Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories/Archive 14

message: Not to suggest that I buy into this train of thought, but one notable theory is the concept that the planes were remotely controlled to their end result. A stunningly "foretelling" version of this would be the infamous pilot of The Lone Gunmen which displayed an airliner being operated via microchip and antenna devices - the same way in which cars may be remotely controlled. This is an idea that seems to be gaining more and more popularity and, frankly, I'd add a sub-category for it myself if the page weren't currently locked. Any users who feel up to adding it? --AWF
Yeh, I'll give it a go sometime.  finding a detailed source might be hard though, most people just dip into the idea.  Also, should we have a section for the twin towers missile theory?  it's basically the same as the pentagon missile theory, but even weirder.  there are ideas like that a hologram of a plane was used to disguise a missile and whatever... i'll try and find a source, and if i do and you guys think it's notable enough then i'll do a section on it. DanCrowter 11:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Conspiracy theorists interpret "thought Flight 77 was a military plane" as "was doing skillful aerobatics". But in reality the quote from the aircraft controller who followed Flight 77 from takeoff to impact continues: "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe." I.e. the radar blip was not flying like a skilled pilot, but rather insanely erratically for a passenger plane. Or are there reliable sources that support another interpretation? Weregerbil 16:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Remote controlled

message: Heh, you guys forgot to mention these notable conspiracy theories.  The Founder and Co-Chair of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, James H. Fetzer, thinks they're notable theories, so I think they should be included here.  Take a  look at this.  Morton devonshire 23:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup.  Definitely a 9/11 conspiracy theory from a well-known conspiracy theorist.  Where should it go? Tbeatty 20:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: We might describe the theory in a section right before that about the missile pods, outline the essential facts of the recent controversy between Fetzer and Jones, and refer people to 9/11 Truth Movement. I think the primary coverage of their dispute should be there. If we have to have all these pages, they should be more than pov forks. Tom Harrison Talk 20:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't nukes give off an amount of radiation?
I think we should turn it into a sub-section into both the section on the contolled demolition hypothesis, and another, more deatailed, section in the full article on the same.  This is because it is technically another part of the demolition idea.  And about the radiation thing, yes, they proabably would.  But most conspiracy theories are based on this kind of stuff. DanCrowter 13:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Um...I hesitate to wade into this article, but the idea that a "mini-nuke" was used to demolish the WTC is easily falsifiable.  Any nuclear detonation, even a small one, will leave behind a large quantity of very detectable radioactive material.  Any idiot with a geiger counter could detect the radiation; however, the  Heck, the radation levels at the Trinity Test Site are still an order of magnitude higher than normal, 50 years later (not nearly enough to make short visits dangerous, though).   Would it be considered original research to note these two well-established facts?--Robert Merkel 06:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "hesitate to wade into this article" is not a Wikipedia dictionary. Unless you have a reputable cite for it it is Original Research. If that cite does not exist currently you will have to wait for the possibility that this theory will become more mainstream then at that point I am sure there will be debunker's that will not be hesitant to point to your explanation. The point of the article as hard as it seems at times is not a point counterpoint arguments about conspiracy/alternate theories. It is to describe what they are and describing what they are arguably entails bringing out supporters reasoning. The counterpoint arguments are there to explain reaction to those particular theories. If there has been no reaction to a theory there is no need to list counterpoint arguments 69.114.117.103 20:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: How about this? --Robert Merkel 00:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The fact that this comes from a "conspiracy theory" website makes this a really good cite. 69.114.117.103 06:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Energy Weapons & Mini-Nukes

message: (Just picking up at the current state of the discussion to keep things in order. I've left these comments above as well.)
...Legge analyzed the "final" collapse sequence and just that. That seemed enough for him to state his assumptions about the cause. You find it not's enough, ok, let the readear decide for himself. I, for example, find  his explanation much more plausible than wild theories about innards collapsing,ground shaking, outer walls standing. Anyway, apart from what you and I belive, there is no place for a hidden, false implication that Legge's analysis is in contradiction with FEMA's timing, as it is not ("apples and oranges" - it couldn't be said better). If you feel that 37s remark has to be there, then let's not put it in opposition to 7 seconds. My proposed edit would be to replace "according to conspiracy theorists the collapse took 7 seconds" with a statement of an easily observable fact that roof of the building collapsed in approx. 7 seconds to the ground. SalvNaut 21:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You misattribute my description of the collapse; I was describing NIST's working hypothesis of WTC 7 collapse. See page 25 of this. WTC 7 was a steel tube inside another steel tube. The inner tube fell first, during the first 30 seconds ("vertical progression"), and the outer tube was pulled in after it by the connecting floor structure ("horizontal progression"). This very page of this very report has already been referred to below. As to what conspiracy theorists think, please remember: sources! The Legge text describes a sudden collapse that lasts 7 seconds at the acceleration of gravity, with no initial "slow start". FEMA and NIST describe the collapse starting 30 seconds earlier, progressing up and sideways, considerably slower than free fall. We describe both sourced views. Weregerbil 13:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FEMA and NIST taken together describe a collapse starting 30 seconds earlier. But the NIST document you provide does not mention specific times. If NIST isn't correcting FEMA (as is has before) it took the collapse 30 seconds to progress up to the east penthouse. The "sudden collapse" afterwards is not in dispute between NIST/FEMA and Legge/Jones. Keep in mind that that first roughly 30 seconds result in (but do not yet amount to) a "disproportionate collapse". NIST is proposing a slow, progressive local collapse, followed by the observed sudden, fast, global (and therefore disproportionate) collapse. NIST does not offer a time "considerably slower than free fall", it offers an explanation for why the whole building finally came down in free fall that does not refer to explosives.--Thomas Basboll 13:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Building Seven (con't...again) 

message: Everybody should look at the very interstingly different new link in the Debunking Conspiracies section "A study of the primary source evidence against conspiracy".
If it stays it should be moved to the less common theories and renamed "An argument  for for the accidental setting off of benign pre placed explosives”. He thinks they were put there because after ’93 the Port Authority knew the towers would be attacked again so they wanted to make the collapse less dangerous 69.114.117.103 04:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was no move.  Points have been argued, and both sides have good points, but the clear consensus here is to keep the article where it is. —Mets501 (talk) 03:06, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:   [http://www.medievalhistory.net/wtc7.htm EVIDENCE AND AFTERMATH]  link [unavailable]

