Whitehouse endorse the 911 report. However, my main point is that "Official" is just too narrow -- the prevailing/dominant/predominant view of the facts have been investigated and reported on by thousands of disinterested journalists and have been accepted by most of the non-Islamic world. The theories presented on this page are accepted by a relatively small number of people. Is there a way to express that and still remain neutral in your eyes? Morton devonshire 23:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
You are agreeing with us, dude. (and us with you) WAS 4.250 23:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
On the topic of speculative theories, I wanted to point out a little more about the 911 research site. On their main page they say “9-11 Research focuses on the facts of the attack and analysis of the official explanation.” Their about page says:
And the only page I found on the site that engages in any sort of speculative theorizing is a page with a hypothetical theory entitled “ Attack Scenario 404: How the Attack Might Have Been Engineered (But Probably Wasn't)” It was simply written to illustrate one of many plausible theories that could be made.
Its intro states the following:
The conclusion states:
So I would think that by WAS’s criteria, the rest of this site (other than this one page which they themselves say is speculative) would not be considered “conspiracy theory.” They do come to a conclusion – based on their analysis of the available evidence – that 9/11 was carried out by people within the US gvt., but they don’t engage in idle speculation or assert speculative narratives about how the specifics of the plot were allegedly carried out. Blackcats 23:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Or WTC towers collapse irregularity and controversy may work better, the singular tense hopefully conveys abstract issue conceptualization. zen master T 02:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
ZM - Actually, now that I'm looking at it, it looks like Jones's analysis is already fairly well covered at Collapse of the World Trade Center, under a section titled "Controlled demolition theory." So I think that the best solution would simply be to move discussion of the Twin Towers' collapses to that article, and if that section got too big then it could be spun off to a new article called something like Controlled demolition theories of the WTC collapses. But I think the most important thing is to remove most of that content from this article - except for analysis of specific narratives about who allegedly placed explosives or conspired to cover it up. There's simply no reason to have scientific analysis like Dr. Steven Jones's or Jim Hoffman's discussed in a "conspiracy theories" article - other than say that their work has been cited by some theorists and to give a brief summary and a link to the more indepth discussion. Blackcats 06:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, except that consensus was and is that the name should be "9/11 conspiracy theories". Jayjg (talk) 04:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia official policy, Wikipedia is not a place for original research, but strangely enough, this page seems to try to advance the idea that there is any independent corroboration for any of these theories. A more NPOV perspective would be to describe these conspiracy theories, without directly challenging the widely-reported facts. While there may be an "official explanation" advanced by the US government of the 911 facts, the facts don't rest solely on Whitehouse spokesman -- the facts have been investigated by and reported on by thousands upon thousands of professional journalists -- the "official explanation" comes from them, not from politicos. Contrasting, the conspiracy theories are just theories, and don't rest upon any credible journalism -- they are concocted out of thin air, with no actual investigation or reporting done by their adherants. To explain that these theories exist, and their genesis, can be done by relying upon mainstream media sources, and is a NPOV. To try to give credence to these theories by describing the reported facts as anything less than facts widely recognized by thousands of journalists, is to adopt the non-NPOV position that the conspiracy theories have some basis in fact, and that the widely reported facts are somehow not credible. That's not neutral, it's advocacy.
