Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories/Archive 16

message: Others go further to suggest that 9/11 was part of an international Jewish conspiracy.
Needs to be changed to
Others go further to suggest that 9/11 was part of an international Zionist conspiracy.
Zionist is not this same as Jewish and the majority of conspiracy theories regarding Israeli involvement identify the international aspect to be Zionist in nature rather than involving world Jewry.
If this change cannot be done and even it if it you must add citation needed next to this specific claim as I have said it does not reflect the majority of conspiracy theories that mention Israel. So in summation, the identification of Zionists as a culprit in 9/11 conspiracy theories is more pertinent and in fact a more widely held view amongst said theorists than the identification of Jews as a culprit and thus it would be more reflective of reality to mention Zionist rather than Jewish if a choice must be made between the two. A sound compromise would simply be the inclusion of 'the Zionist culprit' viewpoint.
Maybe change the heading to Claims related to Zionists and Israel or Claims related to Zionism and Israel or even Claims related to Jews, Zionism/ts, and/or Israel.
:I have now made this change.  Please sign and date your comments.  Thanks,  Corleonebrother 17:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Claims related to Jews and Israel

message: This and other articles use the terms 'official' account and 'mainstream' account inconsistently and I see there has been a small edit war changing one to the other.  Currently, this article states that the two terms are equivalent.  If this is correct, which one should we be using here?  If this is wrong, what is the difference between them?  Corleonebrother 18:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say that mainstream should be used except when referring to the reports of government agencies and commissions, such as FEMA, NIST, and the 9/11 Commission.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs) 20:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say that official should be used as the word mainstream carries the connotation that it is a majority view. It is clear that the "official" account taken as a whole is a minority view (according to RS polls 36%) and you only get a majority if you include those who generally accept the official account but believe the government is covering up some aspects. Wayne 09:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That poll refers to those (36%) who believe the mainstream view in all details.  If one disagrees with one detail (whether there was molten metal or mearly glowing embers on an apparently liquid surface), one would not be counted in that 36%, if I recall the poll correctly.  Each component of the mainstream view still apparently has majority agreement.  It should be noted that all mainstream media agree, in general, with the position, so "mainstream" is still clearly appropriate.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 15:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I already said that was what the 36% was. I object to you saying "all mainstream media". All may apply to American media but definately not international. I also point out that one mainstream US reporter who until recently was particulary scathing of conspiracy theorists (as insulting to victims) has now apologised and offered to support 9/11 "truthers" after doing his own research. Using "insulting victims" to debunk conspiracies is particularly insulting to them considering many victims families and rescue workers are active in the "truth" movement. The offical view may generally have majority agreement but it is not a large majority as implied by POV editors. This is why we need to give equal time to all theories, the official version is just one of several and to call it mainstream implies accepting it 100% for which there is no majority. Wayne 07:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, what I intended to say was that we should use "official" only when referring to specific official reports, and "mainstream" referring to the generally accepted view.  That makes the choice more clear, as well. — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 14:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Official" and "Mainstream" 

message: I would like to invite User: Exander who made this consistent deletion without providing justifications or having discussed it to try to do it now.--Pokipsy76 19:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I can't speak for Exander, but the paragraph would need to be cited - also it would be better placed under 'Allegations of Cover-up' (a section which needs to be expanded anyway).  Corleonebrother 20:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So do you suggest to restore the paragraph in that section and add the "fact" tag?--Pokipsy76 20:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No - it looks ugly doing that - why not just cite the facts before putting it in?  There are nine references bunched together in the first paragraph of that section.  We need to use them to turn that paragraph into something like the paragraph you have (and more), putting each reference next to the sentence that it applies to.  Have a go and maybe put it here so that we be sure no-one objects first.  Corleonebrother 21:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The deleted paragraph would need some reliable sources explaining what it is trying to say. Listing hand-picked semi-facts and vague hints in the hope that the reader will draw the desired wrong conclusions and thus become dumber is routinely done by certain web sites; it is not an appropriate device for an encyclopedia. Are there neutral, balanced sources that discuss the issues in the deleted edit, and consider and explain their relation to each other? WP:NOR please. Weregerbil 15:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unjustified deletion 

message: The large number of exterior links might be better handled by creating a separate page for organizing these links in a list, and having a fewer number in this main article. More links to more conspiracy resources and skeptical/debunking material could then be provided on this subsiduary daughter article. Comments?--Filll 18:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd rather not see any more articles on 9/11 conspiracy theories - we have too many already. I do think the external links should be pruned way back. Part of the problem is the over-reliance on primary sources. Tom Harrison Talk 18:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Having checked Tom's edits, I see he has done an incredible yeoman's job of editing these conspiracy articles. It is absolutely staggering what he has contributed. I am duly impressed. However, be that as it may, I still would love a comprehensive list as a resource here.--Filll 19:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion - External Links

message: I am suggesting an addition under the subject of the theory of a controlled demolition, specifically the piece about the BBC reporting the collapse of Building 7 before its actual collapse. Richard Porter of the BBC offers a response on their own website to the 'misjudgment'. It is a very dodging response and I think clarifies their position in some regards.
So:
Richard Porter, head of news, BBC World, offered a statement concerning the news broadcast (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html).
----Leaf, 14:28, 16 September 2007
* Agreed Edkollin 06:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BBC's response to Building 7 collapse report 

