Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 15

message: The above paragraph [Conspiracy Theories--Railsmart] written by another person is incorrect / partially incorrect / The True Happenings on 9/11
I would like you to please view this video it is approximately 1 hour 20 minutes long and will clear up what really happened with both the pentagon incident and the twin towers incident. This movie is the best conspiracy video out there about the 9/11 events i highly recommend you watch the video.
Below is the address to the video in order to fully understand the video you must watch it all:-
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5137581991288263801&q=loose+change
:Yes, we can see it, and it was reverted. Is there a reason you're posting this here? --Golbez 18:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To spread the word of junk science, innuendo, misrepresentations of facts, solicit money...etc.--MONGO 04:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Loose Change asks some interesting questions, but unfortunately makes extremist allegations without a basis in evidence which then discredits itself, such as the idea that Flight 93 passengers were deboarded in Cleveland and then herded into an empty NASA research building, and then dissapeared.  Most 9/11 researchers do NOT support ideas suggesting that planes did not the WTC towers or that planes were swapped or that missiles were fired, etc., but Loose Change treats all of these the same as all the other questions, and thus misrepresents the hard work of many people to get the best questions out there which are much stronger, such as the question of why the jets weren't scrambled, the WTC7 collapse oddities, etc. Bov 18:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Someone put this in the article--[[User:Railsmart|Railsmart]] 17:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC) 

message: Recently a second lengthy quotation of bin Laden's denial in the September 11, 2001 attacks was added.  I recommend removing it.  In brief: it adds nothing to the article and it gives undue weight to the denial statements as being truthful. 
Bin Laden before September 11, 2001 boasted of his leadership of terrorist cells which had attacked the United States, and he made public threats against the United States, and consistently since December 2001 asserted al Qaeda as responsible for the attacks.
A double indirect statement (i.e. the BBC discerning "the street level in the Arab world") claims that the December 2001 tape in which bin Laden  boasts responsibility for the attacks is "faked".  This statement may reflect what the BCC believed the "Arab street" believed on December 14, 2001, but such an impression of a "faked" tape was transitory as bin Laden mocked the American armed forces attempting to capture or kill him in several tapes released throughout 2002.  This temporary doubt of authenticity is not relevant to the attacks themselves which is the subject of the article. patsw 04:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say to take it out...unless someone can prove that it is faked and that would be interesting to see.--MONGO 04:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "I am not involved" 

message: I saw the changes to the couple of sentences trying to describe conspiracies and would like go ahead with those.  Currently they do not reflect the actual theories:
1)  there *are* no other theories about why the towers collapsed outside of demolition, so it is not correct to say 'something other than the airliners.'  That suggests there are numerous ideas when there is really only one. 
2) while most people think that some people within the US government had some role, describing that as 'government involvement' is not entirely correct - no researchers I know of implicate entire government agencies, but numerous researchers implicate powerful financiers and others along with individuals within the government.  The way the section reads now implies that researchers think 'the' government is behind the attacks, or a government agency, etc.  This is not correct.  
current version:
"Almost immediately after the attacks conspiracy theories began to emerge. These doubts included speculation that the United States Government knew of the impending attacks and failed to act on that knowledge, and other theories of government involvement. Some researchers questioning the official account of 9/11 have speculated that the collapse of the World Trade Center was caused by something other than the airliners, that an airplane did not really crash into the Pentagon, and that United Airlines Flight 93 was shot down."
change to:
"Almost immediately after the attacks conspiracy theories began to emerge. These doubts included speculation that the United States Government knew of the impending attacks and failed to act on that knowledge, and other theories of government or other insider involvement. Some researchers questioning the official account of 9/11 have speculated that the collapse of the World Trade Center was caused by pre-planned explosives, that an airplane did not really crash into the Pentagon, and that United Airlines Flight 93 was shot down."
Also . . . this part "speculation that the United States Government knew of the impending attacks and failed to act on that knowledge" has an interesting twist in today's trial:
"FBI agents acknowledged under cross-examination that the bureau knew years before Sept. 11 that al-Qaida had plans to use planes as missiles to destroy prominent buildings.  They also acknowledged numerous missed opportunities in the months before Sept. 11 to catch two of the hijackers with terrorist links known to the government, even though the pair frequently used their own names in the U.S. to rent cars, buy plane tickets and even, once, to file a police report after one got mugged."
At what point does the fact that the agencies 'knew' stop becoming a 'conspiracy theory'?
Bov 07:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I recommend you place such information in the article 9/11 conspiracy theories--MONGO 07:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My point is that the description above is not reflective of the reality of the 'conspiracy theories.'  I'd like to change it as I've noted. Bov 17:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's unclear what claim is being made here.  If it is that there's only one alternative theory, that's not correct as there are several incompatible alternative theories. patsw 18:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The claim I'm making is that the way the paragraph is now, one would think there are several 'conspiracy theories' (not NIST or FEMA theories) specifically about how the WTC towers collapsed.  There is only one that I know of.  If you know of others besides demolition, please tell me what they are. Bov 19:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen people claim that missiles were used -- also that nuclear weapons were involved -- and don't forget Satan himself.  You also make it seem like there is only one controlled demolition theory -- when in fact I've heard of many different theories on the different demolition tactics.  I think to say that there is only one conspiracy theory is clearly false. -Quasipalm 20:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Description of conspiracy theories 