Everything Morton Devonshire just said is complete BS. And that is a fact. He might as well have written a research paper on the type of cheese the moon is made out of. Sorry-SK
You can explain what the conspiracy theories are, without asserting that they are factually true -- that would be a NPOV. It's non-neutral to assert that the theories are actually true, as they are not supported by investigative reporting by mainstream media. Please address the issue of NPOV, rather than trying to blow holes in my argument -- my argument is not the important thing -- NPOV is. Also, we could do without the name-calling, especially by one who hides behind an anonymous ISP address. Wikipedia has a rule against Sockpuppeting. Morton devonshire 20:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Here's an example of what would be a neutral point of view, taken from another Wikipedia page: "In November 2001, U.S. forces recovered a videotape from a destroyed house in Jalalabad, Afghanistan which showed Osama bin Laden talking to Khaled al-Harbi. [6] In the tape, bin Laden admits to planning the attacks. The factuality of the tape is questioned in the Muslim world: "But the BBC's Middle East correspondent, Frank Gardner, says that at street level in the Arab world, many believe the tape is a fake, a PR gimmick dreamed up by the US administration." [7]. The tape was broadcast on various news networks in December 2001." My suggestion is that this page should follow a similar pattern -- state the widely-reported version, then state the criticism/alternate theory, and where it comes from. That's neutral. Morton devonshire 22:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree that ignoring the information presented on this page would suggest complicity or at the very least apathy on the part of the mainstream media. I can't think of any reasons to take them seriously, and it occurs to me that their purpose is more to mold or sway opinion than report "facts". But thats just my POV. - SK
I agree that ignoring the information presented on this page would suggest complicity or at the very least apathy on the part of the mainstream media. I can't think of any reasons to take them seriously, and it occurs to me that their purpose is more to mold or sway opinion than report "facts". But thats just my POV. - SK
OK Morton "If there is doubt, a developer or checkuser user can check to see whether accounts are related. Experience has shown that on article talk pages, including polls, the linkage is usually not supported by the information available to developers, so self-restraint in making such accusations is usually the right course." Often, acussations of sock puppetry are thinly veiled personal attacks. On the other hand, I apologize for being rude. But I have trouble taking you seriously becuase you seem like a [ shill] with your insistance that we can "rely" on the mainstream media and your approach in challenging the neutrality. "shill is an associate of a person selling goods or services, who pretends no association to the seller and assumes the air of an enthusiastic customer. The intention of the shill is, using crowd psychology, to encourage other potential customers, unaware of the set-up, to purchase said goods or services." I haven't been around Wiki for very long and I'm not familiar with anything you've done here before. I'll quit saying your full of BS and you quit accusing me of being a sock puppet. I think that would be fair. - SK
If a journalist was concerned for his health it is possible he would keep that kind of information to himself. And there can be other[ motives] for the mainstream media to establish an "accepted theory". An individual journalists' greed and ambition doesn't mean much when they are playing in a field like this one. More reasons I don't take them seriously. - SK
SK's new account is SkeenaR Thanks Blackcats.
What theory of Sybil Edmonds? Sybil Edmonds was a translator. He came forward with information that the Admin knew about the nature of upcoming attacks. What theory? SkeenaR 21:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I think stating that all types of people and groups have challenged the official story as something along the lines of "people from across the political spectrum" is accurate, adequate and preferable over including specific groups. There are too many. The 9/11 Truth Movement is probably the best known group in this regard and it probably isn't necessary to mention them in that section unless qualified by something like "one of the best known groups to challenge the official story is". Also, including one group in that section and excluding other groups is one thing that might make the article seem less than NPOV. It's my feeling that the section should be reworded again with that in mind and perhaps we can eliminate the disputed neutrality tag soon. SkeenaR 07:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Will change the word "common" back to "official". Zogby poll says half of New Yorkers say some thing extremely fishy with the situation, so that is also common. "Common" seems more POV than "official". The story reffered to in this section is undeniably OFFICIAL.
Definition of official:
Of or relating to an office or a post of authority: official duties.
Authorized by a proper authority; authoritative: official permission.
Holding office or serving in a public capacity: an official representative.
Characteristic of or befitting a person of authority; formal: an official banquet SkeenaR 20:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
The 911 Commission Report is official.
It was:
Authorized by a proper authority; authoritative: official permission.
Holding office or serving in a public capacity: an official representative.
It couldn't be any more official than that. "Official" is by far the most accurate description and the best in terms of brevity. We can do without lame edit wars, and if the use of the word official is the primary thing that compels you to keep your tag up I would consider that disruptive. SkeenaR 21:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
As I have pointed out, there is nothing more accurate than to call it the Official Explanation. SkeenaR 21:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Morton, now that we have gotten rid of this "Official" stuff will you please take your tag down like you said you would?