message: ===Arabs involved in 9/11 "cooperated" with Zionists===
In an August 30, 2007 interview on the Hezbullah TV network former United States Senator James Abourezk stated that "the Arabs who were involved in 9/11 cooperated with the Zionists. It was a cooperation. They gave them the perfect excuse to denounce all Arabs."http://www.memritv.org/clip_transcript/en/1551.htm
I do not understand why this is repeatedly being deleted.  The person as an ex Senator is notable. One deleter interpreted that the Senator was trying to say that the Arabs involved in 9/11 unintentionally helped the Zionists. This may or may not be true but it is not up to us to try to interpret what he “meant” to say that is Original Research. The ex Senator used the word cooperated not once but twice.   He never said “unintentionally” or “ironically” or any other qualifier. As far as I know he has not made a later statement clarifying his remarks. We have to go by his words which fits the definition of a 9/11 conspiracy theory whichever way you want to look at it. If somebody can come up with a cite where the man clarifies his remarks I will gladly agree that this is not article worthy. Without that clarification his statement belongs somewhere in the article Edkollin 05:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't speak for the people actually doing the removing, but my opinion is that this article isn't (or at least, shouldn't be) a repository for every kind of conspiracy theory. Indeed, the senator in question may be notable, but his statements themselves aren't necessarily notable. That's my take on it. There needs to be some reliable source showing that this quote isn't just one person airing his views. But you'd have to ask the actual deleters to find out their reasons. --clpo13(talk) 06:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. This comes under the BLP as it shows a biased opinion. Also the source is not notible and even if such a source is found, it should be reliable and should be supported by other reliable secondary sources. Refer to BLP guidelines.Farqis 12:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I am coming to this discussion late but the article should include all 9/11 conspiracies regardless of merit as long as there is a reliable source quoting a believer.  This article is not a forum for convincing people of a viewpoint, but a collection of theories.  I suggest checking out Masonic conspiracy theories for an example.--Adamfinmo (talk) 09:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Whis is this being deleted?

message: In an August 30, 2007 interview on the Hezbullah TV network former United States Senator James Abourezk stated that "the Arabs who were involved in 9/11 cooperated with the Zionists. It was a cooperation. They gave them the perfect excuse to denounce all Arabs."http://www.memritv.org/clip_transcript/en/1551.htm
I do not understand why this is repeatedly being deleted.  The person as an ex Senator is notable. One deleter interpreted that the Senator was trying to say that the Arabs involved in 9/11 unintentionally helped the Zionists. This may or may not be true but it is not up to us to try to interpret what he “meant” to say that is Original Research. The ex Senator used the word cooperated not once but twice.   He never said “unintentionally” or “ironically” or any other qualifier. As far as I know he has not made a later statement clarifying his remarks. We have to go by his words which fits the definition of a 9/11 conspiracy theory whichever way you want to look at it. If somebody can come up with a cite where the man clarifies his remarks I will gladly agree that this is not article worthy. Without that clarification his statement belongs somewhere in the article Edkollin 05:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't speak for the people actually doing the removing, but my opinion is that this article isn't (or at least, shouldn't be) a repository for every kind of conspiracy theory. Indeed, the senator in question may be notable, but his statements themselves aren't necessarily notable. That's my take on it. There needs to be some reliable source showing that this quote isn't just one person airing his views. But you'd have to ask the actual deleters to find out their reasons. --clpo13(talk) 06:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. This comes under the BLP as it shows a biased opinion. Also the source is not notible and even if such a source is found, it should be reliable and should be supported by other reliable secondary sources. Refer to BLP guidelines.Farqis 12:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I am coming to this discussion late but the article should include all 9/11 conspiracies regardless of merit as long as there is a reliable source quoting a believer.  This article is not a forum for convincing people of a viewpoint, but a collection of theories.  I suggest checking out Masonic conspiracy theories for an example.--Adamfinmo (talk) 09:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Arabs involved in 9/11 "cooperated" with Zionists

message: I placed a link to a new debunking site in the proper place on this page. It gives a critical examination of a group listed on this page, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. The link was deleted for no good reason. It is not misleading. It is in the Opposing Conspiracy Theories link section, and its description makes clear that it is not affiliated with Richard Gage's group. It should remain.--Joseph.nobles (talk) 02:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: AE911Truth.INFO - Debunking site for AE911Truth organization

message: Can someone put a poll summary into the article, for example http://www.scrippsnews.com/911poll (or perhaps something better)? I think, how widespread those theories are is very important information about them.
On an unrelated note, i think, the "controlled demolition" should be removed from the intro, since it has its own section. The article i linked above also says it is believed only by 16 out of 36 conspiracists, which doesn't qualify as "most of them". 80.109.194.224 22:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's another on MSNBC website. Farqis 13:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have an article dedicated to them: 9/11 opinion polls.  No need to choose a single poll to mention, when you can just link to the article that describes all the major ones.  Corleonebrother 14:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: polls?

message: :Image:South WTC Collapse.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 08:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The relevance is OR, unless also referenced by a conspiracy theorist.  Otherwise, it's just WP:SYN. — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 20:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My reason for adding it was that the section currently implies that it is something never done before and is only technically feasable. I suggest that to make it more NPOV some mention should be made that military use of remote control for large aircraft is a fact and to use the link for that instead of detailing the actual event. Wayne 09:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, a 737 is five times bigger than an RQ-4 by max takeoff weight. <eleland/talkedits> 00:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:South WTC Collapse.jpg