message: I've just did a quick review of the article and cleaned up the references, including removing some linkspam and dead links. All of the references in the article are now using [Wikipedia:Footnotes]] format. When editing the article and adding references, please use this format. Also, any erroneous linkspam will be summarily deleted without warning. Dr. Cash 21:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: General Linkspam Cleanup

message: I want to add this link http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/memorial/ to the section Victims and damage under external links. The link not only includes a list of names, but also provides submitted photos in tribute to the victims. What do you guys think? --Ryz05 22:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's an appropriate enough link, so I'm just going to include it. But if any of you have any objections, just let me know. Thanks. --Ryz05 22:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm okay with adding this link, though it does seems to significantly duplicate what's in the "CNN.com - 'Lists of Victims'" link.  Perhaps the link you suggest could replace the latter one, rather than expanding the number of links? -Aude (talk | contribs) 00:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the CNN memorial link could replace the CNN link that has just the names. Please delete the latter link at will. Thank you. --Ryz05 22:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 9/11 "A Memorial" link from CNN

message: I have just watch this video on conspiracies regarding 9/11 Video. I mean no disrespect to anyone who was affected by 9/11 but can someone watch the video and see if its claims are at all legitamite? Tutmosis 04:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the link ofcourse it didnt cover everything in the video. Tutmosis 14:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conspiracy Video 

message: "History is written by those who hang heros."
Check the sources of the current 9/11 post.  There is no scientific evidence to support these claims. Only that they are official.  Where is the pride? Wikipedia is suppressing the truth by not following its own content criteria rules.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About#Wikipedia_content_criteria  
What are you afraid of?  Look at the patriots of today, and ask if they are lying?
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Standish7 (talk • contribs) 
:Look...this is very important...we are just Wikipedia...you need to get ahold of the New York Times and the Washington Post and get them to look at this...I am convinced that they will have it on the front page of their papers just as soon as you get a hold of them.--MONGO 10:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The page Striver links to above is titled "Actor Charlie Sheen Questions Official 9/11 Story." Tom Harrison Talk 02:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, since Charlie Sheen says so, then all the rest of the evidence is null and void. Perhaps, as usual, Charlie Sheens comments were taken a bit out of context...I'd like to see the complete and original transcript. But even if he does belief there was govenernment coverup, it is just his opinion, and so what. A mediocre actor has an opinion, that would be a first I guess?--MONGO 02:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny, it calls him a credible source.  A credible actor certainly, I enjoy his movies.  A credible source for this subject, no.  And on his credibility generally, he thought Za ginipiggu 2: Chiniku no hana (1985) was a real snuff film, for one. Esquizombi 03:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Occams Razor 

message: http://www.september11news.com/InternationalImages.htm
:And they're all copyrighted. And we don't need them. --Golbez 06:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't see why. People can find them otherwise. I don't like linking to copyrighted material. --Golbez 07:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  need these photos 

