Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories/Archive 6

message: We only have one witness to the sounds of explosions, but we have several witnesses saying that the fires were raging in WTC7, and no images to support those except the one photo which shows smoke but no flames and from which the origin of the smoke cannot be determined.  This seems like a bias towards the official account.  There should be an equal number of accounts for both the official story and those questioning the official story. We should get a photo of the WTC towers squibs as well, since the one for WTC7 is so small 198.207.168.65 00:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I took out some statements so that there are now equal numbers supporting and against the official story. Bov 17:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Witness statements

message: The word "claims" is used throughout the article. In my mind, using it implies that the statement is incorrect. For example, there's a distint difference in tone between "MisterHand stated that he didn't know who ate the last donut" and "MisterHand claimed that he didn't know who ate the last donut." Maybe I'm way off here, but if we could I'd like to come up with a reasonable substitution. -- MisterHand 04:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Problem is, many of the 'claims' are headings, such as: 4.1 Claims regarding the actual collapse.  Headings can't be changed to 4.1 Statements regarding the actual collapse because that gives them undue credit.  However, as long as a specific person is quote, "said" or "stated" is indeed better.  But, in terms of a non-defined group of people, "claims" may still be preferable. -Quasipalm 14:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The word "Claims" is not POV 

message: If I could remark on some of the things in this section, it's not clear to me that everything here is "inconsistent".  The last in particular is striking; if I understand the current version's claim, it seems that an editor is claiming that it is inconsistent for US officials to say that flying planes into buildings was unthinkable, but yet there were a couple of scattered reports and a Tom Clancy novel suggesting it could happen.  Forgive me, but that's a bit thin.  I'm sure that some crazy stuff shows up in those intelligence reports, and surely noone is claiming that the administration should base security policy on Tom Clancy's analysis.  I think, in all fairness, before 9/11 the idea was pretty much inconceivable.
On the other hand, there are some true inconsistencies reported in this section, and these should stay. --Deville (Talk) 23:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are references all over and everywhere regarding contigency plans, war games etc.. that involved airliners being used as missiles in an attack like this. It's easy to find proof of that. Actually I saw Peter Jennings talking about it. SkeenaR 06:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if so, then why aren't the references from all over quoted in the text?  As it stands, the only specific counterevidence to the government's claim is a Tom Clancy novel.  Would you mind going ahead and adding all of these sources you have to the article? --Deville (Talk) 23:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think it should got in unless the part where the claim "that prior to 9/11, it was unimaginable that hijacked planes would be used as suicide weapons" is expanded, and the article is so long, I wouldn't recommend it. The direct link for the page is , the one above requires picking it from a menu. Шизомби 17:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistent explanations 

message: :"Some claim this is because the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania was actually not Flight 93, but a different airplane entirely. As support, they note that Flight 93 was reported to have landed only hours after it had reportedly crashed."
First, who exactly claims this? I think this requires citation. 
Second, Words to avoid supports my position that 'note' is inappropriate here:
:Point out, note, observe
:These words are often used to elevate one side in a dispute by bestowing extra weight on its arguments. Sometimes these words are used to give unproven, unprovable, or subjective statements a gloss of authority: 
::* "Critics of contingent fees point out that many lawsuits seem to be brought only to generate fees for lawyers without giving any benefit to the vast majority of clients." 
:At other times, they are used to introduce statements that may indeed be factual, but which opponents may not consider important or relevant: 
::* "Opponents note that a requirement to carry an identity card at all times can lead to arbitrary requests from the police." 
:Observe (as in "Critics observe...") is also sometimes used to the same effect.
Please let me know what you think. Tom Harrison Talk 16:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The particular wording "They note..." is mine, but the assertion is not.  I agree that a citation is in order and the wording was not intended to indicate that the claim is well-supported.   Phiwum 19:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: also note is not NPOV either but instead of putting say, which also is not NPOV, we need to find the right wording for it. ILovEPlankton 19:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you; I'm not unfamiliar with words to avoid, as you can see by looking through the page history. Clearly I have read it, since I quoted it directly above. What wording do you suggest we use? Tom Harrison Talk 20:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First, sorry for getting argry at you, second, what do you think about this? "There are reports that flight 93 landed only hours after it had reportedly crashed." ILovEPlankton 20:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Don't mention it, I can be kind of snippy myself:) I think that sentence is fine, as long as it is supported by citation, as "According to the Washington Post (or whatreallyhappened.com), there are reports that..." Tom Harrison Talk 20:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But so far it is unsupported right? If it is unsupported (and we can't find anything) should we delete it for the time being? ILovEPlankton 20:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: It could be removed, but I think someone will probably produce a citation. It doesn't seem to me that controversial (that is, that someone has claimed that; I think reports of flight 93 landing are evidence of confusion, not conspiracy). I'm content to let it stay through the weekend, but if you want to take it out pending citation that's perfectly correct. It's easy enough to restore from the history if a cite is provided. Tom Harrison Talk 21:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: From the links provided, I think I found the original news reports they were all based on. I have updated it from those. If I missed anything, please add it back in. Tom Harrison Talk 14:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some claim... 

