Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories/Archive 15

message: We certainly do append judgement on the term 'conspiracy theory', whether consciously or not. Under this definition come such theories as those suggesting that the 'rulers of the world' are lizards (hello David Icke) or that the U.S. government are in cahoots with extra-terrestrial beings. In popular culture it is always used to refer to the incredible (I use the word in its literal sense). It was used consistently with reference to 'The X-Files' for example.
So, it has connotations that the term 'alternative account' does not. I thought we wanted scholarly objectivity on Wikipedia: using glib popular terms at the expense of neutrality does not help towards such an aim. Eustace Plimsoll 11:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is wrong with you muchacho? I'd say the same thing about you, but I'd probably restrain from actually saying it. If this end's up with arbitration, make sure to leave me note about it. Thanks. Lovelight 04:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Lighten up Carthago. What horrible thing have I done to you or wikipedia except be a little to harsh(a lot less then you have been to me) on the original poster which I have apologized for. The “Project for the New American Century” quip was an attempt to get you lighten up. I know this is serious topic I know people that were involved in the incident.  All I know is that all you do is attack me and think I am lower then scum.  You know nothing about me but from a couple of sentences figured out my motivations and my knowledge of the subject matter.  Now please explain nicely and in detail in a NON-PERSONAL WAY  what in my post you find so objectionable.  And no need to go to arbitration just go into the editor and delete my lines on this thread Edkollin 20:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text: You are correct that the poll data shows that the public are not accepting the mainstream media version of events. What this survey does not say is that a majority of the public believes that a LIHOP or a MIHOP conspiracy happened. While a large percentage believes the administration is lying or hiding "something" that something could be any number of things. The survey also said that 70%+ believe the administration did not do enough pre 9/11. So the survey suggests but does not prove that the public believes that is what is being lied about or hidden. This survey is way to general to make any statement regarding the popularity of 9/11 conspiracy theories Edkollin 05:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename of article? 

message: Overall, good work. But what about the anthrax fiasco that came right after the attacks? What better of a way to scare the hell out of an already freaked out American public? Also, why isn't it spoke of how American civil liberties have suffered (i.e. the patriot act) after the attacks? That could have been part of the plan; to create a scared, complacent population who would only allow themselves to give up their basic rights under such an extreme form of duress.
* If you can find reputable cites for people claiming a nine-eleven/anthrax connection put it in this article and the 2001 Anthrax Attacks article. The curtailing of civil liberties as a motive was in here at one point but not now for some reason and I agree it should be because most conspiracy theory websites mention that at some point Edkollin 04:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What about...

message: Have you heard about this thing? I read a theory somewhere that the towers were destroyed because they had a lot of asbestos that would have been extremely expensive to remove, thus they were rather insured and then destroyed to avoid the costly removal. -Lapinmies 06:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could someone really be so callous to kill 3000+ people rather than pay an asbestos removal bill? I think if there were other forces at work, they'd have an agenda higher than avoiding mesothelioma claims in 30 years time...... Also why would they have to have had the asbestos removed? Untouched and undisturbed it is of little danger to the public and any tradesman working near it is aware of their personal need for protection and caution for themselves and others (I'm a Refrigeration & A/C Mechanic, so I know my responsibilty in this regard) 18:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Having done asbestos removal, I like this one.  And yes, 3000 people would be cheap.  Also, if the building is gone it simplifies disposal.  I think we have the real reason right here.Mzmadmike 00:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think there would have to be more than Asbestos to justify that kind of mass murder. True, asbestos removal and disposal would be incredibly expensive, especially considering that you're talking about not just one, but several high-rise and low-rise skyscrapers. I'd hate to foot that bill, myself, but you gotta remember that Silverstein is probably one of the richest men in the country (especially after that multi-billion dollar payout from the insurance) and you'd think that he should be able to handle the expense. In my opinion, I think that asbestos falls short of a full, logical explaination. May be a minor possible factor under the Made It Happen catagory, but there would have to be more. ~~Spectre 02:13 (CST) April 24, 2007.
It is purely speculative to suggest in any way whether or not people would consider the costly asbestos removal to be a sufficient reason to commit these atrocities.  Certainly, human history suggests the possibility, but it is undeterminable without further investiation.  The presence of asbestos and the extremely expensive removal process merely suggests a possible motive for committing the atrocities or for considering the building's destruction as advantageous.  It is sufficient, in my opinion, to warrant further investigation by authorities, but not to deem Silverstein culpable in these crimes.
Considering that this evidence is presented on many conspiracy theorist's sites, I do feel that this should be included on this page.  It could be presented that this evidence causes many conspiracy theorists to feel there should be investigation into the possible involvement, if any, of Silverstein in these crimes. Kevin77v 19:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Costly asbestos cleaning conspiracy 

message: I changed "The collapse... was a surprise to the engineering community" to "a surprise to some people" for the following reasons:
* no citation - proof?
* at the beginning of this article there is a statement "Published reports by structural engineers do not support the controlled demolition hypothesis"
* in the page Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center there are several statements contradicting this, including "Mainstream engineers, investigators, and industry experts generally dismiss it as a conspiracy theory" (cited) and "The controlled demolition hypothesis has been unambiguously rejected by manistream investigators and by structural engineers" (also cited) 
* if this statement meant that "at the time" engineers were surprised... well, we were all surprised by the collapses.  But to say the "engineering community" was surprised implies that this reaction was due to specialist knowledge, and lends credence to the demolition theory when there is no proof (given here at least) that the majority of engineers support it. P. Moore 14:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article on the collapse of the World Trade Center gives a good sense of what "a surprise to the engineering community" means in this context . It offers three sources to the effect that even given the aircraft impacts, and, yes, due to their specialist knowledge of how buildings are supposed to perform, engineers were puzzled about the behaviour of the WTC buildings on 9/11. Today, they believe they have solved the puzzle (at least in the cases of buildings 1 and 2). But "some people" is clearly not as accurate as "the engineering community" (Bazant and Verdure probably provides the clearest statement to support this claim).--Thomas Basboll 20:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the collapse of the World Trade Center really was a "surprise to the engineering community" then why did the Journal of Engineering Mechanics and the American Society of Civil Engineers accept and peer-review a paper explaining the collapse on September 13th 2001, just 2 days after the attack? (the paper is available here: http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf )  If it really was a surprise to the engineering community then it would be impossible for peer-reviewed journals to have reasonable explanations within their hands in just 2 days.  Or is someone suggesting that the American Society of Civil Engineers is somehow beyond the purview of the "engineering community"?  Please change the language as the collapse was very obviously a surpise to "some people" but not the engineering community.24.1.156.114 22:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The main author (Bazant) of that early paper has since written: "The destruction of the World Trade Center (WTC) on 9/11/01 was not only the biggest mass murder in the U.S. history but also a big surprise for the structural engineering profession, perhaps the biggest since the collapse of Tacoma Bridge in 1940." (This is from a draft of Bazant and Verdure's paper, which was just published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics. I haven't seen the final version yet, but I don't think this part has been changed.) The fact that one engineer quickly got over the shock and worked out a plausible explanation doesn't change the fact, which he himself reports, about the initial reaction in the community.--Thomas Basboll 06:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thomas Basboll: OK, if you want to change it back to the way it was, and cite that report, I have no problem with that. But, just because the collapse surprised structural engineers, does not mean it's evidence of the ridiculous controlled demolition theory, since that is the implication in the context of this article!P. Moore 01:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The paragraph is already sourced to the Bazant and Verdure paper (note 49 as I write this) and was so sourced when you made your edit. The sentence we are discussing, like the paragraph it introduces, does not (and should not) provide "evidence" of controlled demolition. It simply provides the context in which the hypothesis arose. When/if I return to editing articles, I'll of course correct it. (I'm currently involved in dispute resolution.) But I think this discussion should make anyone "want to change it back", including you. That is, if you don't want to change it back then you should still argue that your version is better. IMO, the original sentence was more informative.--Thomas Basboll 06:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  edit to World Trade Center collapse as controlled demolition 