message: Possible support for the practicality of the "remote control" theory is given by the remotely controlled flight of the Global Hawk, a jet powered aircraft of similar size to a 737 which took off from Edwards Air Force Base on the west coast of the U.S. and flew non stop to, and eventually landed at, RAAF Base Edinburgh, South Australia without a pilot in April 2001Global Hawk Makes Historic First Unmanned Flight To Australia Spacedaily April 24, 2001.
The material deleted (above) seems to be relevant to the topic.
You said "Arthur Rubin (Talk | contribs) (Revert as OR without some Truther claiming that as a reference. Undid revision 162613683 by WLRoss (talk))" 
===== whatever THAT means.  I can't locate "WP:OR."  Are you claiming
it's "original research?"  It appears to be paraphrasing a news item, which is referenced.
Wowest 10:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The relevance is OR, unless also referenced by a conspiracy theorist.  Otherwise, it's just WP:SYN. — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 20:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My reason for adding it was that the section currently implies that it is something never done before and is only technically feasable. I suggest that to make it more NPOV some mention should be made that military use of remote control for large aircraft is a fact and to use the link for that instead of detailing the actual event. Wayne 09:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, a 737 is five times bigger than an RQ-4 by max takeoff weight. <eleland/talkedits> 00:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arthur Rubin: what is THIS deletion about??? 

message: The article which claims that cell phones do work in Airplanes mentions cell phone calls during take off and landing, and cell phones being turned on mid-flight.  These are radically different---obviously the writer of this section of the article is trying to put their own opinion on this section and not providing a honest look at this theory.  The writing style is ridiculous as well---it biases the reader by first claiming that only select people say it will not work, but that a University claims that it will, even though the source is ridiculous.  Might I ask---US Government involvement in the creation of this article?  166.70.99.93 05:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a pre 911 scientific study on cell phone usage in aircraft. It has all the calculations and percentage chance of a call being connected at different altitudes/speeds. This is probably where claims the cell calls were faked comes from as I remember it said chances of calls connecting were very low in the conditions applicable to 911 (I think 10,000 feet was maximum altitude where you had a chance to connect). I'll see if I can find it. Wayne 09:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, thank you very much.  I have been looking over the Wikipedia article and it really does not do justice to any of the conspiracy theories---it seems to throw all of them down instead of explaining them.  An encyclopedia entry should explain things, not explain why they are wrong!  Especially not this close to the event; we do not really know what happened in a historical event until at least 70 years past the date.  166.70.99.93 23:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It should throw them down if they are false, as they all are. The point is NPOV, which is different from gullibility. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree but they have not been proved to be false. Assuming they are is OR. The problem is that the article is biased towards discrediting CT's while downplaying any evidence for their credibility. For example one sentence lending some support to the possibility of a CT quotes the source as saying "extremely difficult" which gives credence to the OT when in fact the source actually says "impossible" which gives credence to the CT. I edited it but can guarantee that some anti-conspiracy freak will undo it even though it is 100% accurate as it now reads. Manipulating text to discredit CT's only proves that there must be either some substance to the CT claims or a lack of evidence for the OT. I'm all for proving what happened and discount most CT's myself but I still support NPOV treatment even if it conflicts with what I believe. After all....I may be wrong. Wayne (talk) 07:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Dewdney is generally considered competent, but it was and is true that the US cell-phone network and the Canadian cell-phone network use different modulations. — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 18:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: David Ray Griffin also has something relevant to say about these calls, here:
http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2007/10/08/01871.html
Wowest 19:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said, Dewdney is generally considered competent.  Any inferences I'm making about Griffen are purely intentional.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 19:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the official account, Flight 93 made at least 6 air phone calls yet according to Boeing, Flights 93 and 77 did not have air phones fitted. This means any calls from those two aircraft had to be from cell phones. Then we have another strange discrepancy between the official account and the testimony the FBI gave at the Zacarias Moussaoui trial. This goes to the claims cell phones can't connect at high altitudes. Most of the calls were supposedly made at over 30,000 ft. At the Moussaoui trial the FBI's report on the calls from the planes showed only 2 "cell phone" calls actually connected on United 93 and both were made at less than 5,000 ft at 9:58am. US solicitor general Ted Olson said he received two calls from his wife on Flight 77, yet the FBI's testimony at the trial was that Barbara Olsen made one attempted cell call which never connected. I hope someone can prove me in error on this as I can't believe the media would not have picked this up. Wayne 01:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is inaccurate.  Boeing 757s did, in fact, have airphones at the time.  There is a lengthy discussion about this on the JREF conspiracy theories sub-forum, complete with documents and other evidence that show that the phones were not deactivated or removed from the planes until some time in 2002 or 2003.  I haven't time at the moment to find a precise link to the discussion for you but you can find it by going to www.randi.org then to the forums, then to the Conspiracy Theories sub-forum, and conducting a search. Jazz2006 01:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, what is INACCURATE is your strawman claim - Boeing itself has confirmed that the American Airlines 757s did not have air phones installed. Perhaps many other 757s did, but not those of American Airlines.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.190.83.161 (talk) 03:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I just edited to show flight 77 had no cell phones based on these two references (add either as notes if you need to) which are included in David Griffins book:A pilot had written to AA asking about the airphones on flight 77. He passed this reply he got from AA to David Ray Griffin who then telephoned Chad Kinder to confirm it's authenticity. Kinder said he could not specifically recall having written it but probably did as “That sounds like an accurate statement.”Dear Mr. XXXXXXXX:Thank you for contacting Customer Relations. I am pleased to have the opportunity to assist you. That is correct we do not have phones on our Boeing 757. The passengers on flight 77 used their own personal cellular phones to make out calls during the terrorist attack. However, the pilots are able to stay in constant contact with the Air Traffic Control tower.Mr. XXXXXXXX, I hope this information is helpful. It is a privilege to serve you.Sincerely,Chad W. KinderCustomer RelationsAmerican AirlinesThe American Airlines Boeing 757 Aircraft Maintenance Manual (757 AMM) dated January 28, 2001 states that the passenger phone system for the AA 757 fleet had (by date of issue) been deactivated. Wayne (talk) 12:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cell phone source 