message: A woman, her name was Debra Reeve, has just died of lung cancer from toxic dust inhalation from working near ground zero after the attacks. She is the 20th person to die long after the attacks and have her death blamed on the dust cloud from the collapsing building. This controversy has received a little bit of notice over the previous years, and there's a couple pending court cases of victims alleging that the dust cloud caused them health problems. Should these people be included in the death tally (putting the total over 3,000)? LockeShocke 15:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Victims of toxic dust inhalation 

message: I am new here, but after reviewing the archives, I see this guy MONGO having a monopoly on the "truth".  As I read WP, the truth is not what is purported here. Rather it presents viewpoints that are verifiable (reported by reputable published sources) or which have prominent adherents.  Yet MONGO et al muzzle viewpoints which have no less paucity and which are supported by similar or even more numerous verifiable sources.
I suggest that if a source is found in error repeatedly (an euphemism for caught in a lie) such sources should be discredited as a verifiable (using WP criterion above).  This alone should cut the size of these articles significantly.
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT PLANES CAUSED THE COLLAPSE OF THE WTC.  
:perhaps you mean "realistic models to cause the WTC to progressively collapse due to fires and loss of structural columns are non-existant"  insert be cnelson
The government NIST report, cited elsewhere in this WP article is very clearly not intended to FIND OUT WHAT CAUSED the collapse (true). As a matter of fact, it fails the WP criteria above, since this group it has no role, history or expertise in building collapse or airplane crash investigations (http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/nist_mission.htm), and its work was not peer reviewed. As a matter of fact (http://www.ntsb.gov/Abt_NTSB/history.htm), the one agency with expertise in both causal investigations and airplane crashes, the NTSB, was noticeably absent from the NIST "investigation".  The NIST study details one POSSIBLE way the collapse COULD have happened (wouldn't they have the best opinion since they had the most evidence?).
To state that the NIST concluded that the aircraft crashing into the buildings or the resulting fire CAUSED the collapse is a misrepresentation of that report.  The NIST report is a theory of how the collapse may have been caused by the crashes.  I suggest those advancing POV read the NIST report.
It's easily provable that this report wasn't an investigation at all.  NFPA 921, "Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations", clearly outlines the steps for a proper investigation in agreement with the scientific process. (Maybe this is obvious to me becase I was a U.S. federal investigator)
(excerpts of NFPA 921-2001)
2.3.2 Define the Problem.
...a proper origin and cause investigation should be conducted. This is done by an examination of the scene and by a combination of other data collection methods, such as the review of previously conducted investigations of the incident, the interviewing of witnesses or other knowledgeable persons, and the results of scientific testing.
2.3.4 Analyze the Data (Inductive Reasoning).
All of the collected and observed information is analyzed by inductive reasoning: the process in which the total body of empirical data collected is carefully examined in the light of the investigator’s knowledge, training, and experience.
This is not what was done. (tax payer $s at work)
Many are stating that there is not a shred of evidence for controlled demolition.  I posit that there is not a shred of evidence for airplanes or fire causing the collapse.  There are ample VERIFIABLE (by WP standards)sources for and which would justify the prominence of, a theory of explosives causing the collapse.  (I read not less than six stories detailing the trail of the israelis who high-fived each other as the buildings collapsed, whose van had traces of explosives, and some of which were identified as intelligence agents). how is that linked with a possible demolition of the WTC?
Just because a majority of people do not have the intellectual latitude to challenge the appearances, this should not rightly, or by WP criteria, cause other verifiable and credible hypotheses from being given equal weight.
One person even likened disagreement with the majority view as denying the Holocaust!  Hardly could I find more blatant dishonesty or partiality towards a single POV.  Apparently, some here are more concerned with squashing opposing viewpoints while serving as standard bearers for a pre-ordained story line!
Mudawangos 23:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow...no less than six stories about Israelis huh?  How many stories are there not involving Israelis? Squiggyfm 02:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's one. Well, unless you buy in to the Jews in Space theory. Tom Harrison Talk 03:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: That Prisonplanet website is a bunch of nonsense. You're just drawing at straws here. Prisonplanet...now that is a reliable reference source, for sure...not.--MONGO 22:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, CNN is so good that the prestigious Gallup Poll has decided to sever all times with them. Maybe now that network and Ted Turner can use prison planet as their pollsters. Alex Jones is more infamous than me...and always will be due in no small part becuase of his nutty ideas about all this controlled demolition and conspiracy junk.--MONGO 01:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: lol, yeah, you are right, CNN is no good as a source, they propbably are just as much of crazy tin-foil-hat nutcases as me and Alex for doing that article... --Striver 01:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I hear that chewing on tin-foil can really make your teeth hurt.  MortonsSockpuppet 01:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