message: Well, let's make this simple and see if we can come to a consensus. Simply put your signature block into the heading that describes best how you feel. If ⅓ of the people want it, IMHO we should put it in since it would then be "significant." Add any short comments in comment blocks.
Support adding this discrepancy to the Flight 77 Section
Yes only if as credible or popular conspiracy (website,video,book etc) uses this discrepancy to point to a specific conspiracy theory or as part of a deliberate cover up Edkollin 04:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: poll for addition to flight 77 section

message: I think it should be included that Donald Rumsfeld had made a speech on Dec 24, 2004 in which he made a reference to flight 93 as "the plane that was shot down over Pensyvania."   This has been fuel for the conspiracy theorists.  The Pentagon responded that this was merely a mistatement.   Kevin77v 07:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BE BOLD!!! Add it as you deem necessary. This is wikipedia. As long as you cite your sources and don't get on a soapbox, you can add just about anything you want. The talk page is mostly used for settling disputes. BQZip01 08:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Its relevant; just be sure to source it. Titanium Dragon 10:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flight 93 Shot Down Additional Detail 

message: The article 11 septembre 2001 : les Français en savaient long talks about what the French government knew about 9/11.
189.166.54.76 16:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it isn't in English, don't bother linking. If it is, just add your information and cite it appropriatly. In addition, please get a screen name (it takes all of about a minute). BQZip01 17:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't see how its particularly relevant to this article; its basically the same stuff the US government has acknowledged it knew prior to 9/11. Titanium Dragon 21:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Here is a Newsday article in English reporting on the Le Monde article .  It concurs with the 9/11 Commission findings. Edkollin 05:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting article in Le Monde 

message: You all should check this out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcrF346sS_I
Penn & Teller on 9/11 conspiracy theory.
-- My Ancestor Is a Pirate
:Pretty much nails it.  --Tbeatty 07:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, so this is a source to every debunker's "infinite" knowledge about 9/11 conspiracy theories and debunking them? Congrats... It is laughable. Not even touching the issues and/or scientific arguments. Some minor figures interviewed, but where are, to name few, David R Griffin, Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan? I dare anyone interested to read the book Debunking 9/11 debunking by David R. Griffin. For a start, please try to debunk this. SalvNaut 15:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, Penn and Teller was not a source on debunking conspiracy theories.  It is a valuable source on the conpiracy theorists.  Does David Griffin, Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan do the same dance with the funny hat as we saw on the video? As for your video, there is nothing to debunk.  I have no doubt that those people believe those things.  Pardon me if I don't believe that when any old CTer dies, he was killed by Dick Cheney pissing molten arsenic into his Wheaties or sharks with laser beams pulverized his house.  There are people who believe the earth is flat and space aliens will take us to heaven.  It is not our job to debunk that, rather the burden of proof is on those that propose it.  Penn and Teller gives us some insight into the people who hold those beliefs.  What was their exact phrase again? --Tbeatty 03:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Ed is right.  This is apparently posted in violation of copyright.  Personally, I think the policy is a good thing.  Regardless of how widespread copyright violations have become, Wikipedia should steer clear of taking advantage of the situation by linking to infringing downloads.  (Aside: There is plenty wrong with current US copyright law, but this video pretty clearly should be protected by copyright law.) Phiwum 17:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The video is not notable unless important sources write or talk about the video.  Leave it out until that happens.--Dcooper 18:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Correct or not Wikipedia is known for printing the social,cultural implications of the article topic. Examples are  "this song lyric was referred to in this movie or TV program" or Kate Bush songs were covered by so and so. In this article the South Park's urinal deuce reference is an example.Edkollin 00:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: TV shows and movies are much more notable because of the attention they receive.  Anyone can put something on youtube.  I don't think it belongs in the article unless the youtube video is discussed by a media source.--Dcooper 01:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  YouTube is relevant only as to its legality the important point is how notable Penn and Teller are. If we used only internet sources that were discussed in the mainstream media the very article this talk page is about should not have existed until 2005 as that is when the "conspiracy theories" started receiving exposure. Even today there are sections of this article that are basically only discussed on the internet. The video in question has a very large number of hits and commentaries and in 2007 this is a legitimate indicator of cultural relevance. Edkollin 05:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where do we put this video? 

message: Nearly all the conspiracy theories have been debunked.  Yet the article only uses this term concerning the anti-Semitic theories.  Shouldn't we put this term everywhere?  It is definitely true that the anti-Semitic conspiracy theories have been debunked but so have all the other ones.  Shouldn't  we add debunked to all the other theories so they are portrayed the same as the most widely held conspiracy theory on the planet?  --Tbeatty 06:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No the term is a judgmental term that should not be used anywhere in the article as a flat statement. Something like "Those attempting to debunk that theory state that etc" is ok because it is being used as a descriptive term Edkollin 06:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "debunked" 

message: Is he Osama's brother or half brother?. The article has been revised to say that he is a half brother. The Wikipedia article on him claims half-brother as does the Washington Post. A quick search 
I did shows every other reference of him uses the word brother including The Guardian cite used in that section and Fortune Magazine. Edkollin 05:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shafig bin Laden 

message: He is listged as a conspiracy proponent at the footer of the article  but he was a janitor in the North tower who claims to have heard an explosion in the basement before the plane hit. Shouldn't there be a discussion of this? (NO i'm not a truther; just curious) Mre5765 19:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He is the lead plaintiff in a RICO suit against President Bush and others charging a conspiracy  Edkollin 08:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: If you have the cites for this dismissal this case should get a brief mention in the other points section Edkollin 01:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are copies of the court documents dismissing the case here:  http://rodriguezlawsuit.googlepages.com/home , more specifically here:  http://rodriguezlawsuit.googlepages.com/14-OpinionandOrderDismissingComplain.pdf and here: http://rodriguezlawsuit.googlepages.com/15-OrderDismissingBalanceofComplaint.pdf Jazz2006 01:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WIlliam Rodriguez? 