message: Why don't each camp list below their own beliefs/reasons for change/no change.  But list just each reason in one sentence, list more then 1 reason if you want, but do each as a seperate line.  Having done this we can have a subsection for each point and debate a single point at a time.  Instead of each side rambling on with paragraph after paragraph just arguing semantics and policy.  Then we will see what each and everyones points are instead of having to read war & peace, then translate it into Greek, via russian, spanish and Swahili
* Oppose The name change in my opinion fails common sense "Snorkel | Talk" 09:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm removing myself from the debate in the interest of supplying a big pile of evidence(for both) below. Feel free to add to it. --Wildnox(talk) 04:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I am sorry you chose to read my statement at the most elementary and superficial level possible.  Allow me to explain further, then.  People who believe the WTC towers were destroyed by `mini-nukes' or space-based laser beams in the absence of any evidence, but on the premise that `all alternatives must be evaluated', are most definitely crackpots as far as I am concerned.  But calling these ideas `alternative theories' only emphasises that — that is what I was saying (the same as calling the article on flat earth theories `Geography (alternative theories)' is much more cranky than just calling it flat-earthism).  However, `conspiracy theory' is the correct word, because it describes exactly what these things are.  If many people snigger when hearing the term, it is only because of what is associated with it — and for that, the conspiracy theorists have no-one to thank but themselves.  But they should at least be proud of, and confident in, their beliefs, no matter what attributes people associate with the umbrella term for their theories, surely?   There is no need to move an article to a misleading, euphemistic and downright outlandish name simply because credible sources have not treated the ideas contained therein with wide-eyed adulation. There, now does that address the issues to your satisfaction, Ireneshusband?  Rosenkreuz 11:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why dont the Oppose and Agree camps?

message: *I know users don't usually listen to unregistered edits, but for the sake of actually addressing some of the concerns raised by Ireneshusband, instead of talking in circles, I wanted to offer some counterpoints.
*First, the argument about not finding a mainstream example of a Conspiracy Theory being used in a non-derogatory sense does not carry much weight. Words or phrases like terrorist, fascist, and anti-semite are used routinely across Wikipedia. Clearly all of these carry negative connotations in mainstream media. Yet changing them to Freedom Fighter, National Socialist, and Zionist Objectionist has not been deemed necessary in order to maintain NPOV in their respective articles, similarly it should not be necessary to change the name of this article, especially in light of the widespread use of the term CT in mainstream media. I believe this also addresses point 3 raised above.
*Second, look at the term "Conspiracy Theory". It is made up of two words, "Conspiracy" and "Theory". I think all will agree that what is presented in this article are theories, none can be proven as absolute fact. Indeed the name change does not seek to relable them as fact. All of the theories mentioned here also include a conspiracy. Unless one of the theories deals in natural disaster, or complete accident, insofar as I can read all of the theories presented in this article are about conspiracies. Thus, everything presented here is, literally, a Conspiracy Theory.  I believe this addresses not only the point about the "opposition" not being able to define conspiracy theories, as well as most of the other points. The policy of "replicability" is adhered to because all of the topics encompassed in this article are theories (not facts) that describe conspiracies (as opposed to accidental/natural phenomena). Similarly, the title does not prejudge the content as it, in the most literal sense, describes exactly what the article is: a collection of theories about conspiracies. Were the title "Conspiracy Theories the Government Doesn't Want You to Hear" or the above debated "Conspiracy Hoaxes" that would clearly prejudge. However, a title that merely describes the content of the article inherently does not prejudge.67.176.251.136 02:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to points raised by Ireneshusband moved from the single line comments

message: **That was a very stupid and offensive remark. You clearly have no interest in addressing the issues I have made concerning the Wikipedia guidelines and therefore resort to personal insults such as this. So conspiracy theorists are "crackpots". Is anyone still going to argue that the terms "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorist" are not  both derogatory and personally offensive? Ireneshusband 22:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I am sorry you chose to read my statement at the most elementary and superficial level possible.  Allow me to explain further, then.  People who believe the WTC towers were destroyed by `mini-nukes' or space-based laser beams in the absence of any evidence, but on the premise that `all alternatives must be evaluated', are most definitely crackpots as far as I am concerned.  But calling these ideas `alternative theories' only emphasises that — that is what I was saying (the same as calling the article on flat earth theories `Geography (alternative theories)' is much more cranky than just calling it flat-earthism).  However, `conspiracy theory' is the correct word, because it describes exactly what these things are.  If many people snigger when hearing the term, it is only because of what is associated with it — and for that, the conspiracy theorists have no-one to thank but themselves.  But they should at least be proud of, and confident in, their beliefs, no matter what attributes people associate with the umbrella term for their theories, surely?   There is no need to move an article to a misleading, euphemistic and downright outlandish name simply because credible sources have not treated the ideas contained therein with wide-eyed adulation. There, now does that address the issues to your satisfaction, Ireneshusband?  Rosenkreuz 11:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to Rosenkreuz moved from the single line comments

message: Here is a list of differnt sources which could be used in the debate by either side. I'll add more later. Some were already mentioned above some are new. I just thought it would be nice if people actually had some reliable sources to use, since almost nobody had used any yet.
Popular Mechanics CBC ABC
time
CNN
New York Times
9/11 Truth - All describe using "conspiracy"
U.S. Department of State
Washington Post - Both using both terms in one article.
International Herald Tribune
skeptic.com - Both describe using "alternative"
IL- has a picture with CNN using the term "alternative theories" in a poll
Denver post
USA Today- Call the term derogatory
Feel free to add more--Wildnox(talk) 04:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The evidence I mentioned

message: Please I would like to remind everyone to be civil, calm down and avoid personal jibes at other editors.  In particular the current round of discussion on the name proposed name change.
Like the 9/11 article, this corresponding CT article obviously invokes some anguish.  
Can I ask all editors to make short replies about an individual point, rather than make a long reply that gets into different arguments, that will make thread following simpler for us all, and allow for single points to be discussed and reasoned on. Statements such as "Conspiracy theories are the intellectual toxic waste poisoning contemporary democratic civil society" do not help and only act to inflame a highly contentious issue.  (In not making an example of any one editor in particular and apologise if using that statement suggests I am having a go).  The article as a whole is very good, and of course can always be improved.  Good Editing "Snorkel | Talk" 11:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Reminder to be civil 