SkeenaR
22:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks Morton. SkeenaR 22:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I still think "official" is better. Using 9/11 Commission is not a broad enough term. But as well as the Commission(which is an official commission), the officials in the official administration also have an official story that is given in official radio and television addresses by the official president of the country of which you are an official resident, and that official story is also challenged from places across the board. Using 9/11 Commission is too narrow to describe what is challenged. "Official" is the perfect word to use. SkeenaR 00:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Are you saying that is because some mainstream journalism and academic research has been in dissaccordance with what I call the official story? When Fox reports news that is in accordance or in dissaccordance with the official story, that is not official, just as Prof. Jones' paper on the WTC collapse is not official either, at least at this point. But the government and the commision both are. SkeenaR 01:25, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Another thing. What are we gonna about that cleanup tag? SkeenaR 01:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Ok, maybe we can get back to that later, but in the meantime I'm thinking it might be a good idea to try and get that cleanup tag down. Who put the tag up? What's the reason for the tag at this point? Any suggestions about getting rid of it? SkeenaR 02:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
This will be good to go on. SkeenaR 03:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Morton, thats ok. I agreed to a compromise. I'm not going to change it, but I still think it merits further discussion. That's all. Right now I think it would be more constructive if we tried to bring it up to quality standards. SkeenaR 20:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Tom Harrison, do you mind if I post your reply here? SkeenaR 22:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
HAVE FUN TONIGHT-SEE YOU NEXT YEAR SkeenaR 23:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
A section was retitled "9/11 Commission Report challenged." T.H. said this was a good compromise. That would be true if it weren't inaccurate and misleading. The fact is that the 9/11 Commission was not created until more than 2 years after 9/11, and only after considerable pressure from victims families. And people started questioning the offical account (as the article says) "before the sun had set on the evening of September 11." So I think it's fair to simply use "9/11 Commission" in place of "official" to describe the official view currently and for everything after the summer of 2004, but not for before the report was issued. Blackcats 06:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I concur. Can't argue with that. SkeenaR 03:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
It seems we had quite a number of editors a few days ago discussing splitting off the WTC tower collapse controversies from this article to its own new article, about half of the people claimed the collapse hypotheses were "conspiracy theories" and should remain titled as such while the other half argued they did not theorize motive and just noted irregularities and criticized the official collapses explanations' science so shouldn't be titled dismissively. Just to clarify, did that discussion drop off suddenly because someone pointed out the WTC collapses controversies were already covered in the Collapse of the World Trade Center article? Is there a plan to merge the content either there or here or keep it in both places? Separately, it sure would be nice if the same level of discussion would just suddenly spring up over on Wikipedia talk:Title Neutrality, though I get the sense that the "title neutrality" proposal still needs some tweaking (or the timing just isn't right for some reason) so I'd like to solicit comments, suggestions or boldness, please let me know. zen master T 01:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
How can the keepers of Wikipedia, in clear consicence, get away with advocating so many bald faced lies? I just don't get it.
There is too much labeling and outright venom here and it's not in the article, it's on this discussion page. Apparently it's offensive and provokes harsh words to ask questions or point out anomolies. SkeenaR 02:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Please do not feed the troll.
SkeenaR 21:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I already apologized to you once. Either let it go or don't but you can stop reminding everybody because we have heard this already. And I'm not necessarily trying to engender debate either. There are legitimate questions concerning the events of Sept 11 that have given rise to various theories. There is no reason why those theories should not be covered here without it being insinuated that people who might consider them are unpatriotic, racist, and of having their ability to reason hijacked by hatred. That does not engender good debate, it provokes hostility. I don't necessarily believe any particular one of these theories but I find it an interesting topic and I think it's a decent article. We might disagree on that but that's OK. If you want to continue insulting people, and enjoy fighting like a little bitch, you should do it where someone might like it because I don't and I doubt anyone else here does either. PEACE SkeenaR 02:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
There is clearly a vast amount of material about 9/11 that just makes no sense at all. Hijackers not listed on the passenger manifests. Buildings falling down with no rigorous scientific explanation as to why. Silverstein even went on TV and ADMITTED he ordered building 7 demolished! $3m allocated for an investigation, compared to $40m for Clinton's sexual antics. NORAD standing down for first time in history, etc, etc.
