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 15 | ← | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | → | Archive 25 |
I am removing the above paragraph for the following reasons:
My conclusion is that the paragraph has no basis in sources upto now, so it needs fixing before we can put it back. Kaaskop6666 ( talk) 19:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
update: I am asking the editor who wrote it, for clarification. Kaaskop6666 ( talk) 11:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I propose to change
“ | Conspiracy theorists sometimes bring up historical examples of where a government is known or alleged to have carried out or planned activities similar to those hypothesized as explanations for the September 11 attacks — often false flag operations. | ” |
to
“ | In some historical examples of false flag operations, a government has carried out or planned activities similar to those hypothesized as explanations for the September 11 attacks. | ” |
I propose this change for these reasons:
Please critique this change if you feel it does not improve the article. Dscotese ( talk) 04:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
“ | Conspiracy theorists, such as those associated with the 9/11 Truth Movement, argue that the similarities between the motives between the attacks and the examples they cite, indicate that they are both plausible and operate with a long-term, hidden, agenda. | ” |
I propose the following, which eliminates "motives between the attacks" (which doesn't make sense to me) and states Hoffman's argument more clearly, and attributes it to him. (If we want to attribute it to "conspiracy theorists" we should provide references - the only one we have points directly to Hoffman's page.):
“ | Jim Hoffman argues that the similarities between authorities' actions surrounding the attacks and their actions surrounding the false flag operations he cites, indicate that they are both plausible and may operate with a long-term, hidden, agenda. | ” |
Dscotese ( talk) 03:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
The Passenger who saw "white smoke" in the toilet - whose telephone call was pulled from most mainstream media almost immediately. The "White Smoke" is a classic case of what you would expect to see if an Aircraft depressurizes - such as when the structure breaks open - due to a missile perhaps. This really is the most important piece of evidence and their is no mention of this. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
92.41.88.201 (
talk) 19:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Quote:
At 9.58am a 911 call - the last mobile phone contact from Flight 93 - was made from one of the airliner's toilets by passenger Edward Felt.
Glenn Cramer, the emergency supervisor who answered it, said on the day: "He was very distraught. He said he believed the plane was going down.
"He did hear some sort of an explosion and saw white smoke coming from the plane, but he didn't know where. And then we lost contact with him."
Glenn Cramer has now been gagged by the FBI. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
92.41.88.201 (
talk) 19:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
"Published reports by the US National Institute of Standards and Technology REJECTED the controlled demolition hypothesis.[4][5] The community of civil engineers generally accepts the mainstream account that the impacts of jets at high speeds in combination with subsequent fires, rather than controlled demolition, led to the collapse of the Twin Towers.[6]"
Actually the controlled demolition hypothesis was never mentioned in the original reports. There is only a brief mention that they will be analyzed in the article 4 summary?? Also citation 5 is a dead link.
A few quick questons. Why is President Bush's behavior listed in the Other Theories section? How is that an alternative conspiracy theory? Also, why not include the Micro Nuke Theory, Judy Wood's Space Laser Theory or David Icke's Reptilian Shapeshifting Aliens Theory? They aren't any crazier than the No Plane Theory or the Jewish Involvment Theories and seem about as popular. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.55.240 ( talk) 07:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I am still at a loss as to how President Bush's behavior is considered an "alternative theory". That is more of a clue as to his alleged involvement or foreknowledge of the attack. Also why not include a section on alternative demolition methods? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.78.2.181 ( talk) 22:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Because of the "9/11" start to the title, the link at the top sends you back to Talk:9. Enigma message 06:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be a “no way no how” philosophy towards putting this particular 9/11 conspiracy video in the external links section of the article. I just do not understand why that would be. Although having a somewhat different topical emphasis [4] I just don’t see any basic differences in tone or accuracy with the other video’s that have been allowed to remain in the external links. Edkollin ( talk) 06:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
In the "Jewish involvment" section of this article there is NO mention whatsoever that (over one hundred?) Israelis students and "artists" have been rounded up by the FBI after 9/11 and many of them with alleged links to the Mossad. As far as I can remember it is "mainstream" knowledge and well documented. Why has this important information been completely ommited? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SSZ ( talk • contribs)
Here's what the FOX News report says on the subject...
Since September 11, more than 60 Israelis have been arrested or detained [...] some of the detainees also failed polygraph questions when asked about alleged surveillance activities against and in the United States.
There is no indication that the Israelis were involved in the 9-11 attacks, but investigators suspect that the Israelis may have gathered intelligence about the attacks in advance, and not shared it. A highly placed investigator said there are "tie-ins." But when asked for details, he flatly refused to describe them, saying, "evidence linking these Israelis to 9-11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It's classified information."
[...] prior to September 11, as many as 140 other Israelis had been detained or arrested in a secretive and sprawling investigation into suspected espionage by Israelis in the United States.