message: I have been doing a lot of digging around into previous discussions related to the topic of changing the name of this article and similar articles.  Similar discussions have been made before this.  A good place to refer y'all to first is Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory.  Take a look at the talk pages, including the archives.  Especially look at Wikipedia_talk:Conspiracy_theory/archive2.  The 1.0 proposal failed, and the newer 2.0 proposal is here User:Zen-master/Conspiracy theory titles.  As far as this article goes, it seems that it has been moved once already, for slightly over 1 hour.  The edit summary here refers to the archive2 link I listed above.  I haven't had the time to read through all of this yet, but many of the same arguments raised here are raised there also.  Work on the 2.0 proposal seems to have died about a year ago.  Perhaps it is time to resurrect it again.  The value of the proposal is that it helps set guidelines for a larger range of articles and establishes a precedent in case a similar discussion happens again.  Please note that there was no consensus on the 1.0 proposal and much of the debate is somewhat summarized there.  I say somewhat because I haven't taken the time to peruse the archives more thoroughly.  Umeboshi 01:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Version 2.0 died because the user who started it was banned. He had been warned by ArbCom not to make any more proposals regarding the titles of articles and was banned after he created the second. --Wildnox(talk) 03:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where can we find the record of the proceedings by which he was banned? I'm having trouble understanding how policies about naming can come about if people are not allowed to make proposals about them. Ireneshusband 05:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasn't as much that he made a proposal, but the events leading up the the proposal being made(and that he had already made the proposal multiple times). Here  is the RFA case and here is the block log of the user. --Wildnox(talk) 06:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I was wondering why there had been no work on this for a while.  I still think people here should review the previous discussions, as they certainly seem to relate to the current discussion here.  You seem to be the one of the few who have tried to dig up a historic record from "wikipedia history" to help things along.  This whole section started from the link you made above.  Thank you. I appreciate that, as I feel that a good review of "this has been discussed before" is valuable help to current discussions.  Umeboshi 18:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it was Tom Harrison that linked the original discussion above, all I've done is look up the other events surrounding the failure of "2.0". I also would like to add that I brought up the ban and failure, not to discourage discussion, but to remind people that if this goes a way that any of us do not agree with, we should stay calm and avoid making hasty decisions. --Wildnox(talk) 18:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, so he did.  I must not have noticed it, because he didn't say anything about it.  You did, which is why I noticed. :) Umeboshi 21:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conspiracy Theory 2.0 

message: Am I the only user who thinks the external links section needs to be cleaned? I'm not sure what should go and what should stay, but I know there is no reason to have that many links in this article. --Wildnox(talk) 22:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Periodic pruning is necessary, as people add promotional links, or just links to their less-notable pet theories. I think the only links presented should be those to sites that have been mentioned in reliable sources. Tom Harrison Talk 13:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: External Links

message: I changed "Flight 93 Never Crashed" to "Claims that Flight 93 never crashed" for two reasons.
# All the other section headers refer to the theories they describe as "claims."
# The theory described in this section is just that: a claim, not a fact, and stating it like a fact ("Flight 93 Never Crashed") violates WP:NOR.
Have a great day! :) Srose (talk) 04:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alteration of one of the section headers. 

message: According to the N.Y. Times The first President Bush recalled Mr. Ford’s service on the Warren Commission, which investigated the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. “And the conspiracy theorists can say what they will, but the Warren Commission report will always have the final, definitive say on this tragic matter,” Mr. Bush said. “Why? Because Jerry Ford put his name on it, and Jerry Ford’s word was always good.”
While not directly related to 9/11 conspiracies the remark touched off extended musings by Chris Matthews on MSNBC. Basically he was perplexed on where this remark came from. He and his guests theorized he was defending "the establishment" or defending the need for an elite. But you could tell that Matthews was only partially convinced of his own theories on why the remarks were in the eulogy. He said you should not believe conspiracy theories until they are proven which I have no problem with. The problem I have is that the Bush Bin Ladin family conspiracy theories did not jump to his mind immediately.  This defiantly was one of those moments you want jump into the TV and shake his neck. He is not a stupid or naive man.  Indeed a little latter there was an extended discussion on why Matthews and Evan Thomas of Newsweek thought there was a “wink” “wink” deal between Ford and Nixon on the pardon. I guess this is another demonstration how out of touch the Washington Media is with the audience they are reporting to. I know this is a rant that has no article worthy material but this "audience" seems the most knowlegible one to deliver it to. 69.114.117.103 19:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bush Sr. takes a shot at conspiracy theorists during Fords eulogy 

message: With the the new congress all references relating to Rep. Curt Weldon should be changed to former Rep. Curt Weldon 69.114.117.103 06:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reminder 

message: Wikipedia dislikes copyright violations to the extent that referncing one is also considered bad practice.  There is a move currently to remove all references to Youtube, google video, etc precisely because these are, generally, copyvios.  This means that several of the references in this article are likely to be removed by those unfamiliar with the content.
It would be far better if an editor who is active in the article removed them one by one and migrated the references where possible to non copyvio references.  Fiddle Faddle 08:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  YouTube and similar references 

message: I thought the latest work of federal authorities on Wikipedia would be of interest to editors of this article. That these feds do not allow sources from anyone outside the Bush administration has long been their policy by fiat. Now they refuse to even allow other views to be discussed on the article’s talk page. After entering into an edit war where authorities repeatedly blanked threads discussing "unofficial" sources. To end the edit war, authorities have now protected the page so that only sysops (mostly[?] federal agents) can edit the discussion. I'm not talking about the article being fully protected, I'm talking about the article’s associated discussion page.
* 03:29, 13 January 2007 Naconkantari (Talk | contribs) protected Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks (continued attacks from aged accounts [edit=sysop:move=sysop])
The notation “edit=sysop:move=sysop” means that only sysops may edit or move this page. Semi-protection is when autoconfirmed accounts may edit the page.This is unprecedented on Wikipedia as far as I know. No one else is welcome there now. You're free to read what the sysops say (if you love boredom), but no one else can post their views or discuss the article. Nothing is working on Wikipedia the way we've been told. Something must be done. Please help address this infestation of Wikipedia by what Wikipedia now dubs Clowns. --ScabbinOnTheAngels 08:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Feds? Amusing. If feds were after you, the above wouldn't have been allowed on this page, and for that matter, they might have bothered to ship you to GITMO. It looks to me more like those articles which are often filled with massively discredited theories are struggling to save time/effort on constantly reverting. Yes, the many authors know the pod/demolition/missile theories, but decided long ago to give them their own voice in this article, rather than cluttering the main article with allegations about jews/PNAC/aliens/LIHOP/MIHOP and their ilk. Ronabop 11:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The poster was blocked as a sock.  Fiddle Faddle 12:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sysops block [[September 11, 2001 attacks]] article’s disucssion page to avoid "unoficial" (non-White House) discussions 