message: I have reverted Arthur Rubin's edit supporting the notion that the Times 
of India is "mainstream media." It simply isn't. It's foreign media. Nobody in the 9/11 Truth Movement or attached to any other 9/11 "conspiracy" movement would so label it, as there is no evidence that The Times of India systematically suppresses stories which would be embarrassing to the Military Industrial Complex, the CIA, the Federal Reserve System, the state of Israel or the owners of American print and broadcast media. Wowest 15:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide a reference specifically stating that that it's not mainstream, or that someone calls it non-mainstream, or leave it out entirely.  The Orange County Register is non-mainstream, if you were to use the definition you are implying here.  In fact, there may not be a "mainstream" publication under that definition.  (Besides, you said "mainstream" rather than "corporate".)  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 17:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claim for '''Times of India''' being "mainstream corporate media" 

message: Stating that accusations of Israels involvement is anti-semitic is completely wrong.
Number one, Israel is a nation which should follow the same rules as any other nation. The idea that questioning a nation is somehow religious hatred makes a mockery of freedom of speech.
Number two, the majority of jewish people do not descend from Semites, they descend from Khazarians.
Somebody needs to change that, it's ridiculous and purposely attempting to discredit the truth movement, which currently has a lot more supporting evidence than the official conspiracy theory.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.37.85.196 (talk) 09:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made further changes to separate the Israeli involvement claims from the anti-Semitic theories.  Corleonebrother 17:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  An absolute joke 

message: There was a reference to Purdue being an independent researcher that has validated the official WTC collapse. However this study has many problems to it. These are not mentioned in the article.  
http://www.911blogger.com/node/9467  —Preceding unsigned comment added by El Juche (talk • contribs) 02:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism of the Purdue Study 

message: The article states "MIHOP ("made it happen on purpose") - the strongest version suggests that key individuals within the government planned the attacks and collaborated with al-Qaeda in carrying them out."  While many conspiracy theorists make this claim this theory is far from universal. Plenty of theorists claim that Bin Ladin was a sick man living in a cave and thus could not have carried out the attacks Edkollin 05:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collaboration with Al Qaeda 

message: "Odigo traced the Internet address of the sender and gave it to the FBI." Odigo says workers were warned of attack Haaretz September 26 2001
Up to that point, the statements are supported by the Haaretz article,
but the following three assertions are not:
"The warnings did not specifically mention the WTC attacks 
but said that "something big" was going to happen in a certain amount of time 
and ended with an anti-Semitic slur."
In particular, the last allegation makes no sense at all. It may be OR or SYN. Wowest 07:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reference for all three assertions is a statement by Odigo's vice president Alex Diamandis in the Washington Post on October 4, 2001 on page 24 (not online). In fact the message never mentioned an attack at all just "something big" which can be assumed to mean an attack. The actual wording of the message has never been released. I feel it is important to keep in the article as many use the message as a reference for a specific warning of the 911 attack to Jews (from Jews?) when in fact it more of an vague threat directed at Jews and likely unrelated to 911. I have read somewhere that the FBI did track the ISP and discounted it, although by refusing to disclose the sender the FBI have provided another point the conspiracy theorists use. Wayne 12:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warnings given to individuals -- unsupported assertions 

message: I recommend to put information about laser guided plane on the site. On YouTube there is a video named 2nd hit - "laser dot shot" which assumes that the plane which crashed into the south tower was a laser guided plane. The address of the video is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xB0msfbPecE Manmanwiki 08:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have more reliable sources than a youtube video, go ahead.  Even a blog is more reliable than an unsourced youtube video.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 08:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claims relating to the hijackings 

message: :Image:Noseoutframe.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 05:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Noseoutframe.jpg

message: This article doesn't mention the $200 million worth of gold (or however much it was) that was discovered around November 2, 2001, like a day before the FDNY was pulled from the site.  And then Giuliani ordered the debris - that still contained remnants of people - to be trucked away.
Knightskye 07:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's probably because the first mention of it was here.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 08:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:BE BOLD and add it...if you have a source for such a claim. — BQZip01 — talk 19:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Mention of Gold Found At Ground Zero 

message: Making the article shorter than the article about 9/11 might be nice.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.195.45.75 (talk) 01:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article starts off pretty ridiculous, being an article on the twoofers, but what's more ridiculous is it uses twoofers as sources of information. They do that a lot. Alex Jones will claim something, citing Steve Jones, who uses Alex Jones as his source. One thins for sure, you will never be able to figure out who started most of this horse crap. ~~  —Preceding unsigned comment added by D a r l i n g f a c e (talk • contribs) 02:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions for improving the article? 

message: I've heard that Dubai banks helped finance the 9/11 attacks and that Osama bin Laden, and other al Qaeda, did visit Dubai from time to time. I wonder if there's a connection between Dubai and 9/11. 68.36.214.143 (talk) 18:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Connection between Dubai and 9/11?