message: was saddam hussein linked to al-qaeda, the supposed culprits behind 9/11? in a way, thats just another phony conspiracy theory, much like the ones mentioned on this page. funny thing is, this particular conspiracy theory was pushed by the US government! and it resulted in a pretty huge war!  funny how things work out. or, not so funny, given the death and destruction and what not.
lets call it what it is.
70.107.12.147 14:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even more parsing would be required as it was always an Iraq/Al Qaeda link, not Saddam per se.  I believe the claim was that Iraqi intelligence officers had contacts with Al Qaeda in a third country (Sudan?). I don't recall any claim by the administration that Saddam was involved in 9/11 or that even Iraq was involved so I don't think it belongs in the article.  --Tbeatty 04:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

text: This is where the parsing comes in. They claimed ties between Saddam and Al Queda thus letting people infer a Saddam/9/11 connection which the majority of the U.S. public did. President Bush was forced to admit there was no 9/11/Saddam link after numerous press reports and a blanket statement by the 9/11 commission that there were no ties. Even after these statements the percentage of the American Public that believed a 9/11/Saddam tie remained in high 40's percentile if I remember correctly. I have not seen a recent poll on this subject. I started this as a clarification and have realized I have inadvertently made a convincing case for putting this in the article Edkollin 06:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text: This section seems out of place.  If 41% is accurate then these people are not the same people that believe in any of the theories on this page because all the theories on this page point to US government involvement.  These people are probably those who have little interest in these issues and have become 'confused' by the way the Iraq War 'feels like' a consequence of 9/11.  I would just delete it but it is interesting - perhaps it should be moved to the Iraq section on Responsibility for the September 11, 2001 attacks.  Corleonebrother 22:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Newsweek Magazine is one of the two main American Newsweeklies and does regular polling so their is no intrinsic reason to doubt the accuracy of the 41% number. Common sense might tell us that the 41% are probably not the same folks who believe in the controlled demolition theory but common sense said the issue was dead and buried. The poll does say anything about it either way. But while it might belong in the other article you mentioned it most defiantly belongs here. The "Saddam" did it view is an as much of an alternate theory to the 9/11 commission (who made a specific point of saying there was no evidence of Saddam's involvement) as the theories presented in this article. This article is not entitled "9/11 conspiracy theories involving the U.S. government". An argument can be made that the Saddam done it theory is more notable then the controlled demolition theory because many more people believe in it. The fact that the conspiracy theory websites,films etc  quoted in this article and other places have not mentioned the Saddam theory does not make the Saddam theory less notable(legitimate is another issue) it means there is a disconnect. As for this article the "disconnect" will make this a difficult write with a lot of parsing as mentioned above. The best that might be done is citing reputable sources discussing how a large percentage of the American public came to believe in this particular conspiracy theory Edkollin 04:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the title of this section from 'less common theories' to 'Claims relating to Saddam Hussein' as both points now relate to Saddam and, as you say, the belief is actually quite common.  I will try and find a source that discusses possible meanings of the poll result.  I'm not sure what you mean by 'parsing' and 'disconnect' though.  Corleonebrother 18:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Like the change in the section title. Added denials from President Bush and the 9/11 commission and John McCain and support by a Congressmen who was vice chairmen of the subcommittee on terrorism at the time he made his claim. The "disconnect" is in thinking or POV between both mainstream and CT sources (and Wikipedia editors) who have largely ignored this theory since 2004 and a large minority of Americans. The "parsing" as mentioned above will be in reporting statements by Bush Administration officials discussing an "Al Queda/Saddam" link but not a "Saddam/9/11" link. Did they mean to purposely "imply" a Saddam/9/11 link or did the public hear what it wanted to hear. Wiki editors will have do word tap dances not to "mislead" the readers ourselvesEdkollin 02:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The claim that there were operational contacts between the Iraqi Ba'athist regime and al-Qaeda in the planning or execution of the 9/11 attacks definitely counts as a conspiracy theory.  It is fueled by speculation, circumstantial evidence, and fantasy.IanThal 16:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saddam-al-Qaeda link was a 9/11 conspiracy theory 

message: Taken from article:
* It should also be noted that whereas the World Trade Center attacks could have had up to 50,000 casualities , Operation Northwoods would have had none.
The declassified documents explicitly state that some of the acts of terrorism proposed could be either real or simulated. For example, it proposes sinking a boatload of Cuban immigrants, either real or simulated. It seems obvious that a real sinking involves sinking an actual boat with actual immigrants in it. Nathan Baum 12:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Operation Northwood comparison 

message: The following is testimony of the Secretary of Transporation, Norman Mineta, that comes from the 9/11 Commission Hearing:
MR. HAMILTON: We thank you for that. I wanted to focus just a moment on the Presidential Emergency Operating Center. You were there for a good part of the day. I think you were there with the vice president. And when you had that order given, I think it was by the president, that authorized the shooting down of commercial aircraft that were suspected to be controlled by terrorists, were you there when that order was given?
MR. MINETA: No, I was not. I was made aware of it during the time that the airplane coming into the Pentagon. There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, "The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to, "The plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the vice president, "Do the orders still stand?" And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?"
You can find the quote here: http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hearing2/9-11Commission_Hearing_2003-05-23.htm.  Or you can watch the video of it on google video here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3722436852417384871&q=mineta+testimony. 
It has been argued that rather than the orders mentioned being to shoot down the plane, it makes more sense that the orders were to not shoot down the plane.  Hence, the questioning by the aide.  If the orders were to shoot down the plane there would be little reason to question it.
Regardless of the truth regarding this testimony, this is something I feel is certainly worthy of inclusion but I'm not sure where this should be included in the page and the best way to do so. Kevin77v 08:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a reliable source that makes that argument?  Find one, and then we can discuss if it belongs in the article.  Pablo Talk | Contributions 08:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The argument is presented by David Ray Griffin in his book 911 Commission Report:Ommissions and Distortions.  As well, it appears here on the 911 Research website.  No doubt, it appears on many other conspiracy theory websites as well. Kevin77v 16:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text: You think there'd be "little reason to question" an order to shoot down a plane full of innocent passengers?216.165.12.46
I've added the Mineta testimony to the page.  If there is a better way to place it in the article or word it, be my guest. Kevin77v 23:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mineta Testimony at 9/11 Commission Hearing 