message: Seems ridiculous to now have TWO separate 9/11 CT templates.  I'm removing the new one where I see it.  Please do not create new templates which have no input -- at least delete the old template or we could just fill the pages will an ongoing series of "templates," each with partial lists of links to random "categories."  bov 21:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The new template was created in response to the simple need for a navigation template with no commentary on the materials.  The other template(s) add some form of possible POV framework and are not appropriate for all articles, and are disputed on some of them.  They are more than simple navigation.  Please do not use capital letters in discussions, they imply shouting. Fiddle Faddle 21:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like both templates.  Very helpful.  --Tbeatty 22:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templates 

message: :Image:EricWithoutHat.jpg
should it be included in the article that this person supports the 9/11 conspiracy?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.69.63.254 (talk • contribs).
:Groups and individuals challenging the official account of 9/11 might work, but we don't yet have a section for fictional characters. Tom Harrison Talk 14:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, let's do it, but first :Image:Kyle.gif we should introduce the culprit into September 11, 2001 attacks article. SalvNaut 20:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Excellent... lol. DanCrowter 08:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: know supporters of conspiracy

message: Reference 197, "http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/21/national/21OHIO.html" brings us to a login page. Should it be removed, or replaced with another source ?
FiP Как вы думаете? 03:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how that is any different from citing a book that someone might not own, or would have to buy.  In both cases we trust that the citation was made in good faith, and that those with access to it agree with the citation. 67.175.166.59 15:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reference just needs to be fixed as a proper citation of the NYT. I'll have a look at it tomorrow.--Thomas Basboll 18:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't been able to find the NY times article; but I did find a Globe and Mail article that documentet the same facts. I've added the reference.--Thomas Basboll 07:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NY Times Article

message: The current introduction reads:"The mainstream scientific community does not support the controlled demolition hypothesis and U.S. officials, mainstream journalists, and mainstream researchers have concluded that responsibility for the attacks rests solely with Al Qaeda." This is far too propagandist to be allowed to remain in the article which should be balanced in accord with standard editorial policy. Firstly, quoting a statement from NIST's Bush/Cheney advocates does not qualify as a valid assertion that the mainstream scientific community do not believe that WTC was brought down with demolition charges. If you want to put such a claim in the article you must provide evidence to prove that the majority of these 'specialists' - as the NIST authors characterise them - do not believe the demolition hypothesis to be credible. It is true that mainstream journalists have been rather uncritical in their reportage of 9/11 but as for 'mainstream researchers', it is unclear to whom the author of this sentence refers. Even a cursory look by the most modest intellect at the first-hand evidence in the public domain highlights major shortcomings and anomalies in the official propaganda. Every serious researcher I have encountered has concluded the Zelikow commission report to be utterly false and disingenuous avoiding all the important evidence which flatly contradicts the favoured official story. The belief that the attacks were committed by Al Qaeda is one that has been vigourously promoted and repeated but for which there is no evidence whatsoever, certainly none that would stand up in a court of law. It is therefore biased and, of course propagandist, that this sentence remain in the introduction. User:Langdell 23rd January 2007
:Well I think your unsourced claim boils down to "I don't like the source". I do think though that the sentence should be rephrased. --Wildnox(talk) 01:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone who has truly observed the evidence noticed that the buildings fell in about 12 seconds, rather than the "free fall" time of 6 seconds.  (All sources to the contrary are from within the conspiracy theory "walled garden".)  The outside debris and visible collapse pattern occured at "free fall" speeds, as one one expect from debris which has separated from the structure.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 20:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Correction: 6.5s was free fall time for 7WTC, it was something like 9 for 1&2. The question here is not 'was it free fall exactly or slightly longer', but rather why wasn't it significantly (>2x) longer. SalvNaut 20:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Dr. Rubin is correct regarding the collapse time of the twin towers but not with respect to WTC7 (as the Polish gentleman correctly pointed out). This building did actually fall at freefall speed but was neither hit by an aircraft nor damaged by falling debris. According to the physics of moving bodies on the Earth, for such a building to collapse at freefall speed requires a huge amount of energy to overcome the mechanical resistance of the building's structure. Kerosine fires do not provide this level of energy. The fact that NIST have not come right out to testify to this fact demonstrates that they are being less than straightforward. That is why I say that any schoolboy of average intelligence could tell you that it is plain to see that WTC7 collapsed due to the energy of controlled demolition explosives. There is actually no other possible explanation according to known laws of physics. That NIST spokespeople have not told us this means that they cannot be trusted. That is why the NIST authors - who in their article scoff at 'outsiders' (ie. non-structural engineers) who provide explanations in accordance with known science - are in no position to guage the views of the 'mainstream scientific community'. In light of this one can see that the last sentence of the introduction is pure propaganda that seeks to avert an accurate appraisal of the facts. User:Langdell January 24th 2007. 22:14 GMT
Very funny. 
The claim that the laws of physics somehow preclude a tall, skinny burning building from collapsing the way it did is a smokescreen. As is the veneer of sophistication adopted by those whose real purpose is to argue that the U.S. government conspired to secretly destroy the World Trade Center complex and attack itself. The "physics" claims are debunked here.--Mr. Billion 18:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WTC7 was clearly hit by falling debris.  Whether it was damaged by falling debris is difficult to determine, as it did collapse. — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 19:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Was demolished" would be more accurate. 129.44.172.8 06:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Was demolished by falling debris"?  I could go with that.... — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 07:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not believe we can state WTC7 fell because ... or anything similar, it would have to be a statement that "It is believed ..." since as far as I recall the NIST has not even given their report on the matter. There is no "official" account of why WTC7 fell and how, just speculation. That is if you even take the NIST report to be "official" and factual. Please correct me if I am wrong however, I was informed the NIST would be releasing a draft at the beginning of this year. --NuclearZer0 13:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: propaganda

message: There is a dispute over Template:911ct; it should be removed until we reach some sort of consensus. Lovelight 04:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Protection is not an endorsement of the current version, the template stays while the pgae is locked. Cbrown1023 04:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Strange, but definitely useful. Lovelight 04:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Editprotected