message: Based on reading these talk pages it appears to me that the opinions of most editors range from disagreement to contempt toward the theories being written about here. I thought it would have been the other way around. I am curious as to why I am wrong about this. I do not want this to get into the tired old "bias" arguments.Edkollin (talk) 18:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of us are sensible. <insert smiley here>. — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 19:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Many sensible (conservative?) editors don't require unambiguous evidence in support of the OT so have no problem discounting the possibility of CT's <insert smilie here>. They still do good work though in controlling the more extreme CT views. Wayne (talk) 01:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

text: That 1/3 includes those who believe the reports were incomplete (which may include me), even if they don't think the conclusion could differ, or that there was some US government incompetence which allowed the attacks, I believe.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 16:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While we are talking about polls a new Scripps Howard one came out over the weekend which I have added to the 9/11 opinion poll article asking about several CT's including 9/11. 32% said it was very likely that "some people in the federal government had specific warnings of the 9/11 attacks in New York and Washington, but chose to ignore those warnings". 30% felt it was somewhat likely 30% felt it was unlikely and 8% was in the don't know/other bracket. Would the fact the survey was released Friday on Thanksgiving weekend be a conspiracy of some sort<insert whatever you like here>? Back on topic it is quite a leap to assume the Wikipedia 9/11 CT article editors opinions would reflect the American public at large. Not all of the editors are American for one. Edkollin (talk) 06:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

text: But thinking that the U.S. government had an inkling before the attack is far from controlled demolitions, directed energy beams, no planes, and a holographic WTC. I think the polls are taken wayyy out of context. Kevin (talk) 15:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While you're at it, directed energy beams, a holographic WTC and no planes at the WTC are "far from" controlled demolitions and no jumbo
jet crashed at the Pentagon. Please don't conflate those things. I note that the survey only questions the LIHOP theory. I opine that most of the Truth Movement supports the MIHOP theory. Maybe we need more of a hierarchy of theories here. Some theories require senior, supporting theories. The OTC only requires ignoring the history of the CIA.Wowest (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 00:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

text: "Since a radar hub emits high flashes of light ..." ?  Only those in commercial use, not the alleged military ones here.  Using Top Gun as a source, indeed.   I see we have one of the pod people here.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 17:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't get your knickers in a knot. I'm just saying all of your polls that 9/11 truthers hold so dear, most of them are taken out of context. Kevin (talk) 03:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The new poll was designed to test belief in conspiracy theories in general not 9/11 conspiracies in particular. There was only one 9/11 question with no follow up. The survey did what it was designed to do it found widespread belief in conspiracy theories. The 9/11 question at best hinted at widespread belief in 9/11 conspiracy theories. You can draw no conclusions at all from the survey as to why 62% of the public believes officials did not act on "specific" advance information Edkollin (talk) 07:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, it would primarily be measuring the lack of trust in the U.S. Government since, say, 1964, although rare, earlier usages of the term "conspiracy theory" can be found dating back to 1910 or thereabouts. The meme has the built-in connotation that there is something wrong with believing such a thing. Wowest (talk) 10:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Basically agree that this is what the poll reports. But the news service reported it as "Selected results from a Scripps poll about conspiracies" so we have to use the cites wording Edkollin (talk) 20:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmmmm Interesting explination. To me the ultimate skeptic in a broad sense is a person who believes his own government would try to murder his fellow citizens. I understand why a non-believer might be a better editor but I would figure a believer would have more interest in the topic and thus more "staying power" not lessEdkollin 17:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Viewpoints of other 9/11 CT theories editors surprises this editor

message: I've restored the link to Tobias Jaecker's well written Netzeitung article.  Jaecker is a bone fide print and broadcast journalist, a producer and editor for Radio Eins Berlin who has spent some time on secondment to Chicago Public Radio.  His commentary, in German, complements his 2004 monograph: "Antisemitische Verschwörungstheorien nach dem 11. September. Neue Varianten eines alten Deutungsmusters" (Münster: LIT Verlag) ".  This fellow isn't just some loudmouth with a blog.  Google makes a decent effort of translating it into understandable, if not perfect, English. --Tony Sidaway 18:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tobias Jaecker

message: I think this article doesn't associate conspiracy theories enough with anti-semitism, a proven effective way of preventing people from taking the time to investigate these nutty claims. It could also use some extra straw man arguments about UFO's and secret weapons perhaps. On a side note, I'd like someone to explain to me why the theory about some Arab's conspiring to bring 2 buildings down and damage a third isn't a conspiracy theory. Joehoe665 (talk) 18:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some suggestions for improvement of this article 

message: The article claims that "Rudy Giuliani—whose presidential candidacy is steeped in 9/11 iconography—has been doing business with a government agency run by the very man who made the attacks on 9/11 possible." The detailed article is about his consulting firms relationship with Qatar. The article does not accuse Giuliani of a 9/11 conspiracy directly therefore it is probably not article worthy at the moment but the 9/11 conspiracy theories article does deal with the Bush-Bin Laden family relationship. What we would need is a reliable or notable source using this article as "proof" of a conspiracy. I decided to discuss the article because of its possible future use and I guessed this is a topic that editors would be interested in . Edkollin (talk) 22:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't look related to 911 other than a case of a Presidential candidate putting greed ahead of a moral obligation he claims to be following. The Bush-Bin Laden relationship on the other hand deserves inclusion as it was (if OBL was behind it) an enabling factor in 911. Wayne (talk) 02:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Village Voice]] Article about Giuliani Business ties 

message: The word 'conspiracy' has a negative connotation to it, and people neutral to the subject may come to this article and think such theories to be bogus from the start because of the title we give them. Perhaps '9/11 alternative theories' or 'Alternative theories of 9/11' would suffice.
--Benjamin Thomas Krueger [구태양 (具太陽)] (talk) 09:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Negativity is in the eye of the beholder. After all many conspiracy theories that had even less support than these have proven true over time. Wayne (talk) 14:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Academic sources actually do make the point that "conspiracy theory" is used as a pejorative in the media and academia.  However, that's still what these are called in both, so the name should stay. --Haemo (talk) 19:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change the name of the article 