text: lol, ill take that as a friendly joke :) --Striver 02:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Collapse.  Some really push their POV in the guise of fact. 

message: What do people think of my compromise edit? JoshuaZ 05:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be in favor of dumping the entire section. An encyclopedia should be an encyclopedia, not the National Enquirer. Regardless, your edit was a lot better than having other editors overwrite my alteration by completely reverting me. Maybe next time, I'll simply dismantle this entire article and rid it all of the nonsense and misinformation. Factual is not POV...no one, ah, no one has been able to provide any (that's any) factual evidence to support one single charge by the conspiracy theorists.--MONGO 05:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

text: We used to include a wikilink there to Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11.  I'm not sure who/when the wikilink was removed, but think the link should be there in some fashion.  Whether its Conspiracy theorists, Researchers, Amateur researchers, ... I don't have so much preference one way or the other. -Aude (talk | contribs) 05:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Common viewpoints are encyclopedic, and content in wikipedia is decided by WP:V and WP:NPOV generally, not WP:what the truth actually is. In this case, many people believe that there was a conspiracy, many people have written about it and discussed such ideas. It is similar to how we have articles about creationism and homeopathy even though they are complete junk also. JoshuaZ 05:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can live with the proposed changes. Though I still feel that conspiracy theorists is POV (regardless if you and I believe they are) because well, it is often used to discredit the views of others. People do not take the work of conspiracy theorists seriously. Whether you want to believe in them or not, it does not change the fact that some theories are presented by "researchers", though they may be "amatuer." And, it is POV to believe the acknowledged 9/11 story is 100% factual. Using the term "factual" denotes completely factual, it is not possible to say without a doubt that every component of the mainstream story is factual. Pepsidrinka 05:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Factual is not POV...I was at GZ for 6 weeks (9/15/01 to 11/4/01) and I have read a lot of the websites that disagree with the U.S. Government "version" and yet to see anything aside from POV. It is possible to say without a doubt that the U.S. Government findings are correct. Did you know that 600 reporters at least were on this story the moment it happened and none of them have found a single piece of evidence to support the speculation that there was a governement coverup, that there was controlled demolition or that Martians did it. Why wouldn't the press publish things that proved a coverup happened? Maybe the National Enquirer would. There is such a thing as editorial excellence and this article is far from it. WP:NOT, absolutely...we do not give weight to something that has no weight. Don't blind revert my additions again.--MONGO 06:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be interested in seeing your reference that makes the assertion that there were "600 reporters...on this story the moment" the first plane struck the first building. You being at Ground Zero for six weeks does nothing to convince me of your argument. And, I did not "blind revert" your edits, unless we have different definitions of "blind reverting". Once again, let me maintain that despite my views, please assume good faith that I am trying to maintain a NPOV instead of trying to push my own. Pepsidrinka 06:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You provide further substance to why I would not want you to be an admin. You may have well as rolled back my edit...that's what you did. 600 reporters, probably I am wrong...more like 6,000. I can find out and get a ballpark figure...does it have to be exact? How many would you guess were involved in questioning surviviors etc...your not being at ground zero does nothing to support your argument...got any proof that the "offical findings" are not factual? Why do I have to refute the findings all but the wackiest agree with and then have to provide the facts to you. You find me evidence that supports anything the conspiracy theory windbags have to sell, then we'll talk.