message: I believe that Category:Alternative theories of September 11, 2001 attacks should be changed to Category:Alternative theories of September 11, 2001 attacks:*, as this is clearly the main article of that category.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 17:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cbrown1023 14:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what are you doing, but it appears that you are violating your own arguments? You denied any change to the template, and now you implemented some changes yourself? I'd suggest you revert this, or inform me where and how I can report this to some sort of higher authority. Lovelight 16:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong talk page.  If it's referring to , I added a few more 9/11 conspiracy theories and theorists.  You and Bov have been changing the purpose of the template.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 17:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was referring to the fact that CBrown dismissed my edit request on technicality, while the moment later he broke that technicality and enlisted your POV. So its about double standards, not about the conspiracies. Lovelight 09:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category sorting 

message: In Trivia "mr" should be "Mr." and "...." between Muslims" and "naturally" should be a comma as "...." generally means that text is being skipped over.
:Then do it (when the protection comes off). (P.S. please sign your comments with 4~s) Pjbflynn 22:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  typos that must be changed 

message: I have very serious concirns about this artical, it piles together a whole series of non-notibal theorys which contradict each other, many of which are presented as near fact, with very little explanation as to the fact that EVERY one has been destroyed by evidence, and experts. I would have put on the NPOV tag, but i can't. --Boris 1991 18:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be helpful if criticisms like this one were elaborated with examples. In this case, the best approach would be to point out the first example (starting at the top of the article) of a theory that is presented as a fact and/or without any mention of its being contradicted by official evidence and expertise.--Thomas Basboll 19:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course the theories are not just contradicted by official evidence, nor are they only in contrast to the "official account." Trying to frame them up as an alternative to "the official theory supported by the Bush administration" is at best tendentious. Tom Harrison Talk 21:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure there's a sense in which you're right. "Official" is part of the CT jargon, though, and most of us now konw what it means.  Like I say, whatever the criticism is, it's much easier to deal with if we have an example on the table.--Thomas Basboll 22:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I think when those sentences were written there was a section called "the official account" (now called "the mainstream account"). That section explained what CTists mean by "official" and how this differs from what most people believe happened on 9/11 (i.e., the "mainstream" account). (The best examples are probably the collapse of WTC7 or the existence of Vigilant Warrior: these are officially recognized but not really "mainstream" facts.) But are you saying that there isn't an official line on 9/11?--Thomas Basboll 22:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No doubt things drift as changes made in one place are not matched elsewhere. There isn't only an official account, and whatever official account there is, is not what the conspiracy theories stand in opposition to. To assert that there is (depending on context), is to promote the conspiracists' view that it's them against Dick Cheney. Tom Harrison Talk 23:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please say a bit more about this. I think the solution lies in a good section on what CTists are "against". You're right that to suggest it's Cheney and/or Bush is too narrow. (I'm not sure the article does that.) But I do think that the CTs are opposed to a more or less unified and well-established consensus about what happened. This consensus is made up of the evidence that Boris started this thread with: i.e., that which "destroys" the CTs. Surely to do that it would have to oppose them.--Thomas Basboll 23:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll check in again tomorrow. Maybe others have thoughts. Tom Harrison Talk 23:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The original "official story" section put in by me was meant to give the reader an idea of what the conspiracy theorists are disputing. It was not a Bush Administration theory so much as as it was renamed a mainstream consensus centered around the 9/11 commission and later the NIST findings. In that sense it was a general government theory. It was not meant to be very specific there could be some disagreements within the general consensus. Basically Al-Queda did it themselves without foreknowledge of the U.S. government and the buildings collapsed as a a direct and indirect results of the planes crashing. The non specific warnings were ignored due to a failure of imagination. In describing conspiracy theories we are describing their POV so by it's very nature our description of them will be have a POV and the theories will contradict each other. I do disagree that the evidence against the theories have not been presented. Most theories have cites rebutting them and the bottom of the article as a whole list of anti-conspiracy links.  69.114.117.103 07:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serious concirns 

message: In the section "Pentagon not hit by an airplane" there is a "citation needed" tag for the statement: The first person to suggest that a missile hit the Pentagon was Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in an interview on October 12, 2001 
The citation for this is:

Please input this, thank you. --NuclearZer0 00:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  Thanks for finding that citation. -- Natalya 01:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now include the quote of what he actually said in context, so the reader can see if "The first person to suggest that a missile hit the Pentagon was Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld..." is an accurate characterization. Tom Harrison Talk 14:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: "Conspiracists say the first person to suggest..." might work. Tom Harrison Talk 15:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like un-necessary specification without proper citation specifying who. How about: "The root of the missile theory lies in an interview given by Donald Rumsfeld on October 12, 2001 for Parade Magazine where he is quoted as saying ..." Since we know where the root is, we can say that factually without stating "conspiracists" which we cannot state are the only people to say it. --NuclearZer0 15:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The root is the pre-logical conviction that an event of such magnitude must have had a corresponding cause. The belief in a government conspiracy comes first, then the "evidence" to justify it. Tom Harrison Talk 15:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry but that sounds like a psychological statement without a citation. It also sounds like a blanket statement. Your proposed version states that only "conspiracy theorists" would state that Rumsfeld stated XYZ, which is clearly false. Any other reccomendations for wording perhaps? How about changing "root" to "start", since that is what the article states. --NuclearZer0 15:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you feel about writing: "The first person to suggest that a missile hit the Pentagon was, in fact, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who seems to have mispoken in an interview on October 12, 2001"? I think it leaves the wrong impression (and a rather strange one) the way it is, which suggests that Rumsfeld intentionally referred to a missile going into the building. (Even CTists take this to be a slip, right?)--Thomas Basboll 18:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While weasel words tells us not to use these statements I would settle on changing "seems" to "is believed". While I believe it was a slip and he meant the planes were used as missiles, we do not have a citation stating it was. --NuclearZer0 19:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Please add citation

message: The South Park reference should be moved to the "Trivia" section, as it offers no real criticism.--Harpakhrad11 21:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  South Park 