message: This article is far too long. I remember in 2006 I tried to branch off the controlled demolition theory section into its own article and got shot down, and now it has been. But it seems that a lot of material is still in this article. I'm going to start being bold and chopping up the article as people have suggested unless someone comes up with a good reason not to cut it up that way. Titanium Dragon (talk) 00:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please realize that this refers to readable text not merely the size of all the bits to make the file. As the prose is only ~80 KB, this article is fine with respects to WP:SIZE. — BQZip01 — talk 01:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am in favor of giving readers as much reliable and/or notable information as possible not less. I find that there are a lot of times when editors go on space cutting sprees that bad things tend to happen. Some examples of this are information left in with the cites for them getting cut or visa-versa, information being out of order, facts being left in without proper context and "important" information being edited out. Then I or other editors have to reedit it. It takes a lot longer to look at the history edition, relocate the cites, figure out how and what to put back and do it in a logical order it does to the "cutter" to select and delete. I am not saying you would do that and I am sure that is not your intent but I have seen enough of this to think to myself "Oh no not again" when this type of topic comes up. Instead of being bold give us an example here in the talk pages of what you intend to do. None of the above means that more sub articles are not a good idea Edkollin (talk) 05:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Reread WP:Size; it suggests a prose length -half- that of this article. And I'm not suggesting removing information (thoguh I'm sure there's lots of junk in here; there always is) but rather splitting off subarticles and -removing text-. The demolition theory section should be cut a LOT in this article because it has a subarticle devoted entirely to it; that's half the point of the subarticle. Titanium Dragon (talk) 11:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok. Putting in a proposal for the lot shorter controlled demolition section since even I agree with you about that would be a start. Then after that then your ideas for other sub articles Edkollin (talk) 04:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  140 KB way too long 

message: I suggest adding British MP Michael Meacher to "main proponents" at the bottom of the page.
He was one of the main proponents of the idea of an inside job, and was the main figure along 
with former german minister of defence, Andreas von Bülow in a Dutch documentary that aired on nation wide national dutch television, and so also must be considered one of the most well known proponents of the "inside job" theory.
: His Wikipedia bio article cites his 2003 suspicion of LIHOP not "inside job". I would look for more current remarks to see that he still holds these views or if those views have evolved. Edkollin (talk) 05:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know, Meacher doesn't go round saying he thinks it was LIHOP.  Meacher is just sharply critical of the investigation - he may believe the ISI were involved, he may believe (or suspect) that there was a deliberate military stand/slow-down, we don't know - he is mainly just critical that leads were not followed, and that blame at the FAA/NORAD/Administration was not assigned, and how the neocons have used 9/11 for their own gain.  For this reason, I don't think he should be added.  A lot of prominent people sit in this grey "just asking questions" area.  Corleonebrother (talk) 20:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I answered your LIHOP/MIHOP question on your talk page. The 2003 information was from a Guardian Unlimited column he wrote. In it he pointed wrote that 'The former US federal crimes prosecutor, John Loftus, has said: "The information provided by European intelligence services prior to 9/11 was so extensive that it is no longer possible for either the CIA or FBI to assert a defence of incompetence.'". Even though that is not a direct quote of his it is a strong enough hint that he would fall under the 9/11 CT theorist as the article defines it(or used to before the changes). However he is quoted in his BBC profile as saying  "I do not believe conspiracy theories. I am not a conspiracy theorist," "I do believe the American people, and particularly the widows of those killed, are entitled to answers to these questions.". He might believe it is not a theory because it is it fact. Bottom line he probably is a 9/11 CT theorist but as of now the information is old and he disputes the characterization so he does not belong. Edkollin (talk) 06:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggest adding British MP [[Michael Meacher]] to "main proponents"  

message: What the the criteria for a theory to be added to this article . There seemed to be alot of WP:OR ,WP:NPOV and WP:Nonsense here?Gnevin (talk) 18:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't someone reply to this , as far as i know this entire article could be deleted as per the above policy's Gnevin (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Theories

message: I cleaned out the external links section (pro and con). Wikipedia is not a link farm and many of the links fail WP:EL. The section was far too large for the subject and included videos of uncertain copyright status, links mainly intended to promote a website, sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject etc. In general, there was too much link farming going on. As you add links please make sure they follow WP:EL and that the section doesn't grow into another advocacy section. RxS (talk) 02:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an explanation I can live with.--Joseph.nobles (talk) 04:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links etc 

message: Just a heads up. I should have said "debunked" NIST but I'm not a physicist so don't want to make a judgement. This paper has been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication by a mainstream technical journal. They expect it to be published in around 3 months. Wayne (talk) 12:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer reviewed paper contradicting NIST

message: I've had a quick look at the archives of this talk page, and in the last six archives there are three sections of interest:
* Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories/Archive 15#Requested move
* Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories/Archive 14#Page move
* Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories/Archive 13#Vote on name change as proposed by 24.35.85.32
There may be others, I'll have a more thorough check when I have time. Andrewa (talk) 18:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent move requests