There is going to be constant pressure for 9/11 'conspiracy pages' until more space is allocated to it. Constant WIKI war. Why not just give over a 9/11 conspiracy category, state 'This page is a conspiracy theory rejected by the American government and all reputable commentators' at the top, and be done with it? Can we sort out a template tag to that effect? I don't see the issue with a page grounded in fact reported from mainstream press articles, SO LONG as it is properly tagged up front. Timharwoodx 13:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
etc etc etc Adam Adler 20:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I note that on 9 January SkeenaR added two links:
Scientific American 9/11 Article
www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000DA0E2-1E15-128A-9E1583414B7F0000
and
Scientific American 9/11 Article Analyses
www.serendipity.li/wot/sciam_reply.htm
12 minutes later 204.50.98.171 came along and changed the URL of the second link to:
911research.wtc7.net/essays/sciam/
without changing the text.
I'll let SkeenaR revert the page to correct this case of link hijacking, unless someone else does it first.
I think the term "link hijacking" is an appropriate description of this. It is clearly an attempt to remove a link to a page that some editor dislikes and to replace it with a link to a page that that editor favors, without informing anyone of the switch.
I note also that the 9/11 pages are full of links to 911research.wtc7.net. A particularly obnoxious example is the section on Jim Hoffman in Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11 which, in six lines, has four links to 911research.wtc7.net and two links to wtc7.net (another of Jim Hoffman's sites), including a link to a page for ordering Hoffman's book. Links to 911research.wtc7.net are all over the 9/11 pages. Could this be an attempt to spam Wikipedia's 9/11 pages? Adam Adler 20:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I changed the link from serendipity to wt7.net within just a few minutes, because it was then that I remembered the wt7.net link which I feel is a better article. FYI I have had nothing to do with changes regarding any other wtc7.net links anywhere. If someone likes the serendipity link better or thinks it should be included for whatever reason then add it. SkeenaR 21:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out though. SkeenaR 21:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Hey Adam, thanks for the help, but how come no user page? SkeenaR 20:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I deleted the sentence by Tom Harrison that mentioned missile pods and holograms because as it is explained in the first paragraph of the article, this article deals with the most prominent alternative views. Neither missile pods or holograms are mentioned anywhere else in the article. We have previously decided that "including one group in that section and excluding other groups is one thing that might make the article seem less than NPOV" in regards to the official account challenged section. Deleting the sentence in the introductory paragraph is analogous to that decision. SkeenaR 02:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I also think mention of Meyssan's book should be left out in that section too, but maybe somebody can explain otherwise. Just thinking. SkeenaR 02:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I assumed this was agreed upon here:
I think stating that all types of people and groups have challenged the official story as something along the lines of "people from across the political spectrum" is accurate, adequate and preferable over including specific groups. There are too many. The 9/11 Truth Movement is probably the best known group in this regard and it probably isn't necessary to mention them in that section unless qualified by something like "one of the best known groups to challenge the official story is". Also, including one group in that section and excluding other groups is one thing that might make the article seem less than NPOV. It's my feeling that the section should be reworded again with that in mind and perhaps we can eliminate the disputed neutrality tag soon.SkeenaR 07:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
The entire discussion is above SkeenaR 02:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I think it's unnecessary and redundant, because less common theories are mentioned at the bottom of the page. SkeenaR 02:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Why don't you put them in the Less Common Theories section with the other ones? Not only do I think it in no way helps mark out the scope of the article, the way the wording is it almost seems to imply that those ARE the main theories to be covered in the article. It also seems more magazine-like the way you have it.
"Conspiracists have speculated on possibilities ranging from missile pods on the airplanes to holograms, rather than airplanes, hitting the Trade Center. What follows is an examination of the most current and most prominent alternate views of explanations, and anomalies of that tragic day."
SkeenaR 02:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Lots of people if not reading carefully would totally think the article was about "things other than planes". The appropriate place is in the Less Common section. SkeenaR 02:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I feel that this sentence is misleading and taints by association. Much the same as the previously deleted reference to white supremacists in the Official Story Challenged section. SkeenaR 05:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
SkeenaR; Please assume good faith. Saying in the edit summary "removed attempt to taint article with references to pods and holograms" suggests that I am trying to do something other than improve the article. Tom Harrison Talk 15:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
If this is to be a comprehensive description of the alternate views, and not just those of the Truth movement, then all of the alt theories should be described. Other views held by a small number of persons are also described in this article (e.g. Jim Hoffman's views), so why not the others?