message: Is this page on 9/11 CT's really relevant. Its like saying the Moon is made from Cheese, or like taking David Icke seriously. It just plays into the hands of the idiots that come up with these theories, who at the end of the day are/ were trying to get to get 15 minutes of fame on the backs of the victims of 9/11.Freedom is'nt free 13:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 9/11 CTs are notable enough to make the news fairly regularly, so they deserve a WP page. 69.59.212.172 20:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: If the moon was made from cheese theory was believed by a decent minority of people had numerous web pages and discussion boards talking about that theory then that theory would belong as a Wikipedia article. And I notice that Mr. Icke has a very lengthy Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is as much of a  pop culture barometer as it is a encyclopedia Edkollin 04:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have yet to see any reliable source state that there are people who believe the moon is made of cheese.  User:Pedant 07:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  But there is this  Edkollin 06:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Revelvant?

message: I added inline text to the effect that the 'mainstream account' is itself a theory.  This was reverted.  Since the mainstream account has certainly not been proven, Wikipedia should not be pushing it as if it were fact, for Neutral POV, it must be presented as a theory, however widely promulgated. User:Pedant 18:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article does not violate NPOV.  Read through the archives.  Pablo Talk | Contributions 18:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonetheless, it is a theory and not proven facts.  I am re-adding the theory verbiage unless someone can show reliable sources that state that it (the 'mainstream account') is not a theory.  Being 'widely accepted' is not sufficient for anything more than placing the phrase 'widely accepted' before the word theory. It is however a theory, and only supported by evidence that is mostly disputable and widely disputed. Stating the mainstream account as if it were fact is not acceptably neutral. Especially not within an article on conspiracy theories. Besides, if the mainstream account is not a conspiracy theory, why is it even in the article?? User:Pedant 22:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is in the article to provide context. For example, you cannot say the Bible is false and never mention its contents once. — BQZip01 — talk 22:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theories 

message: Is there a better way that we can think of to refer to the vast number of popular media publications as well as independent authors and journalists whose work is has contributed, among other things to the mainstream account that we have of the events of 9/11. it seems that any work which doesnt promote a conspiracy theory is passed off as "mainstream" which in some ways makes it seem less legitimate (even though it should be more legitimate). Anyone have an idea for a better wording of this phrase?  Bonus Onus 20:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  wording; "mainstream" journalists and researchers in intro 

message: "On September 17, 2001,[212] the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz' reported that four hours after the attack the FBI arrested five Israelis who had been filming the smoking skyline from the roof of their company's building for "puzzling behavior." The Israelis were said to have been videotaping the disaster with cries of joy and mockery.[213] On June 21, 2002, ABC reported that the FBI has not reached a consensus on whether they were Israeli intelligence operatives but concluded they had no advance knowledge of the September 11 attacks.[214] The five were released and deported to Israel on November 20-21, 2001.[215]"
This is a fact, not a conspiracy theory. Why is not on the main page? It's a conspiracy theory in itself that it appears to reside here as an afterthought. Marlinspike 11:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears to be a fact that a newspaper reported some people, who were said to be from Israel (but of unspecified ethnicity; you are aware that quite a few Moslems live in Israel, right?), and who were said by unspecified sources to have appeared joyful to those unspecified sources. (I vaguely recall reading the unspecified sources who reported the "joy" was a single person, observing the arrestees from a distance, and even she did not appear very certain what she really saw.) The whole thing appears to be vague rumor-mongering rather than anything real. Weregerbil 14:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fact not conspiracy

message: i am removing the template since the article appears to be adequately footnoted to me and morton devonshire gave no reasons on this talk page for the addition of the template Mujinga 17:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  synthesis template 

message: expresses far too much subjective opinion. it needs to be more even and scientific and the tone sould be less hysterical.
but then I guess this is an open site... A subject such as this is open to manipulation and adjustment by parties both for and against such theories so has little value as a resource.
simplifying this page into source material only is possibly a good idea
:Specific suggestions? Edkollin 15:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  this article 

message: Request quote in section Less common theories. Could not access Judi McLeod of Canada Free Press suggested the possible involvement of the mafia theory article source. --Francisco Valverde 21:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request quote 

message: Somewhere in the archived thing on Odigo a reference is made to students who mentioned the coming destruction of the towers to their teacher a few days before 9-11. Source was missing as noted by contributor BQZip0. This is covered in Newsweek, October, 2001, by Jonathan Alter.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_kmnew/is_200110/ai_kepm316210
--Jcblackmon 22:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kids with Prior Knowledge 

message: http://www.nypost.com/seven/07162007/news/columnists/9_11_skeptics_lunatic_fringe_columnists_andrea_peyser.htm?
--Tbeatty 20:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think this needs to be added 

message: Or maybe it should be?
I'm talking about the The 911 Octopus. (1 hr 33 min., you can find it on Google Video...)  Shouldn't it be listed with the other conspiracy films?
70.105.48.94 22:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A 9/11 conspiracy movie so revealing, it can't even be mentioned on wikipedia?

message: This pic was repeatedly removed on a number of shifting pretexts, the most recent being from an editor who says that he doesn't see what this image has to do with any 9-11 conspiracy theories.  Can anyone more knowledgeable on the subject perhaps shed some light on explaining what this image has to do with 9-11 conspiracy theories?  Os Cangaceiros (Yippie!) 02:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you give a reference for the claims in the caption?  This "infamous" frame is new to me (but I'm a casual observer). Phiwum 03:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, I think that's the first thing. But in any event, it's placement in the energy weapon section is a non sequitur and indicates that it will always run into WP:SYN issues. If you have to ask others to explain what it has to do with  9-11 conspiracy theories then you shouldn't be adding it in the first place. To me it's pretty clear that it's just part of the impact that can be seen on the right hand side of the building. RxS 03:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, I think the picture shows debris exiting the other side of the building...nothing else. Anything else read into the photo is probably speculation. The video quality is too poor to make any specific conclusion. As to it being a computer animation, how do you get multiple news agencies to video it from multiple angles and then cover it up. It's ridiculous. — BQZip01 — talk 04:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't really matter what we think (although I agree with RxS and BQZip), to be included in the article we need a reliable source that suggest the photo is evidence of doctoring the video.  I'm willing to bet a lot of money that no such source is found.  Pablo Talk | Contributions 09:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Ah yes, but sanity is just a conspiracy by the sane people to keep the others in the dark.  By definition, if you have sanity you are part of the conspiracy.  --Tbeatty 06:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion? OK, have it your way... 