What shall we add to the section, then? That the Mossad are active in the US? That they are good at their jobs? That they are not, in fact, suspected of being involved in the attacks? The nearest thing to a conspiracy theory that this report offers is the suspicion that they had information that they didn't share. SHEFFIELDSTEEL TALK 15:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
The 52 citation is no longer valid. That is a bais statement as is.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.53.8 ( talk • contribs)
I know that using YouTube videos is forbidden, but some die-hard 9/11 conspiracy freak posted a YouTube video by a man named Bob Pugh, who claims to be a freelance videographer who works for various news agenices and is used to bolster the "alternate theories." Where would something like this fit into the article? ---- DanTD ( talk) 13:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Given the history of media reporting on 9/11, there is no way to have a firmly held opinion on the topic without accepting one conspiracy theory or another. Some of these theories are mutually contradictory, of course.
First, we must consider the observable events.
Buildings were shown with black smoke billowing out of their middles. News footage showed people who had apparently jumped to their deaths rather than endure a less certainly deadly but more certainly painful experience. This kind of horror would naturally bring up all kinds of personal belief conflicts. Would jumping to a relatively painless death to avoid continuing pain of possibly burning to death be a mortal sin? And then, to everyone's amazement, the two buildings we were shown suddenly collapsed in a manner Dan Rather spontaneously compared to "controlled demolition." Eye witnesses said that the first tower was hit by a small commuter plane and the second was hit by a white aircraft with a circular, blue logo near the nose. Then, the news began to come from the networks rather than the local stations.
We were quickly given a "complete" explanation -- the Official Conspiracy Theory, or OCT. Twenty-one Arabs, with the help of other fellow conspirators, had hijacked four airplanes and had flown them into three targets while one had been diverted by brave passengers whose motto was "let's roll." When one of the Arabs turned out to have been dead for a year and another turned out to be alive in Florida, the number was ramped down to nineteen, all of whom had similar photographs available. Two Muslims, clearly pictured, whose passports had previously been stolen in the United States and Israel, protested their innocence, but their claims were disregarded. Several other accused terrorists came forward, but their claims of innocence were officially ignored with an explanation that the culprits were other Muslims with similar names who coincidentally all looked alike.
Everybody I know immediately accepted the OCT, with the exception of Teresa, a university librarian, who immediately thought "so THAT's why the Republicans stole the Florida election," and began collecting and distributing printed material and, later, DVD's.
The psychological phenomenon here is called "closure." If an event is traumatizing enough, people with a low tolerance for ambiguity or vagueness with latch onto the first explanation they are given. Another psychological phenomenon at work is "cognitive dissonance." If the most logical explanation for an event contradicts cherished values, it will be rejected in favor of a more convenient explanation which does not produce such conflict.
In China, during WWII, the Japanese committed the intentional mass murder of hundreds of thousands of civilians, women, children and all. The motion picture "The Last Emperor" was not permitted to be shown in Japan until newsreel footage documenting one of these atrocities was deleted from the Japanese version. Governments do things like that.
During the second half of the twentieth century, the newly-formed CIA repeatedly overthrew democracies in Latin America and other parts of the world, replacing them with military dictators for the benefit of American corporations. David Horowitz's "Free World Colossus" documents several of these events, most particularly during the 1950's.
In any event, the introduction of alternative theories of what may or may not have happened on 9/11 leads to a skepticism concerning the OCT.
Some historical events cause susceptible people to continue to believe in the OCT, however. For one thing, CS Lewis's "Narnia" books for children, vilify all religions other than Christianity and lump them all together into one competing religion followed by anyone with a rag on his head. For another thing, Arayan hate groups vilify all other races, including the Semites (Arabs, Jews and all that).
The most intelligent and objective position possible concerning the holes in the OCT is that "we do not know." That's the simple truth.
It seems unfair to lable Theorists as Schizoids. Most of them are unlikely to fit into that bracket anyway. The problem they seem to have is that they only read works that agree with their beliefs. That it is not unreasonable to believe that hijackers of two planes with even crude flying abilities could 'guide' (not fly) those planes into two of the worlds tallest buildings, which would then collapse after the resultant impact, is somthing they cannot accept. Why? Dozens of credible witnesses saw a plane hit the Pentagon, not so! say the Theorists, why?. The reason seems to be simple statistics, there will allways be a minority of people who not accept evidence of any kind. Sad but true. Johnwrd ( talk) 03:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
This link: ^ "The Top September 11 Conspiracy Theories". Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State (28 August 2006) (footnote 10) seems to refer to a page taht no longer contains the material cited.
Israeli Involvement in 9/11:
(Carl Cameron's reports for Fox News on Israeli involvement are no longer available on Fox's websites which denies they ever existed, but I did see them a while ago and they were along the same lines.)
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7545.htm
http://www.giwersworld.org/911/is-spies.phtml http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=4577 http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/govknow.html http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/9_11_facts.html http://www.infowars.net/articles/december2006/071206Haas.htm http://www.911review.com/articles/usamah/khilafah.html http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2007/02/16/counterpunch_on_israel_and_911.php
-- Wool Bridge ( talk) 09:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
ABC News has just published an article about the mental health of conspiracy theorists:
http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=6443988
We should try to work this into the article. 67.184.14.87 ( talk) 17:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's our commitment.