Morton devonshire
17:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Tom, I had stated it was an attempt to taint the article in my last post in this section too, but I changed it to the above because I decided that I should assume good faith and give you the benefit of the doubt, so I take that back. But it does seem odd to me that someone who claims to be concerned with clarity and readability would even consider placing that sentence in that spot. Of course it is acceptable for theories like these to be described in this article, but as most of us agree, the right place is in the Less Common section. So what we say we put it there? SkeenaR 20:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Also, as an administrator can you tell me why the article history page is lying to me? It tells me I was the last to modify the article when I deleted the sentence but the sentence has been restored and there is no record of it. SkeenaR 20:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
No, there's something funny Tom. I deleted the sentence when I posted the mention about the taint by association in the edit summary, but there is no record of any other edit between when I deleted it and Bov deleted it. Glitch? (now might be a good time to break out our tinfoil hats) http://people.csail.mit.edu/rahimi/helmet/ SkeenaR 21:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Got it. Everybody can take their hats off. SkeenaR 22:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
How is the quality of the article now in regards to the standards tag with all the work Doctor9 has done towards improvement? SkeenaR 23:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
The major assumption behind the 9/11 conspiracy theories is that the United States government, in the manner of Stalinist Russia, is totalitarian and will kill its own citizens en masse. Regardless of the fact that the attack was at the heart of the very elite that supposedly planned it, isn't our ability to discuss this issue indicative that there's no government involvement in 9/11? While the mainstream media does not address it, there's tons of (overpriced) books and (overpriced) DVD's on plenty of websites that operate without government interference and *none* have been subject to government-ordered shutdowns (as opposed to what the Chinese government does when their citizens criticize it). My point is that if the government can kill thousands of people in an elaborate circus, surely it should be able to shut down a few sites that use $5/month hosting. I'm pretty sure Stalin wouldn't have allowed books about his purges to float freely around in the 1930's. Can this logical point be addressed anywhere in the article? Andkon 15:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
It's never been proven that the USG was involved of course. But hypothetically speaking a government with the type of character described above would still be impeded by the Constitiution and the Bill of Rights unless of course there was a state of emergency deemed high enough to justify instituting martial law. Simple huh? An American government at this point in history would not be confident that they could boot stomp over an armed American populace unless there were extreme circumstances. It's that "goddamned piece of paper" again! I will say though that I agree the phenomenon described by Tom Harrison probably isn't rare. SkeenaR 06:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Theoretically, it would be desired to create an atmosphere of massive crisis, and spectacular attacks would help in creating that perception in the population. You could also ask yourself why terrorists would go to the trouble of simultaneously hijacking four airliners, flying them on complicated flight routes and attacking multiple targets including one that should have (in theory) been heavily defended. To create terror.
SkeenaR
23:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Hey you guys, look at this. Anyway you slice it it's really interesting. http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/printer_7986.shtml SkeenaR 21:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
This article says the USG now considers Capitol Hill Blue author an enemy of the state. SkeenaR 22:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Morton, what would you consider a good NPOV title for your proposal? SkeenaR 21:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but Mao said "Political power comes from the barrel of a gun". :) I'm joking around, but he really did say that. You see, the first Amendment is the right to free speech, the second is the right to bear arms. Again, theoretically, the second should guarantee the ability to preserve the first. Like when Archie Bunker was holding a rifle and said "With this here I can make any kind of speech I want". SkeenaR 02:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
According to this article by Kurt Nimmo from Jan 11,2006 the USG considers free speech a weapon of mass destruction SkeenaR 04:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm posting this comment by Kurt Nimmo from Jan 16, 06 soley because of it's relevance to this discussion. It's possible that this discussion page is veering away from its stated subject matter, but I figured I would post this anyway.
"I'm sorry to respond in boilerplate fashion to those of you who have emailed to ask why I have decided to stop posting on the Another Day in the Empire blog. I wish I could answer all of you personally, but the response to my decision has been overwhelming. In lieu of a personal response, please accept the following explanation.