message: I have started re-writing the article on the 9/11 Truth Movement and I would like to invite comments.  It is currently here as it is not yet finished.  Thanks,  Corleonebrother 17:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it might be inherent in writing that type of page, but I was hard pressed to find a single reliable source. Gtadoc 02:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which ones in particular would you say are unreliable, given the context of the article?  There are quite a few mainstream media sources and the alternative media sources are mostly websites that are central to the truth movement.  Corleonebrother 18:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Truth Movement article

message: It seems that the directive "Note that citation [1] refers to WTC 7 only and not buildings 1 and 2." is satisfied. We should consider removing it from the to do list. I also added a link to the Operation Northwoods page; and am removing the corresponding to do directive. Kanodin 19:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am removing the directive "Note that citation [1] refers to WTC 7 only and not buildings 1 and 2." from the "to do" list. Kanodin 03:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: To do list review

message: Can we remove the old AfD flag from Aug 2006? It's almost a year old. Kanodin 03:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think those stay infinitely. -WarthogDemon 22:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Old stuff at top of talk page

message: The page begins by saying that 9/11 truth is not supported by any architects or engineers. I have a link directly contradicting that statement: http://www.ae911truth.org/ --ShurizenVenra 02:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The page makes no such claim.  BTW it is spelled "Engineers" — BQZip01 — talk 05:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I guess I should have been more specific: The wikipedia page makes no such claim. — BQZip01 — talk 04:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Architects & Engineers FOR 9/11 Truth 

message: Just like I saw in 2006 Duke University lacrosse case, I see that this article has over 200 footnotes and is over 130KB in size. That suggests to me that it is refactor time.  It seems like Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center has already been a refactor out of this article. Any objections? Where to slice? We could start by just making the "External links" section its own article...--SallyForth123 10:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Over 200 footnotes 

message: I agree that this article is too long and would like to propose the following new articles are created to take some of the information from this page...
*9/11 Opinion Polls - this would include the huge paragraph currently in 'Origins and Reception' and the whole section 'Claims relating to Saddam Hussein' - this article could discuss in more depth the reliability of each of the polls and state clearly exactly what questions were asked and what the responses were.  It could also include 'Media reception' section.  (To see this potential new article under construction, please click here.)
*Suggested US government motives for 9/11 - this would include the sections 'Motives' (which could be greatly expanded) and 'Links between the Bush Family and Bin Laden Family' - it could also mention other alleged acts of false-flag terrorism that 9/11 is sometimes compared to.  (To see this potential new article under construction, please click here.)
*The section 'Claims relating to Jews and Israel' could be moved to the article 'Responsibility for the 9/11 Attacks' and put into the 'Other Culpability' section.  And (if we can find some numbers) the 'Jewish plot' theories could also be mentioned in '9/11 Opinion Polls'.  
Other than the 'Media Reaction' and 'Criticism' sections, this article would then contain only information relating to the physical events of the day that are disputed.  We could explain at the top of the article that this page relates to physical 'evidence' that conspiracy theorists bring up to suggest government complicity, with a link to the new 'suggested US government motives' article.  We would also need to make it clear that not all 9/11 conspiracy theories point to the US government being responsible - this would link to '9/11 opinion polls' where you can read about Saddam theories and possibly Jewish plot theories as well.
Please let me know what you think about this proposal.  Thanks,  Corleonebrother 11:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know, I think a little boiling down is in order. This goes into a lot of detail, and ventures into arguing for the theories rather than describing them. A little editing here is all that's needed. RxS 15:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm concerned that those "split" articles would become POV forks.  Pablo Talk | Contributions 03:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the '9/11 opinion polls' one would be fairly easy to keep NPOV as it would just state the facts, questions and responses on each poll without discussion.  We'd just need a brief explanation at the top about why some polls are more reliable than others.  The 'suggested motives' page could be a little trickier, but the use of 'suggested' in the article title would make it clear enough that the article is about the speculations of conspiracy theorists, based mainly on the perceived benefits the government has had from 9/11.  I am not aware of anywhere on wikipedia that 'beneficiaries of 9/11' is presented (independent of the conspiracy theories).  I think this would be interesting, but it would be easier to keep a 'suggested motives' article NPOV than a 'beneficiaries of 9/11' article NPOV.  Corleonebrother 13:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

text: This article needs shortening and taking bits out here and there is not going to do it.  For me, the obvious way to split it is to remove the parts that are not directly about the different theories, since these sections make up most of the article.  I think a page showing the results of opinion polls, if done right, would easily be kept NPOV and could also be linked to from the main 9/11 page as I think it would be of interest to people who are not interested in reading about the conspiracy theories themselves.  The other article is because not only are the suggested motives a quite different subject to the suggested hypotheses about events of the day, but also because the section is very short and needs improving.  I would expand this section now, but that would seem counterproductive to my aim of shortening the article.  Corleonebrother 19:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for supporting the opinion polls article.  My main reason for taking the paragraph out of this article was that the information was a duplicate of the information in the new article.  I didn't think there would be opposition to this so this is why I did not seek a consensus first - sorry!  If you'd like to put the information back in, go ahead, but perhaps in an easier-to-read format (and leave the link to the main article so that the reader can find more information if required).  I'm not sure what you mean by the second half of your comment - what is a 'pure listing'?  My idea is to separate out the suggested motives from the suggested events of the day.  Corleonebrother 19:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Pure listing" would look like this List of terrorist incidents. There is a movement among some here to make this article look like that. Upon further review why do both an article and a listing?. This is common Wikipedia practice.New Wave Music,List of New Wave bands and artists Edkollin 19:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal for splitting article

message: :The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
Since i am making a formal request to move this page i wanted to add this section (right now opinion on this seem to be spread over many sections, so i wanted to make a single spot for the discussion.
Lets be perfectly clear here, wikipedia is not being completely objective by using "conspiracy theories" to identify this article. We already admitted that this title has negative connotations, even if it is an accurate description. But how often have we used it to describe more mainstream conspiracy theories in wikipedia. As stated above by definition the official report that Al Queda did it is in itself a conspiracy theory, yet how many times do you see it referred to as such in wikipedia? Time and time again throughout wikipedia when referring to a group conspiring against another group it isn't called a "conspiracy theory" unless it holds a biased POV. I propose the title "9/11 alternative theories", it is a neutral as you can get, on both sides. Debeo Morium 15:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. The fact that "conspiracy theory" is often used as a pejorative term doesn't make it any less of a conspiracy theory. "Alternative theories" is too broad. Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 16:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