message: The claim was not that all Jews skipped work in the WTC that day, the claim was that all Israeli Jews skipped work in the WTC that day.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.147.241.183 (talk) 00:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So, is this true, or not?  If so this would indicate Israeli foreknowledge, which is the not the same thing as proving Israeli (or Jewish) involvement in a conspiracy, so please don't accuse me of encouraging anti-Semitism.  Comments? Apostle12 (talk) 02:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as this article is concerned, the main relevant issues are how widely held this belief is (i.e. its cultural significance) and to what extent "reliable sources" endorse this view. One thing I can say in this regard: a good few 9/11 researchers think that theories such as this are pure disinformation designed to trick 9/11 sceptics into tarring themselves with the anti-semitism brush. ireneshusband (talk) 07:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good points.  But what are the facts?  Did it come down that way?  Were any Israeli Jews among the casualties? Apostle12 (talk) 07:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

text: While I appreciate that it is important to get this question ironed out, this talk page is intended for communication directly related to editing the article and not for general discussions about 9/11. ireneshusband (talk) 11:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theories of Jewish involvement 

message: *Support per Pokipsy76's arguments above.  While, it would more acceptable in the lead, the use of the term "Conspiracy theory" prejudges the content.  Unfortunately, that usage seems to have a large precedent in wikipeidia articles.  Despite the precedent, it still seems POV, in my opinion. BigK HeX (talk) 07:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitrary section break 2

message: The open Requested move above is listed at WP:RM as 9/11 conspiracy theories → 9/11 alternative theories. This appears to duplicate this RFC. Surely it is pointless having both discussions in progress at once? Andrewa (talk) 23:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah.  What would be pointless would be to copy your arguments from one to the other.  Each discussion has it's own tributaries and subtopics, and all of it is interesting.Dscotese (talk) 23:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Duplicate discussion 2

message: This is a suggestion that I've read several times.  The problem is that if we continue talking about it, we'll be wasting time, at least the time of the people who don't want it changed - at least if it goes nowhere again.  I mean, we can't just let others fill in to defend the current title when we're sick of defending it ourselves.  Because we don't trust them.
If the title is changed, and then a move back to the current title is proposed, and we discuss it hundreds of times AGAIN, I can imagine that the supporters of the new title would be the ones arguing that we shouldn't talk about it any more.  For the same ultimate reason: they don't trust us.
Ok, I wrote that from the POV of those who support the current name.  But I weakly support changing the current name, so it was a little disingenuous.  But here I am admitting it, so it's ok, right?  Right.  I think anyone with a neutral point of view would never suggest ending a discussion.  
If we keep the name, we should work on making it clear that "Conspiracy theories" are often the beginning of *accurate* accounts of history.  Every conspiracy necessarily starts out with efforts to have the facts concealed.  Alternative conspiracy theories have the potential to make history more accurate because sometimes they present facts that contradict widely accepted falsehoods.  This is really what I would like to see, which is why my support is weak.
What bothers me is that IF there are people in powerful positions who are working diligently to prevent truth from coming out (and reported in WP), their efforts will have "labeling evidence that contradicts our story as 'conspiracy theories'" as a foundation of their efforts.  It would be a shame for WP to support their efforts simply because they are able to get certain experts and media organizations to use the term.  "Neutral" in NPOV is being used to mean "according to experts" and "popular" rather than "lacking connotation" which seems to me the intent behind neutrality.
I have gone to the user pages for some of the contributors and discovered that sometimes it's pretty obvious that an editor is making a concerted effort to put forth a particular NON-neutral point of view, but also doing a pretty good job of keeping with WP policy.  I think that's a good thing, and for me, it justifies bringing the issues up over and over again.  WP is primarily an educational tool, and it is these discussions that are most educational, at least for me.  I like seeing others' NON_neutral POVs.  Sometimes they win me over.  How about you?  Dscotese (talk) 00:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree.  Listening to conflicting non-neutral points of view is how I refine my own point of view.  On XM radio I make a point of dividing my time between far-right, far-left and (supposedly) neutral stations.   Listening only to points of view that mirror one's own take on things is simply an exercise in narcissm.  Apostle12 (talk) 08:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's stop talking about moving it. 

message: Hi everybody, a proposal is being made to ease the current restrictions on questionable sources in the verifiability policy. I think editors in this subject might have a useful viewpoint on this proposal. See Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Questionable sources

message: ;mediation cabal
We're looking for parties to accept/reject mediation over at the case page. Our goal is to provide a new space for discussing these issues in a blank-slate environment, and creating a structure that allows for discussion to take place without editors talking past each other (as so often happens in controversial articles). I think mediation will help resolve some of the disputes here. See you there! Xavexgoem (talk) 12:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:MEDCAB|Medcab]] case 