message: While this article presents many theories and support for those theories, what it lacks is a balanced view to make it NPOV.  I suggest that we follow the Claims and Rebuttals approach used in the Apollo moon landing hoax accusations article to balance the content.  Thoughts?  Morton devonshire 06:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 37 years (for Apollo conspiracies) is a semi-long time... both the claims, and rebuttals, on this recent issue, are still (apparently) just figuring out their positions. Take the "missile pod" argument: Some folks are still claiming that there was a missle pod on the bottom of a WTC plane, other folks are claiming that the "pod" argument is an operation to show that the conspiracy theorists are deluded. I suspect it'll take as long (if not longer) to sort out than the JFK assassination issues (where some of the "whackos" turned out to be right, oddly enough) or other significant events that spawned no lasting end to debate. Ronabop 09:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please tell us where is the unbalanced view? ILovEPlankton 13:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Comment: we shouldn't be striving for a balanced article, we should be striving for one with a neutral point of view. There's a subtle, but important distinction. -- MisterHand 15:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, I'm for it if it's done well.  I think the moon landing hoax is a great page and we could do worse than to emulate it.  Moreover, it would help to separate the reasonable conspiracy theories out from the not-so-reasonable ones. --Deville (Talk) 14:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are the one who said , and i qoute,  I suggest that we follow the Claims and Rebuttals approach used in the Apollo moon landing hoax accusations article to balance the content. ILovEPlankton 19:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Ha! 9/11 traditionalists declare it's POV, so their rebuttals get the last word? When do we get to see your "claims and rebuttals" format in the main 9/11 page? Not likely, huh? Because it embedgs a prejudice for the "sensible" rebutting side. -- James
First, when did i say it was my own? Second, it would be much easier if you tell us (notice the word us, not me) what parts specifically are not NPOV, or is it everything, in which case go ahead and rewrite the whole article your self. ILovEPlankton 20:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: That's not the way it works around here -- Wikipedia is a collaborative process!  Cheers.  Morton devonshire 20:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you going to answer my questions? ILovEPlankton 20:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Badgering me will not make me go away.  I'm here to edit Wikipedia, which is a collaborative process.  I'm looking for a collaborative answer.  Peace.  Morton devonshire 21:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not badgering you this is how it works on wikipedia we get a consensus, and also we can help you make NPOV if you tell us where there is something wrong. This is your collaborative answer. ILovEPlankton 23:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: You continue to ignore my question the same question everyone else is going to be asking What part do you think is not NPOV ILovEPlankton 02:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, but I'm not here to satisfy your needs.  I'm here to edit Wikipedia.  Morton devonshire 05:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I never wanted to "satisfy my needs", no thanks i'm straight. And i think it is a bad idea. ILovEPlankton 15:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And the thing is this is wikipedia you are going to have to compromise with other users or you'll never get anywhere. ILovEPlankton 15:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks.  That's the sort of helpful input I was looking for.  Morton devonshire 23:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Apollo moon landing hoax accusations]]

message: We need a citation to someone saying the kinetic energy was seven times what was designed for. Tom Harrison Talk 00:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kinetic energy 