I have been doing a little research on this subject, and for me there are many strange questions. I do not see them addressed in this article. I would like to contribute, but do not know how to start. Things that come to mind are:
Are these bits of information welcome in this article? How should I begin? Thanks for your help. Kaaskop6666 ( talk) 20:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
And then use Wikipedia:Citation templates. This may seem obvious but bear with me: Rephrase the material cited if you're not using it in quotes. Using the language directly is tempting, as it seems safely verified that way, but of course then you're in plagiarism country; no one's going to bust you for it, but it can be deleted or would have to be changed. Don't be afraid to use quotes if they really capture the information more succinctly than a paraphrase would. Or clarify the cite with a quote, inserted just before the second (and last) tag that says '</ref>' Anarchangel ( talk) 07:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Since that is a featured article, why has this one been labelled as a conspiracy theory? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.68.239 ( talk) 11:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
RE:BOARDING PASSES I have read that none of the 19 terrorists had boarding passes. Any info on this. What was the name/s of the agents at the airport gates - where is their testimony available? I believe I have/would never be allowed on a plane without a pass( and I have flown decades before 911 or airport security was even dreamt of. 159.105.80.141 ( talk) 12:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Should there be a section of analysis of the flight manifests? Seeing as evidence of a a suspects presence at the scene of the crime is generally considered important. http://www.911hardfacts.com/report_17.htm Autonova ( talk) 03:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
From the article:
"Later, as media exposure of conspiracy theories of the events of 9/11 increased, US government agencies and the Bush Administration issued responses to the theories, including a formal analysis by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) about the collapse of the World Trade Center..."
I think it would be more correct to say that NIST's factsheet-- the item cited in the footnote following this text-- was NIST's response to these theories. The NIST failure analysis itself was the result of a much broader demand for a technical analysis of the WTC collapses. The report would have been written even without the conspiracy theories.
There may have been other NIST publications that were specifically in response to the conspiracy theories; if so, perhaps one of them would be even better to mention here. 67.164.125.7 ( talk) 04:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I was reading over this section and noticed the following: "Five Israeli citizens died in the attack, including one who was killed fighting his airplane's hiijackers. [172][citation needed]"
I would like to mention two things, one hijackers is spelled incorrectly, and 2 there is no evidence provided about the fighting. The news story linked says that the Israeli's who were on the planes were on flight UA 175 and AA 11. There is no conclusive evidence of anyone fighting back on these flights, much less the Israeli citizens on the flights. The flight that did fight back was flight 93. I think this needs to be stripped from the article, or cleaned up a bit to make it more vague. TWilliams9 ( talk) 16:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
In articles on fringe topics, we are not supposed represent the fringe theory as if it is a legitimate viewpoint or on some kind of equal footing. Instead, we're supposed to fairly represent all sides of an issue per reliable sources. If reliable sources reflect a particular viewpoint, then we're supposed to represent that viewpoint as well. In a case such as this article, I doubt if there are many (if any) reliable sources that claim 9/11 was a conspiracy by the US government. Even if there are any, weight should be roughly proportional to the preponderance of reliable sources backing that perspective.
As a result, there seems to be a WP:NPOV issue with this article. This article should treat this topic in the same manner as reliable sources do. Thus, if Popular Mechanics, the BBC, ABC News, Time Magazine, Rolling Stone Magazine, etc. regard 9/11 conspiracy theory as outlandish speculation completely unsupported by factual evidence, that that's how this article should be written. To do otherwise, is against WP:NPOV.
In other words, the viewpoints of reliable sources are the standard by which we write our articles and judge its neutrality.
We can and should have detailed debunking of 9/11 conspiracy theories as that's what reliable sources have done and it is in accordance with Wikipedia policies. The Popular Mechanics article [9] and book are probably good starts. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 15:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
In the second paragraph we have this statement, "Some 9/11 Truth Movement members question the accuracy of the mainstream account of the attacks, and they are committed to further investigation." which is followed by "Others claim that...." and lists some of the major theories of conspiracy theorists. This seems not the best way to say it because it is not necessarily "others" making these specific claims, but actually many members of the movement members referred to in the first sentence actually making these claims. It seems to me that it would be more accurate to start the sentence with something like, "Some specific theories are that..." or "Some specific claims made by members are...", or any other similar statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.121.211.154 ( talk) 12:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
This article should note that the hijackers were mostly Saudi nationals, a fact which was of great embarrassment to the Bush administration. Yet the identities could have been easily manipulated to appear as if they were Iraqi agents to justify an attack on Iraq, which, according to sources like Richard Clarke, was the true intention of the Bush Administration upon taking office. The fact that the nine of the 11 hijackers were Saudis, not Iraqis, undermines the credibility of the conspiracy theory considerably, but does explain the administration's stonewalling of the 911 report.
If you're going to include this as a theory or what have you. How are you going to keep a Nuetral Point Of View and include the ANTI DEFAMATION LEAGUE. They are the most bias source possible.