message: Since at least three users disagree with the amount of cleanup of January 28, I feel the best way is to discuss the listed EL's one by one before deleting (or keeping) them. If you want to delete any, please specify where they fail in the WP:EL guideline or why they are superfluous. In my opinion we do not need to link to every site out there, only to the best and the most prominent. 60 sites is a lot: it would help our readers to trim it to at least half of that.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 12:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: None, Wikipedia is not a link farm nor is it a web directory. And just as a additonal note, this table makes this page difficult to read/use. Mind if I collapse or close it? RxS (talk) 15:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: StrangeLove, don't act without consensus. Xiutwel, you represent my say as well. --Striver - talk 08:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I took them back out (both pro and con)...by the way this table is impossible to read/use. The links in question constituted way more links than we need or is really allowed per WP:EL. If there's one you want please single it out, but just don't add them wholesale like that. RxS (talk) 05:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the point is rather you removed them wholesale on January 28. Could you please cite the specific parts of WP:EL you are concerned about? Both in general, for the total amount of links, and specifically, for specific links which do not meet up in your opinion? The entire policy is 3300 words, and it seems to me unlikely that 60 links need to be reduced to 3. Also, I've made two keep votes below already, do you agree about those?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 05:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I did, and the editor I was discussing it with agreed. And no one else objected...even you say we could get by with less. I have no problem with restoring some of them in a controlled way but not just loading them all back on. As far as WP:EL goes, in the links to avoid section it reads Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research Many of the links fell under that section...but in general there were just too many, see WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not a directory. RxS (talk) 05:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: RxS: I fell for it. Again, I trusted your judgement, and I regret it. You missed this bit, concerning "misleading sites": "Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article". You can see it yourself, a few lines up, right at the top of the section.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 07:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I notice that http://www.journalof911studies.com did not make it back onto the list for comment.  Despite objections that it is not "notable," the fact remains that it is edited by physicist Steven E. Jones and theologist David Ray Griffith, certainly two of the most notable, responsible and outspoken skeptics of the official version of events.  The journal also demonstrates a very high level of professionalism in its peer-review policies. Apostle12 (talk) 05:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Apostle12, I say the above journal is notable, because its editors are. <BR>RxS: "no one objected..." it would have helped me if you had said explicitely that you removed 95% of the links. I ignored your action at first, because I trusted you. I disagree with the wholesale removal, and I do not see my edit as a wholesale adding, but as a -temporary- undo of your wholesale cleanup and I still feel that this is the way we should procede: restore the status quo of January 28 while discussing.<BR>Another site I would like listed, is: [urls removed as copyvio site] They have a lot of verifiable information. Any objections?  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 06:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Wayne, Apostle12, I will add both links below to be discussed.
I removed the table that once sat in this place. It mucked up the page badly, especially the TOC. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 02:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  discussion of EL (external links) 

message: The article has nothing about Sibel Edmonds and what she discovered! --Espoo (talk) 10:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right, and please help repair this lacune! I propose to include other whistleblowers, like Anthony Shaffer, John O'Neill etc.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 12:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Remember, folks, this article is not a respository for a bunch of 9/11 related junk. Please make sure to keep any additions relevant. Titanium Dragon (talk) 21:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you referring to Sibel Edmonds? It seems that what Sibel Edmonds discovered and reported is so important and even so well corroborated that this article may need to be renamed because "conspiracy theory" does not include illicit activities, sloppiness, incompetence, sabotage, intimidation, corruption, etc. that were not planned but that definitely helped cause 9/11. Her claims have even already been grudgingly acknowledged in part by the authorities and courts. --Espoo (talk) 16:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Sibel Edmonds]]?? 

message: I have noticed some weasel words in this article. I am sure there are many more to be found if I look harder. There are also some unjustified generalisations. For example: In 9/11 conspiracy theories#Criticism is a sentence which starts "Proponents of these theories have attacked..." However it is not true that all proponents of "these theories" have done so. "Proponents" in this case could be read both as"the proponents" and as "some proponents." This should be corrected. However this would still leave the problem that "some" has not been more clearly quantified. Moreover the only reference to support this claim is an article by Christopher Bollyn. If a claim has any traction then it will certainly either be supported by more than one source or supported by a source who can reasonably be thought to speak for a larger group.
Stuff like this either needs to be corrected or removed. I think we should allow a reasonable amount of time for stuff like this to be improved and then we should have a clear-out of what remains. ireneshusband (talk) 08:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  weasel words and unjustified generalisations 

message: Haemo reverted my edit of the following at the beginning of the second paragraph instead of just fixing it.  Can any one make it more appealing to him?
As of December 10, 2006, "according to a July ('06) poll conducted by Scripps News Service, one-third of Americans think the government either carried out the 9/11 attacks or intentionally allowed them to happen in order to provide a pretext for war in the Middle East...  These theories [are] propounded by the so-called 9/11 Truth Movement..." Dscotese (talk) 06:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're misquoting the source.  "These theories" in the second half refer to "alternative theories of 9/11" — not to the opinions studied in the poll in in the first half of the quote. I reverted, because I don't know what you're trying to say here. --Haemo (talk) 06:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted a second attempt to include this poll in the lead. There have been several polls on this topic. I see no reason that this specific poll merits placement so prominently within the article. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You actually reverted 3X in 45 minutes. However, I agree the lead is not the place. Poll results should be prominent in the body because it is typical of the support CT's have and allows the reader to determine for himself if views are fringe instead of being told by POV pushers. Wayne (talk) 11:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

text: BTW....heres another RS that quotes that poll which justifies it's inclusion. Wayne (talk) 12:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please help fix this quotation 

message: Should the article mention that Bazants paper on the collapse was submitted for peer review on September 13 2001? I think it might be relevant as it goes to reliability. Wayne (talk) 12:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bazant 

message: I propose that we merge the notable proponents into the parts of the article that they support.  Right now, it seems out of place in the section where it's in.  The article would be better served by discussing the proponents of particular theories along with those theories — rather than making a big list of them in one part of the article. --Haemo (talk) 05:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that suggestion would help - particularly in attributing statements to sources, e.g. "It has been suggested that the orders..." (suggested by who?) Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 13:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Notable proponents

message: In his book "The Grand Chessboard" (1997), geostrategist Zbigniew Brzezinski, National Security Advisor in the Carter Administration, sets out to formulate "a comprehensive and integrated Eurasian geostrategy... it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of also challenging America."
"As America becomes an increasingly multicultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat."
</blockquote>''
I believe that - in the absence of a reliable source making a connection - this text is completely irrelevant to this article. It might be relevant to Pax Americana, but that's another question. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 19:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text removed from article