text: No.  "Alternative" is much too broad, and the "real world" uses "conspiracy theories", so we should, also.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 18:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I oppose the move. Reliable sources who discuss the topic call them conspiracy theories. Tom Harrison Talk 19:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Edkollin, the "reaction to the conspiracy theories" section that you describe sounds similar to my suggestion above for a new sub-article called "9/11 opinion polls".  We could change the name to something broader if we include the 'media reception' section as well.  I think the summary of published criticism of specific theories (eg Popular Mechanics, Scientific American etc.) should remain here or on the 9/11 Truth Movement page.  I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this proposal.  Corleonebrother 19:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Basically agree. Media Reaction and Poll results could be subsections of the general reaction section(The Saddam Poll results should stay in the Claims against Saddam section). I agree that reactions to specific theories belong with those theories so "reaction" is probably a poor word Edkollin 06:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Since the September 11, 2001 attacks, a variety of conspiracy theories emerged which dispute the mainstream account of the events that occurred on and after September 11, 2001. Although the mainstream account is itself a conspiracy theory (involving only Al Qaeda), the term "9/11 conspiracy theories" usually refers to all theories that differ from the mainstream account.  Corleonebrother 01:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about just 9/11 unaccepted theories? It is true the theories arent accepted by the mainstream, and that "conspiracy theory" is often used because they are considered crack pot theories. But much of the speculation is supported by evidence and research. The theories isnt just crazy tales, they are backed up with lots of evidence. Now i agree there isnt enough evidence to prove the alternative theories, but the points should still be presented in an unbias way and let the public decide. It is a controversial theory on events supported by research. I dont think it should be treated in such a manner. I think the title should reflect 1. neutral point of view 2. the fact that it is not generally accepted 3. The fact that it has been scrutinized with legitimit research on both sides still leaving room for debate/consideration. Unfortunately the way this article stands right now it does not do 1 or 3 very well. Debeo Morium 18:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

text: *comment Personally, I strongly agree with this counterproposal. Thank you! Considering the opinions of the majority however, I agree to abide with the found compromise: "conspiracy th..". — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 10:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: There is no "official" 9/11 theory. Melsaran 10:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I completely agree with this proposal as well. And yes, there most certainly is an official theory, arabs working for al queda flew some hijacked planes into key targets, and america did their best to stop it, thats the official theory. Debeo Morium 15:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 16:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: I recently added the new sentence I proposed above into the article and it was reverted.  
:Although the mainstream account is itself a conspiracy theory (involving only Al Qaeda), the term "9/11 conspiracy theories" usually refers to all theories that differ from the mainstream account.
Below text copied over from user talk page:
:Hi Tom - please can you let me know what you think about the sentence I added to the 9/11 conspiracies page and why you reverted it?  I suggested it's inclusion on the talk page and I didn't think anyone was opposed.  Thanks,  Corleonebrother 19:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's inaccurate, because what you describe as the 'mainstream theory' is not a conspiracy theory, and it sets up a false dichotomy by implying there are two explanations about which reasonable men disagree. This is not the case. The reliable sources say al Qaeda destroyed the World Trade Center by crashing planes into them. Please do not take my reply as an invitation discuss conspiracy theory, in general or particular, either on my talk page or elsewhere. Tom Harrison Talk 19:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good point - thank you for making it.  Since you seem to have an interest in the article, surely you're not against discussing the article?  I am trying to get a clear definition at the top of the page about what the article is about.  Do you think the same sentence but with 'official account' instead of 'mainstream theory' would be OK?  (I'm happy to take this to the article talk page if you prefer)  Corleonebrother 19:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Best to take it there so everyone who has anything to say can take part. Tom Harrison Talk 19:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested new sentence

message: I would like to propose the following addition to #Claims that US defenses were deliberately disabled, but since I see it is disputed by people who call themselves skeptic, I write a proposal here on the talk page:
:Maj. Douglas Martin, NORAD spokesman, told Associated Press that from Sept. 11 to June, NORAD scrambled jets or diverted combat air patrols 462 times, almost seven times as often as the 67 scrambles from September 2000 to June 2001.
::REF: 1. Military Now Notified Immediately of Unusual Air Traffic Events, AP, 8/12/02 [cached] 
:Intercept is mandatory for any plane that veers of its planned course.
:Average intercept time is 12 minutes, and never more than 18
— Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (talk) 20:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  intercepts 

message: I reverted this edit there is no reliable, third party source that disputes the fact that it was American Airlines Flight 77. There is more evidence (much more) that it was 77 that hit the Pentagon than just the video and it can be stated that it was in fact 77 that hit the building. RxS 21:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  American Airlines Flight 77 