{{ editsemiprotected}}
The video for the BBC Conspiracy Files 9/11 video doesn't work, a fixed video is here: http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=9072062020229593250&ei=mEW9Sfr5IKq6qAOEw9TCAQ&q=BBC+Conspiracy+Files+9%2F11&hl=en
As the article states this is not the first time that organization has made accusations against the articlewww.prisonplanet.com/wikipedia-displays-blatant-disinformation-once-again.html]. This is not my area of expertise so do or do not do what you wish. Edkollin ( talk) 20:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
A new paper on thermite in the WTC has been published that has been widely reported in Denmark and in alternative US press, as well as Deseret News. For example, the Danish government-owned television channel TV2 has broadcast an interview and a discussion with the corresponding author of the paper, Niels Harrit. The discussion took place in a breakfast talkshow named "Good morning, Denmark". The interview, with English subtitles, can be found here. This is a significant event in the history of the movement as a search for the exact title of the paper ("Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe") on google returns over 17,900 matches, and it's only been less than 2 weeks . . . Locewtus ( talk) 20:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
"One of the most popular claims in these theories"
The story about "4000 Jews" appeared in Arab media after 911, but I have never seen it promoted by any 911 activists. I've seen actiivists who bring up the allegations about Odigo receiving a warning, as well as the story about the five Israeli men arrested when a woman named Maria called the police. But I have never encountered this "4000 Jews" claim from anyone. This appears to be a biased account coming from the anti-Defamation League. The ADL is not a reliable source for determining how many activists have cited the "4000 Jews" story as something distinct from the other claims I listed above. The ADL makes it a point to tar and feather people with blatantly false stories like the "4000 Jews" hoax. This section should be reworked to remove the claim that "4000 Jews" is one of the most popular stories and in general to eliminate the ADL influence on the segment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.127.187.78 ( talk) 01:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I've added a few more {who} tags to unsupported vague generalizations about "conspiracy theorists." We need documented statements, not derogatory "proof by stereotype." Wowest ( talk) 22:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I would like to report this site: http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/04/english-section.html
where I found these articles:
http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/02/ups-on-81st-floor-of-wtc2.html
and the NIST confirmation about UPS:
http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2008/03/nist-confirms-ups-on-81st-floor-of-wtc2.html
Could You add these links to the correct section of the article, please? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.41.205.37 ( talk) 16:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
"Unreliable sources"? But, excuse me Hut, have you at least read the article? There are all the page numbers from Nist official reports, there is the official answer of the Nist spokeman and you tell us there are unrealiable sources?
I think you're wrong.
These articles speak about the WTC collapse, they don't speak about controlled demolition!
The author never spoke about controlled demolition.
I hope you read the articles again. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
151.66.15.95 (
talk) 05:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
It has been suggested that the section "In popular culture" of the article World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories should be merged into this article. See also Talk:World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories#Section "In popular culture". Cs32en 02:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the Manual of Style doesn’t say how “miles per hour” should be abbreviated, but the miles per hour article says “mph” and “MPH” are the most common ways. — NRen2k5( TALK), 09:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
"A study of British believers of 9/11 conspiracy theories lead by psychologist Viren Swami of the University of Westminster found several common traits. They tended to have imaginative and inquisitive minds, believed in Democratic ideals, were suspicious of others, and mistrusted authority. They also tended to believe in other conspiracy theories, and liked to talk about the subject frequently with friends who shared their views. An unrelated survey of 1000 British adult 9/11 conspiracy theory believers also found a tendency to believe in other conspiracy theories while finding belivers had a propensity to jump to conclusions. [15] "
This believers subsection was deleted because it was "cherry picking". It would be "cherry picking" if there were numerous studies on the subject and I picked these two out because I liked the conclusions they reached or for some other personal reason . While there have been many scientific studies of conspiracy theorists in general these are the only two I have seen specifically of 9/11 conspiracy theorists. We have devoted a lot of space in this article to columnists and others who have there own theories on why CT believers believe what they do. Maybe it is just me but I absolutely fail to understand why that is ok but actual scientific studies of CT believers are not article worthy. Unless someone can come up with a valid problems with these studies I hope we can come to a consensus to return the section to the article Edkollin ( talk) 04:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with the source per se. The problem was that the edit only included the parts of the article that shed 9/11 conspiracy theorists in a good light while ommitting all the parts that shed 9/11 conspiracy theorists in a bad light. For example, the article states:
If you want to include this in the article, fine, but make sure it mentions how 9/11 conspiracy theorists jump to conclusions, don't care about confirming evidence, compares conspiracy beliefs to superstitions, etc. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 16:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