"The primary reason I have decided to stop posting the blog has to do with threats. I have received many of them, including death threats. Usually, I am able to brush aside threats, since most are not of a serious nature, but lately I have received several that are not to be taken lightly, especially considering the fact somebody has taken the liberty to post my address and telephone number (information easily attained from the domain registry) in various places on the internet. First and foremost, I have a responsibility to my family and posting political commentary obviously comes in a distant second.
"Earlier today, due to the above, my wife asked me to take down the blog. Her name is being used to post libelous and hateful messages on various forums and this disturbs her immensely (over the last two years, somebody has also hijacked my name to post hateful and threatening comments; as well, a writer, who shall remain anonymous, complained last year that he had received threatening phone calls by somebody claiming to be me). Moreover, I have received threatening phone calls at my place of work, thus jeopardizing my livelihood. I can no longer allow any of this to continue." nimmo
SkeenaR 02:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Senate bill 742 in Oregon which was slimly defeated by just three votes would have classified terrorism as a plethora of completely unrelated actions. Downloading music, blocking traffic, writing a hot check or any form of protest. All these would be punishable by life in prison unless you agreed to attend a "forest labor camp" for 25 years of enforced labor. SkeenaR 22:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Tom, how is the quality of the article now in regards to the standards tag with all the work Doctor9 has done towards improvement? SkeenaR 03:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Donald Rumsfeld admits that a missile hit the Pentagon and "similar" devices contributed to the WTC attacks as well. This admission can be found in the official Defense Link Government Website.
"They [find a lot] and any number of terrorist efforts have been dissuaded, deterred or stopped by good intelligence gathering and good preventive work. It is a truth that a terrorist can attack any time, any place, using any technique and it's physically impossible to defend at every time and every place against every conceivable technique. Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center. The only way to deal with this problem is by taking the battle to the terrorists, wherever they are, and dealing with them."
Read what other people had to say about Rumsfeld's admission:
I figured it would make sense to put this in the Less common section, so I deleted the Rumsfeld section and stuck it in Less common. SkeenaR 21:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Yup, that settles it!:) But I see your point Bov. SkeenaR 23:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
What's a good link to video showing this 'crimp?' Tom Harrison Talk 20:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm kinda busy at the moment, but I have seen good video of the collapse that clearly shows this crimp and I'll do my best to find it and provide a link. What network does Dan Rather work for? It was from that station on Sept 11. Rather actually commented that this reminded him of a controlled demolition. Quote "where well placed explosives were used to deliberately knock a building down". SkeenaR 22:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Here Tom. This is the best I can do at the moment. If you go to the Conspiracy Central Tracker, Alex Jones' 911-Martial Law video is available for free download. About a third of the way through the video the actual CBS footage of the collapse with Rathers comment is available there. SkeenaR 23:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Here is the clip from the Martial Law video www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2005/180305groundzero.htm WTC 7 Collapse and Analysis] including Rathers comment. 22 minutes. SkeenaR 07:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Tom, any thoughts on the video of the collapse or analyses of the building? SkeenaR 21:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Check out this link and look at the still photo. See a crimp now? SkeenaR 22:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2005/180305groundzero.htm]
My apologies Tom. It's www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2006/050106silversteinanswers.htm this one]. Second from the top. SkeenaR 03:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I love you guys like I love Art Bell. Keep it coming dudes! Morton devonshire 03:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Ha ha Mort! Sorry to disappoint you though dude. I haven't bought any lizard people stories. Or Vast Sock Puppet Conspiracies. You and Bell work for the Illuminati to discredit conspiracy theorists. Or maybe that's what they want me to think... SkeenaR 03:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
-- Striver 06:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone have a reference on how long it takes to set the charges for a controlled demolition? Tom Harrison Talk 17:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I know that they are very careful and take their time. I believe it could take weeks. I will try and find a reference. SkeenaR 20:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Right under our nose. Demolition SkeenaR 21:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Images SkeenaR 21:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Question from wtc7.net and reply from Implosionworld. [4] Jan 6, 2006-very recent. SkeenaR 21:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Close up of WTC 7 from video appears to show www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2004/281104unmistakablecharges.htm squibs]. SkeenaR 21:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Photo of www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2006/050106silversteinanswers.htm crimp]. SkeenaR 21:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)