message: I propose the above name change, of course with a redirect from the current title. I believe, looking at the ongoing discussion, that no one in good faith can deny that the current title, although maybe formally accurate, is pejorative in nature. And, I wish to add, modern semantics states that the "meaning" of a term should include not only its formal referent(s), but also its social, psychological and historical implications as defined by pragmatics. So, in this sense the current title is probably not accurate enough. On the other hand, please refrain from presenting polls showing that, in some region/state/city, opposing views are actually held by a majority. Here, "minority view" is meant in the broadest possible sense, i.e. worldwide, or "a minority of in principle reliable sources and/or researchers". But meanwhile, it avoids the post hoc refutation that a source is labeled as unreliable because of the very fact that it supports a "conspiracy theory". I believe that this term is neutral, informative and accurate. 
I am unaware of whether this suggestion has been made in the past. Even if so, this is probably irrelevant because 1) it was probably done using different arguments and 2) the 9/11 events are the most important single event of the first decade of the XXI century, as almost all history from then on can be said to originate one way or another from it. Its significance is probably starting to fade about now or in a couple of years from now. So, it will be studied for centuries and many different interpretations will be given. And therefore, use of language regarding it will change, gradually losing its emotional and ideological aspects and becoming more and more scientific. So, even if this term was proposed and rejected say 2 years ago, which I do not know, I ask you please to write a rational rebuttal here and now and not refer to past discussions, even if your views on the title have remained identical.   Massimamanno 10:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Weakly opposed to the name change; strongly if it involves taking the article and the participants out of the relevent Conspiracy theory categories.  WP:NC(CN) strongly suggests that the most common name for the subject should be used, which is "conspiracy theories".  That guideline does offer an exception if the name is commonly considered to be offensive, which does not seem to be the case here.  "Commonly considered to be pejorative in nature" is not listed as an exception, and, in my opinion, should not be listed as an exception.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 19:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: "I am unaware of whether this suggestion has been made in the past." See the extensive archives, and the numerous proposals here, at WP:WTA, Conspiracy theory, etc.  "Even if so, this is probably irrelevant because 1) it was probably done using different arguments..." No, same one. "It's pejorative" has been done to death in all its variations. My position is that since they are conspiracy theories, and the reliable sources call them conspiracy theries, we should continue call them conspiracy theories. If you want more than that, please see the archives. Tom Harrison Talk 19:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am of course aware that name changes have been proposed in the past. I am not aware of whether this particular name change has been proposed. I did not find it in the archives, but I did not have time to check with extreme accuracy. In any case thanks for your rebuttal but I believe you should consider the fact that proponents of alternative explanations do not call themselves "conspiracy theorists". The line between pejorative and offensive is thin, and probably most people who in good faith believes having found facts which contradict the mainstream explanation find the term offensive. "Conspiracy theorist(s)" is used several times in the article, because of its title.Massimamanno 23:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed name change to "minority views on 9/11"

message: Does anyone feel like the article places too much emphasis on MIHOP theories, like controlled demolition, and too little on LIHOP theories, such as surrounding Bush's earlier orders to the Civil Air Patrol.  In fact, there are very few people who believe MIHOP theories, but the Zogby polls shows that quite a lot of people tacitly suppose LIHOP theories, so LIHOP its much more notable than MIHOP and should not be drowned out.  I don't know how to fix this, but the MIHOP types will always write more, so maybe the article can be split or else long MIHOP parts moved off into their own article?
For example, controlled demolition already has its own article so surely we can shorten its section here.  And surely theories about nukes or energy weapons don't deserve more than one sentence here (as they are part of that other article and quite a fringe thing).
Now most other MIHOP sections don't have their own article already, but they are long enough to survive as independent article.  Seperating some of the longer stranger ones will make the LIHOP stuff far more readable.  What do peopel think?  JeffBurdges 19:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LIHOP MIHOP? --NuclearZer0 18:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let It Happen On Purpose V Made It Happen On Purpose -- Lovelight 18:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gracias. I would think expanding this article first with as much information as possible would be the first step, once it overflows, then break the largest sections into their own articles and shorten them here into summaries of their larger articles. --NuclearZer0 18:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  An issue of emphasis 

message: With regards to the Silverstein's slip of the tongue and building 7: The FEMA report (May, 2002) states that: "no manual firefighting operations were taken by FDNY." Therefore the man couldn't have "Rescue Me" on the mind, now could he? And about Flight 93, why is there no reference to the Rumsfelds (mis)fortunate flow of thoughts? The man said: "the people who… …shot down the plane over Pennsylvania". Don't you think that such takes deserve to be enlisted in the article? Lovelight 19:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the silverstein line would go to support the idea of controlled demolition. If there is a section on planes shooting down the airliners, then the Rumsfeld quote should go in it, or a section created if it can be done by WP:RS standards and that quote used in that. --NuclearZer0 19:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Slips of the tongue

message: The citation used for that statement in this wiki article does not seem to contain that 'fact'. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.170.96.119 (talk • contribs).
:You mean the citation referring to the article "Five Israeli victims remembered in capital"?  I Googled around a little and found a dead link that could be resuscitated with Archive.org.  Here's the article. Can we get an admin to add this link to the article? --Mr. Billion 09:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems perfectly fine without the link to me, if the article actually contains that reference.  Other admins may differ, of course.  In any case, the correct way to request this is with the  template.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 14:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  5 Israelis died on 9/11? 

message: Since there is no quote I am not sure what this is reffering to, but since you reverted me I would also like an explanation for this one . Thank you. PS do not move this, MONGO states its the proper place for this question since its about the article and he will only answer it here =) --NuclearZer0 13:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Selective Quotes?