As this is a 9/11 conspiracy theory article there is no reason write in material about believers in conspiracy theories in general only material directly about 9/11 conspiracy theorists. I did propose putting in the jumping to conclusions part. But I am holding off on this until all the other coctroversies settle down. The way things are now with all the rewrites the chances of accidental deletion of this material is to high for my comfort Edkollin ( talk) 05:00, 9 June 2009 (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 15 | ← | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | → | Archive 25 |
I am removing the above paragraph for the following reasons:
My conclusion is that the paragraph has no basis in sources upto now, so it needs fixing before we can put it back. Kaaskop6666 ( talk) 19:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
update: I am asking the editor who wrote it, for clarification. Kaaskop6666 ( talk) 11:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I propose to change
“ | Conspiracy theorists sometimes bring up historical examples of where a government is known or alleged to have carried out or planned activities similar to those hypothesized as explanations for the September 11 attacks — often false flag operations. | ” |
to
“ | In some historical examples of false flag operations, a government has carried out or planned activities similar to those hypothesized as explanations for the September 11 attacks. | ” |
I propose this change for these reasons:
Please critique this change if you feel it does not improve the article. Dscotese ( talk) 04:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
“ | Conspiracy theorists, such as those associated with the 9/11 Truth Movement, argue that the similarities between the motives between the attacks and the examples they cite, indicate that they are both plausible and operate with a long-term, hidden, agenda. | ” |
I propose the following, which eliminates "motives between the attacks" (which doesn't make sense to me) and states Hoffman's argument more clearly, and attributes it to him. (If we want to attribute it to "conspiracy theorists" we should provide references - the only one we have points directly to Hoffman's page.):
“ | Jim Hoffman argues that the similarities between authorities' actions surrounding the attacks and their actions surrounding the false flag operations he cites, indicate that they are both plausible and may operate with a long-term, hidden, agenda. | ” |
Dscotese ( talk) 03:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
The Passenger who saw "white smoke" in the toilet - whose telephone call was pulled from most mainstream media almost immediately. The "White Smoke" is a classic case of what you would expect to see if an Aircraft depressurizes - such as when the structure breaks open - due to a missile perhaps. This really is the most important piece of evidence and their is no mention of this. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
92.41.88.201 (
talk) 19:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Quote:
At 9.58am a 911 call - the last mobile phone contact from Flight 93 - was made from one of the airliner's toilets by passenger Edward Felt.
Glenn Cramer, the emergency supervisor who answered it, said on the day: "He was very distraught. He said he believed the plane was going down.
"He did hear some sort of an explosion and saw white smoke coming from the plane, but he didn't know where. And then we lost contact with him."
Glenn Cramer has now been gagged by the FBI. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
92.41.88.201 (
talk) 19:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
"Published reports by the US National Institute of Standards and Technology REJECTED the controlled demolition hypothesis.[4][5] The community of civil engineers generally accepts the mainstream account that the impacts of jets at high speeds in combination with subsequent fires, rather than controlled demolition, led to the collapse of the Twin Towers.[6]"
Actually the controlled demolition hypothesis was never mentioned in the original reports. There is only a brief mention that they will be analyzed in the article 4 summary?? Also citation 5 is a dead link.
A few quick questons. Why is President Bush's behavior listed in the Other Theories section? How is that an alternative conspiracy theory? Also, why not include the Micro Nuke Theory, Judy Wood's Space Laser Theory or David Icke's Reptilian Shapeshifting Aliens Theory? They aren't any crazier than the No Plane Theory or the Jewish Involvment Theories and seem about as popular. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.55.240 ( talk) 07:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I am still at a loss as to how President Bush's behavior is considered an "alternative theory". That is more of a clue as to his alleged involvement or foreknowledge of the attack. Also why not include a section on alternative demolition methods? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.78.2.181 ( talk) 22:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Because of the "9/11" start to the title, the link at the top sends you back to Talk:9. Enigma message 06:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be a “no way no how” philosophy towards putting this particular 9/11 conspiracy video in the external links section of the article. I just do not understand why that would be. Although having a somewhat different topical emphasis [4] I just don’t see any basic differences in tone or accuracy with the other video’s that have been allowed to remain in the external links. Edkollin ( talk) 06:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
In the "Jewish involvment" section of this article there is NO mention whatsoever that (over one hundred?) Israelis students and "artists" have been rounded up by the FBI after 9/11 and many of them with alleged links to the Mossad. As far as I can remember it is "mainstream" knowledge and well documented. Why has this important information been completely ommited? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SSZ ( talk • contribs)
Here's what the FOX News report says on the subject...
Since September 11, more than 60 Israelis have been arrested or detained [...] some of the detainees also failed polygraph questions when asked about alleged surveillance activities against and in the United States.
There is no indication that the Israelis were involved in the 9-11 attacks, but investigators suspect that the Israelis may have gathered intelligence about the attacks in advance, and not shared it. A highly placed investigator said there are "tie-ins." But when asked for details, he flatly refused to describe them, saying, "evidence linking these Israelis to 9-11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It's classified information."
[...] prior to September 11, as many as 140 other Israelis had been detained or arrested in a secretive and sprawling investigation into suspected espionage by Israelis in the United States.