--MONGO 06:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, no this wasn't the same as a rollback, because a rollback, as you very well know, leaves no explanation of why the revert took place. I also don't see how my current RfA has anything to do with this article. If you don't think I should be an admin, that is fine, make your voice heard loud and clear on the RfA page. Let's try to keep this page germane to the topic at hand. Now, it is obvious from your edit summaries for your resposnes to my comments (i.e., "bs" and "baloney") that nothing I can say will convince you to change your mind. Therefore, I'm going to leave the issue up to a consensus of editors on this page to decide whether either of our edits are POV or not, or whether another way of wording the sentence is better. Pepsidrinka 06:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think an admin candidate should call my edit POV when it isn't. It is the same POV of the majority of the world that has access to a free press, democracy, civil liberties and it is the findings of the 25,000+ federal, state city and reputable outside investigators that have worked on this case. It is so absurd that your complete reversion of my small change is both labelled as POV and that you summarily now argue that I am somehow POV with the use of the words "consipracy theorists" and "factual". No one has provided one ounce of verifiable proof that contradicts the findings of the these researchers. All the nonsense posted by those that refute the evidence is from non peer reviewed websites that list a few complete non experts who are armed only with their opinions. No, your continued inability to see that I am not POV when I support the factual and scientifically known explanation for the events of 9/11 gives me great pause...what did you think, that I made this stuff up?--MONGO 08:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Re: MONGO's comments - While I don't buy the conspiracy theories, we can't just cut the section and completely ignore their viewpoint.  It's a fact that some people (however small the minority) question the official, factual, mainstream... account.  We can't at all verify their theories, but we can verify that they say "x".  We just need to very briefly say that these people say "x", refer to the main conspiracy article, and leave it at that. -Aude (talk | contribs) 05:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I am not losing my balance, Zora. Thanks for questioning my motives. I have not threatened any others here...I would very much like to see some diffs on this matter. I am not at a high wikistress level and I do not appreciate your insinuation that this may be the case. I do not trust any admin candidate that reverts my simple change to this article in which I changed "amateur researchers" to "conspiracy theorists" and "mainstrean" to "factual". Pepsidrinka then edit summaries that this is a "story" andf that I am "POV". How on earth can I be the one who is POV when what I am writing jives with the findings by every reputable researcher on this planet, every free government, every country with access to civil liberties, a free press and a decent educational system? What part of WP:NOT do you not understand? Wikipedia does not give undue weight to things that have no weight. There is no weight aside from opinions that contradict the official findings. Now, had I comletely removed the link to the subarticle and the entire passage I could appreciate some raised eyebrows, but I didn't...all I did was alter the passage. Looks like you're picking sides, not being neutral.--MONGO 08:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conspiracy theorists. 