message: Why was this  removed? Its the biggest view that has been called a conspicracy theory, and it needs to be stated. --Striver 11:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Charlie Sheen is a notable celebrity and his statments regarding one 9/11 conspiracy theory are notable for the wide dissemination they have obtained in the mainstream media beyond its inital broadcast, and they are consistent with what is in the article.  Why was it removed? Please do not remove verifiable content without a editing consensus to do so. patsw 20:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. He does good work:) Tom Harrison Talk 00:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: why

message: What about the claim(s) that most of the jet fuel from the planes burned in the first few minutes after impact, and/or exploded out of the building? I've seen claims that FEMA's report stated that the jet fuel burned quickly, leaving only office debris to burn. Actually, The whole issue of jet fuel is completely avoided. I think that this is one of the most compelling arguments of these theories, but this page is more of an article about the 'debunkable' aspects of the theories. This article is very much unneutral, it should't contain counterarguments to the theories, but only the theories, with links to a separate page with that info. The main problem with the article is that the authors of it seem to pick and choose which arguments to write about, which happen those that are semi-explainable. This behaviour is ironically similar to a traditional conspiracy theorist's, in that 'rational arguments' are ignored, and only those which protect their theories are stated. Finally, I think that there is not enough diversity in the claims, which suggests that all theories are one big theory held by most claimants. This is not the case, and it isn't a good thing. I personally do not believe the official story, but I am certainly on the fringes of the theories. I simply belive that there are problems with the official account, mainly with the fanatical devotion to it by some.mpbx 10:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jet Fuel, etc.

message: Lots of things have been refuted by lots of people, at least to my satisfaction. This page is about 9/11 conspiracy theories, not about only credible theories, or only 'mainstream-alternative' theories. Tom Harrison Talk 02:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We are not describing the 9/11 truth movement, or researchers questioning the official account, or "what really happened". We are describing 9/11 conspiracy theories. Meyssan's work is the seminal piece of conspiracist literature relating to 9/11. Tom Harrison Talk 20:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But that doesn't mean he should have a whole paragraph -- other articles on conspiracies do not give so much coverage to people who were seminal just because they were seminal.  They get about 2 lines.  I also think that it is appropriate to put it in context on modern day rather than promoting an illusion that he is still a central figure (if ever) -- Meyssan is no longer active and his theory about a truck bomb is embraced by almost no one. Bov 23:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with Bov that this paragraph gives undue weight to Meysann. I've been reading about this stuff since it happened and I can honestly say that I've hardly ever ran into anything about him. I didn't even remember who he was until I saw him in that CBC documentary and I haven't seen or heard anything about him since. SkeenaR 23:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thierry Meyssan 

message: are the editors of this page aware of this article by Popular Mechanics . it could be useful if this site moves into a Claims and Rebuttal format. Anthonymendoza 17:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular Mechanics 

message: I don't know if this means anything, but I clearly remember sending and receiving email messages via palm.net while flying between the east and west coasts less than a year after 9/11. It was at night, and I noticed that if I could see the lights of a large city, I could usually get a pretty good signal. Other experience suggests that palm.net's tower network was less extensive than the cell phone network at that time, so cellphones arguably could have worked at least as well if the plane was within eyeshot of a city or metro area. (Yes, I was bad and disregarded the "please turn off all electronic devices" signs. I figured that if the transmissions were causing issues, there would be some kind of re-emphasis on the PA about turning off all electronic devices – but there never was.) --Woozle 12:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  cell phones vs. wireless email at cruising altitude 

message: That's a pretty useful google page Tom. Interestingly, there are studies that seem to support both sides of the issue too. SkeenaR 01:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  scholar.google 

message: Am I the only one that thinks the following phrase lacks meaning, and should be removed:
*"Professor of philosophy of religion and theology David Ray Griffin has written, "we can say that we accept all those conspiracy theories that we believe to be true, while we reject all those that we believe to be false."
--Morton devonshire 01:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Griffin's famous quote is utterly vacuous; on the other hand, it will be pretty obvious to most people that it is vacuous, and so it will tell them something useful about the Professor. I maintain that the only people who find this quotation meaningful are not likely to reasoned out of their convictions anyway. I support the quote's prominent inclusion. Tom Harrison Talk 01:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Meaningless phrase