message: I made an edit, it was removed because the person indicated that i it had a "tendentious" point of view. I am adding it back, and placing the text here. I think it is quiet clear there is no point of view, i even cite a goverment publication to support the evidence. If you think it is biased, change the wording, but the evidence is cited and stated clearly. Also i encourage discuss, not straight removal. Anyway, here it is...
There are several points of evidence supporting the use of thermate, including the presence of molten iron, aluminum, and sulfur mixture throughout the rubble. FEMA. "World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations", Appendix C, pp. C-1 (May 2002).  Which is the residue left by thermate which consists of iron oxide, aluminum, and sulfur.
Debeo Morium 18:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The source you cite makes absolutely no mention of thermate, does it? Weregerbil 18:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I only said that thermate would cause these residues, i never said it is indisputable proof of the use of thermate. It clearly states that iron, aluminum and sulfur were present in a molten mixed state. it does not make mention of any other foreign materials in these regions. Now if you need another refrence that indicates these chemicals are the result of a thermate reaction, i can certainly provide that. The refrence is only used to indicate that these chemicals were present. The fact that they are the result of a thermate reaction is generally accepted knowledge, but id be happy to find a source indicating this fact. Debeo Morium 18:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have neutral, reliable sources which consider different possibilities and conclude that thermate is the only possible source of iron, aluminum, and sulfur? Especially in the light of the fact that airplanes, office furniture, etc contain much aluminum; steel (of which the buildings were largely made) is 98% or so iron; and gypsum plaster (of which drywalls are made) is a sulfur compound. So all of those elements were present in great quantities. Weregerbil 19:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly dont mind these opposing views to be added as well. i agree that thermate isnt the only possible source of these chemicals. Thats why wikipedia is so great, if you have a source that opposes a view you are encouraged to add it. unfortunately i can not find a source that would explain the high temperatures needed to melt the steel, aluminum, and sulfur together into a single eutectic compound. Granted these chemicals can be found throughout the building, but that doesnt explain how they got hot enough to melt together. If anyone can find an opposing source with describes this i would of course encourage its addition to the article. Debeo Morium 19:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center: According to NIST's computer fire simulations air temperatures in the towers reached up to 1100°C. That's higher than needed for an eutectic reaction (see the NIST FEMA report you quoted above). Weregerbil 19:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesnt explain the source of the temperature, only that the temperature existed (which was my initial point in the first place, thermate would cause these temperatures, so we need a source that gives another explanation for the temperature other then thermate, i think that would be the most helpful opposing POV)Debeo Morium 19:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The computer simulations simulated burning office furniture, and found the temperature to rise to 1100°C. To double check the simulations, NIST purchased some real (not computer simulated) office furniture and burned it in a real, non-simulated fire, in a compartment built to have the size and shape of WTC offices. Temperatures rose to 1100°C. No thermate was needed to produce the temperature, and no thermate was needed to produce iron, aluminum, and sulfur because all of those elements were present in large amounts in the buildings. Weregerbil 05:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What page of the report is the real life test indicated? I have never heard anything to suggest wood, in any size compartment can burn up to 1100 C unless infused with pure oxygene. If this is in the report i would love to see it, cause they just broke the laws of physics :). Seriously though im really curious what page this is. Everything i keep reading suggests either the flames did not get that hot. Not contradicting you, ust like to read it for myself. Debeo Morium 05:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Search for something like "1,100" or "fire test" in the PDF linked above. There's four or five pages describing the test, with pictures, graphs, text. When experiment contradicts one's understanding of the laws of physics, one has to know what to do with one's understanding and the sources of that understanding. There is the test between a scientific mind and a religious one. Weregerbil 06:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If i wern't willing to do that i would have never asked for the page number in the first place. Thank you, i will. If i ever find it (if we are to use this for the article we need the page numbers) Debeo Morium 06:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I should also point out that the article states... "The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 [WTC7] and 2 [Towers] are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified." While this doesnt prove thermate, i thought it was an interesting point to note since thermate would explain the presence of sulfur. Debeo Morium 19:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a look at drywall. Sulfur is also a component of jet fuel. Weregerbil 19:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it contains sulfur, but it doesnt contain Iron Sulfide. Which means there needed to be hot enough temperatures to melt the sulfur and iron and aluminum in the first place. I have yet to see any scientific papers explaining how this could occur, but if you find one i encourage you to add it to the article. Debeo Morium 19:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Answered above. Weregerbil 19:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: How is a FEMA report original research? Its their opinion not mine that these residues exist, and commonly accepted that it is the result of a thermate reaction. Like i said if you disagree these are the results of a thermate reaction there are plenty of sources to cite for that as well. Debeo Morium 19:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is original research because you are synthesizing individual factoids to advance a position. Tom Harrison Talk 19:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What factoid did i synthesize. I can cite reliable references for anything i stated. So if you believe there is something i synthesized i would be more then happy to provide such a reference. Debeo Morium 19:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Just a point: Isn't this: Take a look at drywall. Sulfur is also a component of jet fuel. Weregerbil 19:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: No scientific study has been made to identify the source of sulfur, and I think it should be clearly pointed out. Because this article deals with so-called 9/11 conspiracy theories' it is absolutely natural and justified to connect this with thermite hypothesis put forward by 9/11 Truth researchers. However, it should be clearly stated which facts are attributed to known science, which to 9/11 researchers, which to NIST or FEMA. SalvNaut 20:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I actually agree with SalvNaut's remarks about attribution. Tom Harrison Talk 20:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I am sure the people who wrote the report knew that sulfur was present int he building in dry wall, rubberbands, even rain water. That isnt really the question. The reason, i think, that the report said it was unaware of the source of the sulfur is that the unusual part is that it is mixed in with the metal, as if molten at the time. So showing that sulfur was present doesnt explain it, you need to explain how it got mixed with the metal. Of course we are trampling on original research to say "oh but sulfur is in the dry walls". We need a source that is credible that says the sulfur int he drywalls would explain how it got molten and mixed with the steel. And that hasnt been done yet. In fact, tom brings up a good point about original research. I think we should remove the mention of sulfur being in the dry walls as a possible cause of the sulfur int he molten iron since you did not provide a reliable source that connects the drywall's sulfure to the sulfur in the iron, and therefore is a synthasized factoid as tom points out.Debeo Morium 20:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Im not sure how we can prove that no research was done on this (as ive seen some things that support thermate as the source of sulfure, but im not sure if their reliable enough for WP standards so i didnt want to include them. But generally i agree, we should be clear about who concluded what. Debeo Morium 20:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Tom i just reverted an edit you made. You changed the wording to suggest the residue claimes were made by stevens. In fact they were made by FEMA in the refrenced source. So i reverted it back. Debeo Morium 20:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Tom the same source used for the quote also indicated (on the same page) that it was a "liquid eutectic mixture", so the citation is already there. Please remove yoru citation needed on the word molten. Debeo Morium 21:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: No i meant the FEMA quote. FEMA (the source i had given) indicates it was a liquid/molten metal, not jones. So the citation needed should be removed as it is already given. Debeo Morium 21:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, this an issue to think about because Jones (and other 9/11 researchers) claims are constructed from mainstream reports and their own research. If we want to present only Jones's claims then we will end with: "Steven Jones argues that WTC towers were demolished with the use of thermite."Jones' Paper (It may be that this is the way to proceed, but, imho, it's good to have a lot of properly attributed information, even in the summary) SalvNaut 22:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree. I see you've fixed that and it looks great to me. SalvNaut 22:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Steve Jones support" section appears to consist of quotes taken out of context, and references where one source says A (but denies B), another says B, and a third which says that A and B imply C.  We can't do that.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 05:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats a mighty big claim. Can you please indicate which quote or source was taken out of context, and what its proper context would be? If something doesn't properly reflect the reference sourced it should either be clarified or removed. But you'll need to share with us why it seems out of context so we can debate it and come to a consensus. So far you've just done several reverts to several wikipedians work without supporting your reasoning or entering it into an already on going debate with no clear consensus Debeo Morium 06:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note.  I didn't contact Rx StrangeLove, or post on any of the noticeboards this article is frequently referenced in.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 06:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Same goes for me and Badmark Debeo Morium 06:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I see Tom (although frequently making WP:POINT edits in the 9/11 fields) and others questiong whether the sources say what you say they say without interpolating additional information from other sources.  I rate the entire section as a WP:SYN violation, consensus or not.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 05:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First off whoever badmark is, it isnt me, and not a sock puppet. Secondly, tom did not remark about synthasis regarding the entire paragraph. Only an earlier form of it which has since been resolved. So lets see we have badmark, salv, and me on one side.. toms hasnt risen any objections since the new version, and you on the other side who has done three reverts so far on two different people. Ill ask another friend to look at it. If he feels its worthy of a revert and you do yet another revert i will regretably report the 3 revert rule (since it will be 2 reverts for me and 2 for 2 other people). I would much rather have debated this properly with you. Debeo Morium 06:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I would rather you commented on it rather than editing against the clear previous consensus that the FEMA report didn't say or imply "molten metal".  The paraphrase in the main 9/11 article was "glowing liquid", but it was apparently never sampled.  I still think your edit does not reflect what is actually said in the sources which are at all reliable, but I'll wait a while to revert.  .  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 06:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you bother to read the FEMA report cited. I have it open in front of me now. Yes it does say refer to molten metal several times. The last sentence on the first page of appendix C refers to it as  "A liquid eutectic compound consisting primarily of....". Tom seemed uncertain, when ic clarified this to him he didnt seem to disagree or agree, my guess is that he didnt view the source and had no comment on it. Also ive been accused twice of using a sock, i did not and never have. A clear check into the ips should reveal that. I doubt any of the ips are anywhere near mine in location, and certainly not the same. Debeo Morium 06:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "eutectic" is not "metal", and Tom probably hasn't been back on since you wrote that.  He's not on 24/7, like User:Bov.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 06:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A eutectic compound (and im oversimplifying here but feel free to look at the WP page on it) is an alloy or mixture of solids with a lower melting point then its constituents. Another words when you melt sulfur, iron and aluminum together you have a eutectic compound. However i choose not to indicate the full quote above. It when on to say consisting primarily of iron and the other compounds mentions. So yes, these materials were in a molten state. I guess you didnt read the source that you are saying is quoted out of context huh? cause the very next word int hat sentence where i have ... was iron. Debeo Morium 06:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit reverted without cause. 