What shall we add to the section, then? That the Mossad are active in the US? That they are good at their jobs? That they are not, in fact, suspected of being involved in the attacks? The nearest thing to a conspiracy theory that this report offers is the suspicion that they had information that they didn't share. SHEFFIELDSTEEL TALK 15:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
The 52 citation is no longer valid. That is a bais statement as is.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.53.8 ( talk • contribs)
I know that using YouTube videos is forbidden, but some die-hard 9/11 conspiracy freak posted a YouTube video by a man named Bob Pugh, who claims to be a freelance videographer who works for various news agenices and is used to bolster the "alternate theories." Where would something like this fit into the article? ---- DanTD ( talk) 13:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Given the history of media reporting on 9/11, there is no way to have a firmly held opinion on the topic without accepting one conspiracy theory or another. Some of these theories are mutually contradictory, of course.
First, we must consider the observable events.
Buildings were shown with black smoke billowing out of their middles. News footage showed people who had apparently jumped to their deaths rather than endure a less certainly deadly but more certainly painful experience. This kind of horror would naturally bring up all kinds of personal belief conflicts. Would jumping to a relatively painless death to avoid continuing pain of possibly burning to death be a mortal sin? And then, to everyone's amazement, the two buildings we were shown suddenly collapsed in a manner Dan Rather spontaneously compared to "controlled demolition." Eye witnesses said that the first tower was hit by a small commuter plane and the second was hit by a white aircraft with a circular, blue logo near the nose. Then, the news began to come from the networks rather than the local stations.
We were quickly given a "complete" explanation -- the Official Conspiracy Theory, or OCT. Twenty-one Arabs, with the help of other fellow conspirators, had hijacked four airplanes and had flown them into three targets while one had been diverted by brave passengers whose motto was "let's roll." When one of the Arabs turned out to have been dead for a year and another turned out to be alive in Florida, the number was ramped down to nineteen, all of whom had similar photographs available. Two Muslims, clearly pictured, whose passports had previously been stolen in the United States and Israel, protested their innocence, but their claims were disregarded. Several other accused terrorists came forward, but their claims of innocence were officially ignored with an explanation that the culprits were other Muslims with similar names who coincidentally all looked alike.
Everybody I know immediately accepted the OCT, with the exception of Teresa, a university librarian, who immediately thought "so THAT's why the Republicans stole the Florida election," and began collecting and distributing printed material and, later, DVD's.
The psychological phenomenon here is called "closure." If an event is traumatizing enough, people with a low tolerance for ambiguity or vagueness with latch onto the first explanation they are given. Another psychological phenomenon at work is "cognitive dissonance." If the most logical explanation for an event contradicts cherished values, it will be rejected in favor of a more convenient explanation which does not produce such conflict.
In China, during WWII, the Japanese committed the intentional mass murder of hundreds of thousands of civilians, women, children and all. The motion picture "The Last Emperor" was not permitted to be shown in Japan until newsreel footage documenting one of these atrocities was deleted from the Japanese version. Governments do things like that.
During the second half of the twentieth century, the newly-formed CIA repeatedly overthrew democracies in Latin America and other parts of the world, replacing them with military dictators for the benefit of American corporations. David Horowitz's "Free World Colossus" documents several of these events, most particularly during the 1950's.
In any event, the introduction of alternative theories of what may or may not have happened on 9/11 leads to a skepticism concerning the OCT.
Some historical events cause susceptible people to continue to believe in the OCT, however. For one thing, CS Lewis's "Narnia" books for children, vilify all religions other than Christianity and lump them all together into one competing religion followed by anyone with a rag on his head. For another thing, Arayan hate groups vilify all other races, including the Semites (Arabs, Jews and all that).
The most intelligent and objective position possible concerning the holes in the OCT is that "we do not know." That's the simple truth.
It seems unfair to lable Theorists as Schizoids. Most of them are unlikely to fit into that bracket anyway. The problem they seem to have is that they only read works that agree with their beliefs. That it is not unreasonable to believe that hijackers of two planes with even crude flying abilities could 'guide' (not fly) those planes into two of the worlds tallest buildings, which would then collapse after the resultant impact, is somthing they cannot accept. Why? Dozens of credible witnesses saw a plane hit the Pentagon, not so! say the Theorists, why?. The reason seems to be simple statistics, there will allways be a minority of people who not accept evidence of any kind. Sad but true. Johnwrd ( talk) 03:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
This link: ^ "The Top September 11 Conspiracy Theories". Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State (28 August 2006) (footnote 10) seems to refer to a page taht no longer contains the material cited.
Israeli Involvement in 9/11:
(Carl Cameron's reports for Fox News on Israeli involvement are no longer available on Fox's websites which denies they ever existed, but I did see them a while ago and they were along the same lines.)
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7545.htm
http://www.giwersworld.org/911/is-spies.phtml http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=4577 http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/govknow.html http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/9_11_facts.html http://www.infowars.net/articles/december2006/071206Haas.htm http://www.911review.com/articles/usamah/khilafah.html http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2007/02/16/counterpunch_on_israel_and_911.php
-- Wool Bridge ( talk) 09:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
ABC News has just published an article about the mental health of conspiracy theorists:
http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=6443988
We should try to work this into the article. 67.184.14.87 ( talk) 17:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's our commitment.