message: as for "using that photo as evidence is ridiculous since so many things could cause that puff such as structural collaspse starting to occur in that section", its not valid, since the fall was not even close to the puffs, the structural was 100% stable at the time of the puffs being ejected. It was at leas 20-30 floors in between the puff and the fall. Even if it was as you said, why did the force get ejected through a single window 20-30 floors below?--Striver 00:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: section break

message: There are some things that are difficult to explain.  
Anamoly #1 - The lobby of the South Tower
*An image containing frames from the following two videos 
*Timecode from 15 seconds to 30 seconds into this video
*45:14 to 45:45 in Loose Change (BTW, I don't recommend the video because it makes a lot of bad points)
Anamoly #2 - Multiple Puffs Occurring Below Collapse
Please explain C. Nelson 05:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's true...yeah...thanks to Uncle Sam.--MONGO 06:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

text: SkeenaR, I believe the BBC article was a simple mixup... the people alive had identical names with the hijackers.  It looks bad for the BBC, but I'm pretty sure I remember reading an apology.  In any case, here's someone that debunks it fairly well .  C. Nelson 04:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Explain these anamolies

message: Serious question: Is there any reason this line of argument is here and not 9/11 conspiracy theories or Collapse of the World Trade Center?  There is a certain value in catologuing the intuition-based misconceptions about structural failures (sort of encyclopedic and sure to be entertaining), but it's not clear to me where the best place is.  Not this article, obviously, but some consensus as to where it belongs might be helpful.  Perhaps there should be an article dedicated to the topic - people other than the conspiracy nuts are probably curious about it. Peter Grey 02:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you figure that...all your group is yapping about is conspiracy theory rhetoric so why bother trying to voice that here...it's not going to be put in the article.--MONGO 07:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, I meant 'Come on over' not 'Go away.' I follow both pages. Tom Harrison Talk 19:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Look at all the evidence, not just from shifty websites on the net. Not to sound like I'm equating Bigoot here...but if you try and google Bigfoot, you're going to find virtually no websites about that situation on the net that are reliable witness to Bigfoot. No proof exists for this being...none. There is a little tidbid here and another morsel over here...but none of it makes a meal. The same is true with the events of 9/11. Many folks are hateful of the U.S. Government, many are unhappy with the fact that the hijackers were Muslim extremists, many just want to believe the fantastic. I work for the governement...my employers are simply too screwed up to pull this off as a controlled demolition stunt...no covert operation could possibly have done it...it would have been infinitely easier to fake the Apollo moon landings. UFO's are more plausible than a government conspiracy or controlled demolition on 9/11. Charlie Sheen's personal opinion on this matter is worthless, as is the original research of all these conspiracy theory websites.--MONGO 07:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it would be a bit unfair to say that all the websites supporting something other than the U.S. government findings are totally devoid of any decent questions or hypothesis. I apply the National Enqurier approach...some of the stuff they print appears to be factual and authoritative...the rest doesn't, so where is the line drawn. How can we use private websites to anything other than quote..as this website says X and the rebuttal that claim...this is the main reason the conspiracy theory webpages related to this events exist, and  a big reason why I don't personally edit in them much. We would turn this article into a comment/rebuttal/coment on and on and it quickly becomes unencyclopedic. As far as the prison planet link you provide, it is the opinion of someone that may or may not be notable, but I don't see it as anything other than an opinion. He also mistakenly states that Tommy Franks resigned soon after the Iraq Invasion, which is not the case. He was still on board another year, and retired, not resigned, as he was a full general and it was time to retire or rotate to a desk job in Washington. I never once heard Franks say that the Iraq war was a mistake. I've also read that at least three Iraqi Generals claimed that the small stores of WMD's that Iraq did have were sent to Syria under the guise of humanitarian aid abord trucks and planes after Syria had a natural disaster. You knows about these kinds of things for sure.--MONGO 09:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry, but none of these non peer reviewed websites come close to the level of reliability of reports prepared by tens of thousands of investigators. As I said, the media would be all over this issue if there had been any conspiracy stuff to have any factual evidence to support it.--MONGO 01:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: What sources are you talking about...you mean the sources from silly websites that the average kindergardener would laugh at? Scott Ritter...ah yeah, the angry ex employee that not only did a lousy job, but got fired...that's the part THEY don't tell you...he was canned! So his revenge was to misrepresent what he found...and you're incorrect as the media was all over Scott Ritter's story soon as he went public.--MONGO 02:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Really, was he right? The facts that the WMD's are not there are linked to them not finding any. That  doesn't mean they aren't there, or that they weren't there...I think you're still trying to link the conspiracy theory stuff with Bush desire to go to war. It sure would be nice if any of these websites had any proof whatsoever...for if there were indeed government involvement with all this, I'd be most displeased. So please, provide some proof of government coverup...even simply collusion will do...I have yet to find any.--MONGO 02:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I have no problem discussing all you want about this matter, but as I said, I have examined the private websites with an open eye and I'm sorry, they simply are not based on much more than asking questions...they provide no answers and no proof. That doesn't mean they have no right to question any more than you or anyone else does.--MONGO 04:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lost conspiracies 

message: I'm not understanding what relevance this ongoing conversation has to improving this article. Perhaps you would like to take it to the conspiracy page? Wikipedia is not a forum. Please shift this to improving the article, rather than arguing over the physics of the matter. Putting this in to the article is, at present, non-negotiable. Work on the conspiracy article first. --Golbez 15:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The point

message: Or perhaps someone wants to refactor?  If people are still debating this during the summer, I'd be happy to refactor the archives... perhaps move all the conspiracy discussions to one archive.
I moved all the discussion to Archive 15, aside from this one and the latest thread.--MONGO 09:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: Normal nick 03:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: In Favour of Moving This Talk Section Somewhere Else

message: Normal nick 03:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: In Favour Archiving This Talk Section