message: Dear Tom Harrison,
As I am not clever enough to use a talk page to correct the "9/11 Conspiracy Theories" article, I am appealing to you to correct what it says about me
In a Wikipedia article on “9/11 Conspiracy Theories,” the following false statement is made about me.
"Peter Dale Scott points out what he says are similarities between the assassination of JFK and the events of 9/11. Among many arguments he makes is that on September 11, at 9:59 the FBI already had names of 3 out of the 4 hijackers of Flight 93, at which time NORAD, according to the 9/11 Commission, wasn't yet aware that Flight 93 had been hijacked. (This Scott finds similar to the situation when Oswald's description was released immediately after the JFK assassination).[32]"
(“9/11 conspiracy theories,” Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories)
I accept full responsibility for having originated this error, because I did make this claim in an hour-long talk on 18 November 2007. However, as I no longer trust the source I used for the claim, I no longer make it. On the contrary, in my edited text of my remarks (posted on December 20, 2006) I restated my remarks about the FBI’s identifications on 9/11, to eliminate the reference to the Flight 93 hijackers:
"Now the parallel to that for 9/11 is, I have to say, even more astounding, because of Richard Clarke, who was director for counter-terrorism activities in the White House, and a very important eyewitness. His book Against All Enemies is almost totally ignored by the 9/11 Commission, and it had to be ignored by the Commission because it is at odds, in many important respects, with what the 9/11 Report says (which I will get back to). But he tells us that at 9:59 am on September 11, which is the time when the second tower collapses, the North Tower, the FBI already had a list of the alleged hijackers. [5] 
"This is extraordinary in the first place because the FBI always says about itself that it doesn’t do much intelligence in the field of terrorism; its specialty is criminal investigation afterwards. They had the names of hijackers at 9:59; at 9:59 am Flight 93 had not yet crashed. And even more astonishingly, if we believe the 9/11 Report (which of course on this point I do not believe), NORAD, which was searching for the hijacked planes, wasn’t aware that Flight 93 had been hijacked until 10:08, which is nine minutes later."
(“JFK and 9/11: Insights Gained from Studying Both,” by Dr. Peter Dale Scott, Global Research, December 20, 2006, http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=SCO20061220&articleId=4207)
It is clear that I am not now making the claim which the Wikipedia article attributes to me in the present tense, citing my original talk as given, but not my corrected text.
I would like to say that in general I am admirer of Wikipedia’s concept and process, and have belatedly come to use it as a research resource. I would say the same of the article on “9/11 Conspiracy Theories.” Even though there are many details in the article I disagree with,  I would commend the article on the whole as a conscientious collective effort to grope towards a consensus view.
But I do not now make the claim about the three hijackers on Flight 93 which the article attributes to me in the present tense. More importantly, I do not now believe the claim. I would therefore be grateful to have the entire paragraph removed, as it is a disservice to the truth. I trust I will not need to seek legal assistance towards this end.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.131.180.192 (talk • contribs).
::Should be easy to verify, have him edit his UC Berkely page to state this view and out it goes from the article. Other then that, no real way to verify an anons comments. --NuclearZer0 21:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on this request and the included link, I'm going to pull the paragraph. Tom Harrison Talk 21:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with that, I think it should be cited as past tense, till it can be proven the anon is real, espcially since that site doesnt meet WP:RS --NuclearZer0 21:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Maybe readd the paragraph but comment it out for now until we sort this out? --Wildnox(talk) 22:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I think Tom made the right call. In fact, anyone could have removed that paragraph on the ground that it is unreliably sourced and (as PD Scott points out) a more reliable source of Scott's opinions says something different (though allowing a similar conclusion). I don't think we should quote people from amateur video published online. It's mainly a reliability issue; but more generally I think we should not make such remarks binding by including them in an encyclopedia the minute they leave someone's mouth.--Thomas Basboll 22:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is this? As far as I can decipher, FBI acknowledged having a list of the hijackers… and that acknowledgment is now removed from the article? Lovelight 09:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a posting about it at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Possible COI to edit protected article. Tom Harrison Talk 13:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request from user talk page 

message: BBC are making a programme called 9/11: The Conspiracy Files to be shown on Sunday 18 February 9pm British time. It's receiving first page coverage on the website as well so might lead to wider interest. 80.47.81.214 15:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Text of proposed link, moved from September 11, 2001 attacks: BBC's Timeline: 9/11; Key events in the growing number of conspiracy theories surrounding the 9/11 attacks (Peter Grey 17:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to share, there are actually two different versions of that documentary. One will serve as the greatest whitewash in history; other could restore the faith in investigative journalism. Which one gets to be aired? Guess we'll know soon… Lovelight 00:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BBC programme 

message: This page has been protected for a while (since January 25).  Editing warring was over the template, but think/hope we are beyond that and we can try going back to semi-protection? --Aude (talk) 19:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Page protection

message: The contended UFO-reference offend obviously against the policy of No original research. Where is the context to 9/11? Please cite authors who try to debunk 9/11 conspiracy theories and who cite this poll as an argument. Otherwise we have a context implicated by wiki-authors, which is undoubtedly irregular!--87.78.80.234 18:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: UFO-reference

message: It's time to wind up this curiously paranoid phenomenon in the civil discourse of our times.  The conspiracy stories are all wrong.  All of them.  The government is not out to get you.  Never was.  Never will be.  There are sometimes things which happen which are particularly sad, and particularly hurtful to people who have already been victimized by tragedy, and so some of the saddest particulars are not necessarily discussed by responsible people, out of respect or general understanding that it is not their job to bring it up or go on about it.  They leave it for another time, for someone else to deal with when the time is right.  9/11 did, in fact, contain some of those sad elements.  None of them, however, involved government plans to do wrong.  Most of the conspiracy stories are simply paranoid, or at best total misinterpretations of the evidence.  One story, for example, which has been making the rounds is the Russo fright about the new identity cards.  If you are reading this, you are using a computer.  That means the government already has the means to do everything Russo says the identity cards will introduce as some sort of new threat to your personal security.  Has the government censored you, erased you, taken away your bank accounts, or otherwise done anything to interfere with your life?  No.  And they're not going to.  It's your government, for heaven's sake.  The only thing new about the identity card is this: it is hard to counterfeit, and should slow down identity theft and slow down counterfeit identity crimes.  That's about all.  The people who have believed in conspiracy stories will wake up one day and realize that they have been a bit crazy and made fools of themselves.  They have also scared a few people unnecessarily, at a time when we are all trying to overcome a real scary thing, which is the cult of radical religious violence.  Pull yourselves together and give your heads a shake... you've got a great country, and the many efforts your government has made, and is making, to establish your greater security, or prepare for possibly large sudden problems like 9/11 presented, may not be the most brilliant or may never be required, but at least they're trying to be a little bit ready for anything.  
I agree with the girl who said this discussion should be erased... a simple and direct suggestion from somebody with plain old common sense. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.216.236.248 (talk • contribs).
:Pih, what a stirring speech, benevolent government which let three thousand (six with that Iraqi escapade) of its own people to be killed. Identity cards? Call for censorship? What are you mumbling about? Weirdo… Lovelight 00:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An estimated 25 to 45 percent of the American Public disagrees with you making the 9/11 conspiracy theories a political phenomenon big enough to be article worthy period. It may be my government but it is made up of people most of whom want to help me some of whom are lazy and some of whom are evil. America is a great country but you seemed to have forgotten that the country was founded on great skepticism of government motives.  You talk of the cult of religious violence but if you bothered to read the article you will find that many 9/11 conspiracy theorist not only agree that it exists but it is the central point of many LIHOP theories. They talk about some government officials letting  it happen to wake the country up to the great danger this “cult” presents.   You say that  all of the conspiracy theories will be proven wrong but it will never happen even if 9/11 was solely a Bin Ladin inspired operation the world does not work this way. In short you are going to have to deal with it. I am not unsympathetic to what this entails. I hold a strong opinion that global warming is not caused by humans. This a small minority opinion these days. The media tells me my point of view is not reputable my friends ridicule me and in some cases relationships have been strained and it is not something I would bring up in a job interview. But unlike you I am not so arrogant as to tell Al Gore  to stop showing his movie  or ask people not to discuss the matter in front of me because it makes me uncomfortable . I DEAL with it and like or not you are going to have to do the same. 69.114.117.103 04:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Time For A Reality Check