I have been doing a little research on this subject, and for me there are many strange questions. I do not see them addressed in this article. I would like to contribute, but do not know how to start. Things that come to mind are:
Are these bits of information welcome in this article? How should I begin? Thanks for your help. Kaaskop6666 ( talk) 20:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
And then use Wikipedia:Citation templates. This may seem obvious but bear with me: Rephrase the material cited if you're not using it in quotes. Using the language directly is tempting, as it seems safely verified that way, but of course then you're in plagiarism country; no one's going to bust you for it, but it can be deleted or would have to be changed. Don't be afraid to use quotes if they really capture the information more succinctly than a paraphrase would. Or clarify the cite with a quote, inserted just before the second (and last) tag that says '</ref>' Anarchangel ( talk) 07:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Since that is a featured article, why has this one been labelled as a conspiracy theory? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.68.239 ( talk) 11:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
RE:BOARDING PASSES I have read that none of the 19 terrorists had boarding passes. Any info on this. What was the name/s of the agents at the airport gates - where is their testimony available? I believe I have/would never be allowed on a plane without a pass( and I have flown decades before 911 or airport security was even dreamt of. 159.105.80.141 ( talk) 12:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Should there be a section of analysis of the flight manifests? Seeing as evidence of a a suspects presence at the scene of the crime is generally considered important. http://www.911hardfacts.com/report_17.htm Autonova ( talk) 03:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
From the article:
"Later, as media exposure of conspiracy theories of the events of 9/11 increased, US government agencies and the Bush Administration issued responses to the theories, including a formal analysis by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) about the collapse of the World Trade Center..."
I think it would be more correct to say that NIST's factsheet-- the item cited in the footnote following this text-- was NIST's response to these theories. The NIST failure analysis itself was the result of a much broader demand for a technical analysis of the WTC collapses. The report would have been written even without the conspiracy theories.
There may have been other NIST publications that were specifically in response to the conspiracy theories; if so, perhaps one of them would be even better to mention here. 67.164.125.7 ( talk) 04:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I was reading over this section and noticed the following: "Five Israeli citizens died in the attack, including one who was killed fighting his airplane's hiijackers. [172][citation needed]"
I would like to mention two things, one hijackers is spelled incorrectly, and 2 there is no evidence provided about the fighting. The news story linked says that the Israeli's who were on the planes were on flight UA 175 and AA 11. There is no conclusive evidence of anyone fighting back on these flights, much less the Israeli citizens on the flights. The flight that did fight back was flight 93. I think this needs to be stripped from the article, or cleaned up a bit to make it more vague. TWilliams9 ( talk) 16:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
In articles on fringe topics, we are not supposed represent the fringe theory as if it is a legitimate viewpoint or on some kind of equal footing. Instead, we're supposed to fairly represent all sides of an issue per reliable sources. If reliable sources reflect a particular viewpoint, then we're supposed to represent that viewpoint as well. In a case such as this article, I doubt if there are many (if any) reliable sources that claim 9/11 was a conspiracy by the US government. Even if there are any, weight should be roughly proportional to the preponderance of reliable sources backing that perspective.
As a result, there seems to be a WP:NPOV issue with this article. This article should treat this topic in the same manner as reliable sources do. Thus, if Popular Mechanics, the BBC, ABC News, Time Magazine, Rolling Stone Magazine, etc. regard 9/11 conspiracy theory as outlandish speculation completely unsupported by factual evidence, that that's how this article should be written. To do otherwise, is against WP:NPOV.
In other words, the viewpoints of reliable sources are the standard by which we write our articles and judge its neutrality.
We can and should have detailed debunking of 9/11 conspiracy theories as that's what reliable sources have done and it is in accordance with Wikipedia policies. The Popular Mechanics article [9] and book are probably good starts. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 15:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
In the second paragraph we have this statement, "Some 9/11 Truth Movement members question the accuracy of the mainstream account of the attacks, and they are committed to further investigation." which is followed by "Others claim that...." and lists some of the major theories of conspiracy theorists. This seems not the best way to say it because it is not necessarily "others" making these specific claims, but actually many members of the movement members referred to in the first sentence actually making these claims. It seems to me that it would be more accurate to start the sentence with something like, "Some specific theories are that..." or "Some specific claims made by members are...", or any other similar statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.121.211.154 ( talk) 12:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
This article should note that the hijackers were mostly Saudi nationals, a fact which was of great embarrassment to the Bush administration. Yet the identities could have been easily manipulated to appear as if they were Iraqi agents to justify an attack on Iraq, which, according to sources like Richard Clarke, was the true intention of the Bush Administration upon taking office. The fact that the nine of the 11 hijackers were Saudis, not Iraqis, undermines the credibility of the conspiracy theory considerably, but does explain the administration's stonewalling of the 911 report.
If you're going to include this as a theory or what have you. How are you going to keep a Nuetral Point Of View and include the ANTI DEFAMATION LEAGUE. They are the most bias source possible.