message: Any suggestions?
*A 9/11 conspiracy virus is sweeping the world, but it has no basis in fact - George Monbiot
*9/11 fantasists pose a mortal danger to popular oppositional campaigns - George Monbiot
Tomandlu 09:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The second article hits on a point mentioned in the first that the 9/11 truth movement hurts the left so it might be overkill. I would put it on the bottom in the "Debunking Conspiracy theories" section. Also this belongs in the Loose Change article somewhere. This is important to put in because it does reflect the left wing version of the incompetence theory that is different in emphisis from the 9/11 commissions. This is a POV I am seeing expessed more and more often  69.114.117.103 11:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Where Should These Links Go?

message: I don't think the new title, with capital letters, is consistent with Wikipedia:Naming conventions. I plan to move it back. Tom Harrison Talk 13:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 15:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Beat you to it.  JDoorjam     JDiscourse 17:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page move 

message: This is a double post intended to increase the visibility of this talk.  I hope you don't mind I really want answers to this.
I didn't believe the conspiracy theories at first; but now I don't know.
I was hoping some of you experienced wikipedians can try to figure out why no one is questioning the passenger manifest.
The passenger manifest must be compiled before a plane takes off; yet the official passenger manifest fluctuated for over a month after 9/11.
What's more, the majority of the dead "passengers" have no family members coming forward to either accept government compensation or saying anything to the media, the blogosphere, and various other 'internets'. The people related to those dead at ground zero are very vocal in comparison.
Also, there are no arabic names on the passenger manifest. 19 arabic "hijackers" could not have snuck onboard all these planes.
Also, can somebody verify if two people who were reported dead on the plane (and their families recieved mysteriously undamaged id and credit cards) but weren't on the passenger manifest actually existed?
Please I think this is the most telling piece of evidence against the corrupt Bush administration.
Surely you've noticed, like I have, that the relative dearth of passenger relatives indicates a fabricated list of passengers!
:http://www.911myths.com/html/no_hijackers_on_the_manifests.html
:Geni 02:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Passenger Manifest 

message: Hey ho.
I know that the article is already very long, so maybe this detail won't make the cut.  But there is a new (to me) allegation that the BBC had foreknowledge about 9/11 or at least the demolition of WTC7.  There is a video allegedly showing a BBC reporter discussing the collapse of WTC7 twenty minutes before it occurred and with a standing WTC7 in the background.  
See www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/260207building7.htm]. Phiwum 13:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I should say that my above description is a bit misleading.  Some conspiracy theorists suggest that the government accidentally released a press release on the collapse early and that the BBC reported on it without question.  So this clip need not imply that the BBC was "in on it".  (As with most 9/11 issues, multiple interpretations are possible.) Phiwum 15:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The idea that the "mainstream|corporate|Jewish media" was in on it has a lot of currency. Maybe in the section Government foreknowledge. The section now is not limited to governments, so the title could be changed to just Foreknowledge. Tom Harrison Talk 14:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The BBC was in on it too! 

message: We're up to 114k, 72 seconds to download the total page over a 56K modem. We might want to start thinking of logical places to start splitting data out. Ronabop 06:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say we need to cut a lot of repetitive material, and remove things that are almost entirely promotional. We do not need yet more pages of conspiracism. Tom Harrison Talk 19:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Much more mundane, the page size

message: What is the issue with the inclusion of this refuation of the space beams?
"physicist Greg Jenkins has written a refutation of the energy beam claims in a letter Letters to the Journal of 911 Studies to the Journal of 9/11 Studies."
What is the violation?  Please explain.  bov 02:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Journalof911studies.com is only a reliable source for what its operator thinks. Tom Harrison Talk 02:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not talking about describing it as if "he says" it refutes it or "he refutes it," I'm asking why the content of the reference should be removed when J911S already cited all over many articles as a source for people's comments and papers. bov 02:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Maybe I'm misuderstanding. What do you want to change about the article? Tom Harrison Talk 02:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Inclusion of Greg Jenkin's reference

message: It is self-evident that the title is POV and a smear, since the word is a smear by definition. Although Al Qaeda terrorists did indeed plot to attack the U.S.(although they would not have succeeded without Administration complicity), saying this is so is not called "conspiracy theory," because "conspiracy theory" is a loaded smear to surreptiotiously call a claim false. This is obviously and heavily POV, and the issue was avoided in the debate through equivocation and side-stepping.
71.221.89.250 06:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Title of article is still blatantly POV

message: This is more egregious and more undeniably POV. Calling those who claim complicity "conspiracy theorists" is going far beyond merely titling the article "9/11 Conspiracy Theories." To label the claimants themselves as "conspiracy theorists" is to imply that anyone who claims complicity in the attacks, even when based on sound factual evidence, has at best a wild imagination or is at worst schizophrenic. It labels complicity claimants, who are actually a large proportion of the population, as commonly engaged in inducing "conspiracy theories," when this claim has not support whatsoever. It would thus be far more NPOV to call them "those who suggest Administration complicity" or "those who suggest Pakistani and Administration complicity," etc, whatever the case may be. 
The article is even written in a way that (intentionally?) repeatedly refers to the "conspiracy theorists," ramming it into the reader's mind that claims of complicity are paranoid nonsense, rather than simply stating the case as it is made.
71.221.89.250 06:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Calling complicity claimants "conspiracy theorists" (a separate issue from title)

message: In the "Basic Argument" section, the article mentions a "government employee by the name of O'Neill". Does he have a first name? I thought it was John P. O'Neill at first, which would have made for a hell of a conspiracy theory.SuperToad64 20:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who is O'Neill?