{{ editsemiprotected}}
The video for the BBC Conspiracy Files 9/11 video doesn't work, a fixed video is here: http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=9072062020229593250&ei=mEW9Sfr5IKq6qAOEw9TCAQ&q=BBC+Conspiracy+Files+9%2F11&hl=en
As the article states this is not the first time that organization has made accusations against the articlewww.prisonplanet.com/wikipedia-displays-blatant-disinformation-once-again.html]. This is not my area of expertise so do or do not do what you wish. Edkollin ( talk) 20:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
A new paper on thermite in the WTC has been published that has been widely reported in Denmark and in alternative US press, as well as Deseret News. For example, the Danish government-owned television channel TV2 has broadcast an interview and a discussion with the corresponding author of the paper, Niels Harrit. The discussion took place in a breakfast talkshow named "Good morning, Denmark". The interview, with English subtitles, can be found here. This is a significant event in the history of the movement as a search for the exact title of the paper ("Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe") on google returns over 17,900 matches, and it's only been less than 2 weeks . . . Locewtus ( talk) 20:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
"One of the most popular claims in these theories"
The story about "4000 Jews" appeared in Arab media after 911, but I have never seen it promoted by any 911 activists. I've seen actiivists who bring up the allegations about Odigo receiving a warning, as well as the story about the five Israeli men arrested when a woman named Maria called the police. But I have never encountered this "4000 Jews" claim from anyone. This appears to be a biased account coming from the anti-Defamation League. The ADL is not a reliable source for determining how many activists have cited the "4000 Jews" story as something distinct from the other claims I listed above. The ADL makes it a point to tar and feather people with blatantly false stories like the "4000 Jews" hoax. This section should be reworked to remove the claim that "4000 Jews" is one of the most popular stories and in general to eliminate the ADL influence on the segment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.127.187.78 ( talk) 01:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
I've added a few more {who} tags to unsupported vague generalizations about "conspiracy theorists." We need documented statements, not derogatory "proof by stereotype." Wowest ( talk) 22:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I would like to report this site: http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/04/english-section.html
where I found these articles:
http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/02/ups-on-81st-floor-of-wtc2.html
and the NIST confirmation about UPS:
http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2008/03/nist-confirms-ups-on-81st-floor-of-wtc2.html
Could You add these links to the correct section of the article, please? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.41.205.37 ( talk) 16:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
"Unreliable sources"? But, excuse me Hut, have you at least read the article? There are all the page numbers from Nist official reports, there is the official answer of the Nist spokeman and you tell us there are unrealiable sources?
I think you're wrong.
These articles speak about the WTC collapse, they don't speak about controlled demolition!
The author never spoke about controlled demolition.
I hope you read the articles again. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
151.66.15.95 (
talk) 05:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
It has been suggested that the section "In popular culture" of the article World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories should be merged into this article. See also Talk:World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories#Section "In popular culture". Cs32en 02:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the Manual of Style doesn’t say how “miles per hour” should be abbreviated, but the miles per hour article says “mph” and “MPH” are the most common ways. — NRen2k5( TALK), 09:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
"A study of British believers of 9/11 conspiracy theories lead by psychologist Viren Swami of the University of Westminster found several common traits. They tended to have imaginative and inquisitive minds, believed in Democratic ideals, were suspicious of others, and mistrusted authority. They also tended to believe in other conspiracy theories, and liked to talk about the subject frequently with friends who shared their views. An unrelated survey of 1000 British adult 9/11 conspiracy theory believers also found a tendency to believe in other conspiracy theories while finding belivers had a propensity to jump to conclusions. [15] "
This believers subsection was deleted because it was "cherry picking". It would be "cherry picking" if there were numerous studies on the subject and I picked these two out because I liked the conclusions they reached or for some other personal reason . While there have been many scientific studies of conspiracy theorists in general these are the only two I have seen specifically of 9/11 conspiracy theorists. We have devoted a lot of space in this article to columnists and others who have there own theories on why CT believers believe what they do. Maybe it is just me but I absolutely fail to understand why that is ok but actual scientific studies of CT believers are not article worthy. Unless someone can come up with a valid problems with these studies I hope we can come to a consensus to return the section to the article Edkollin ( talk) 04:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with the source per se. The problem was that the edit only included the parts of the article that shed 9/11 conspiracy theorists in a good light while ommitting all the parts that shed 9/11 conspiracy theorists in a bad light. For example, the article states:
If you want to include this in the article, fine, but make sure it mentions how 9/11 conspiracy theorists jump to conclusions, don't care about confirming evidence, compares conspiracy beliefs to superstitions, etc. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 16:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
As this is a 9/11 conspiracy theory article there is no reason write in material about believers in conspiracy theories in general only material directly about 9/11 conspiracy theorists. I did propose putting in the jumping to conclusions part. But I am holding off on this until all the other coctroversies settle down. The way things are now with all the rewrites the chances of accidental deletion of this material is to high for my comfort Edkollin ( talk) 05:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)