message: My crazy little friends, we seem to have a little problem. many of the sections in this article simpley state the conspiracy, then forgo offering any direct response. Like most of these theories, instead of actually breaking it down scientifically, the article just throws overwhelming evidence to one point. over all this article is more on level with an editorial than an encyclopeda based on hard facts. 71.143.134.202 07:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree completly. Ive been trying to argue this point in various ways (and expierncing it right now with the topic directly above this). But its hard to make any leadway. Debeo Morium 07:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it were unbiased, then the refutation sections would be larger than they are now.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 07:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: However, the elimination of #Allegations of insider foreknowledge is unreasonable.  I cannot revert, as certain people inserting misleading interpretations of reliable sources have caused me to hit the 3RR limit.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 17:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not an edit I would have made, but I'm not prepared to restore the whole thing either. Tom Harrison Talk 17:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How can you say it was a misleading quotation when you clearly never even read the source in the first place (evident by our conversation above). Not to mention it is obvious that there is no consensus because no one seems to have supported your view for reversion in the talk (id be curious on toms view but as far as i see he hasnt commented, and 3 people seem to support it salv, me and mark). If you actually read the source and explained how it was taken out of context maybe you would have a leg to stand on. Debeo Morium 20:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And who exactly is that a reply to? plain and simple this page should be protected and each respective section should contain a rebutle.71.143.134.202 01:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was directed at arthur rubin, his statement "certain people inserting misleading interpretations of reliable sources" was almost certainly directed at me. And that was my response to it. Debeo Morium 01:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WAY too bias. 

message: Relying on the internet alone for definitions of conspiracy theory and conspiracism is alarmingly superficial.  There are dozens of scholarly books in print that define conspiracism. Here is one definition from Right-Wing Populism in America (which I co-wrote as Chip Berlet:
*::Conspiracism is a particular narrative form of scapegoating that frames the enemy as part of a vast insidious plot against the common good, while it valorizes the scapegoater as a hero for sounding the alarm. Like other forms of scapegoating, conspiracism often, though not always, targets oppressed or stigmatized groups. In many cases, conspiracism uses coded language to mask ethnic or racial bigotry, for example, attacking the Federal Reserve in ways that evoke common stereotypes about “Jewish bankers.” Far-right groups have often used such conspiracy theories as an opening wedge for more explicit hate ideology.
What are the key elements of conspiracism?
*::First, the conspiracist worldview assigns tiny cabals of evildoers a superhuman power to control events; it regards such plots as the major motor of history. Conspiracism blames individualized and subjective forces for political, economic, and social problems rather than analyzing conflict in terms of systems, institutions, and structures of power.
*::Second, conspiracism tends to frame social conflict in terms of a transcendent struggle between Good and Evil that reflects the influence of the apocalyptic paradigm.
*::Third, in its efforts to trace all wrongdoing to one vast plot, conspiracism plays fast and loose with the facts. While conspiracy theorists often start with a grain of truth and “document” their claims exhaustively, they make leaps of logic in analyzing evidence, such as seeing guilt by association or treating allegations as proven fact.
The work of Barkun, Goldberg, Mintz, Fenster, and Pipes can also be consulted. Try using a library card--it is a wonderful key to knowledge.--Cberlet 13:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be noted that Conspiracism is not exactly a mainstream topic of study. It is a pet theory of sorts for Chip Berlet and some of the authors mentioned above. --MaplePorter 21:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cberlet, that's interesting. The analysis of conspiracism would do well for the conspiracy theory article, and it would make people consider what falls under conspiracism. As soon as you add it to 9/11 conspiracy theories, however, you will see editors demanding reliable sources connecting conspiracism to the 9/11 grouping. Consensus on word choice would simply not be enough. —Kanodin 00:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Conspiracism

message: I think that FBI agent Coleen Rowley's letter to then FBI Director Robert Mueller has reason be be cited in this section.
Time Magazine article
It shows that she was compelled to write to the director to politely express her frustration at the difficulty of attaining and following up FISA search and detainment requests for accused 911 terrorist Moussaoui in the weeks up to and after the attacks. She indicates that had those requests been granted on the wealth of probable cause evidence collected, it would have gone a long way toward preventing the attacks. These are serious claims, as is in small part indicated by the following passages from the letter:
"...FBI Supervisory Special Agent (SSA) who was the one most involved in the Moussaoui matter and who, up to that point seemed to have been consistently, almost deliberately thwarting the Minneapolis FBI agents' efforts (see number 5). Even after the attacks had begun, the SSA in question was still attempting to block the search of Moussaoui's computer, characterizing the World Trade Center attacks as a mere coincidence with Misseapolis' prior suspicions about Moussaoui."
"...(The SSA in question actually received a promotion some months afterward!)"
JWarwick 04:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I could see a place for this in the article. I would support its inclusion. - Debeo Morium: to be morally bound (Talk | Contribs) 06:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Please minimize the block quotations (make them in-line). The article is already long enough. —Kanodin 19:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uhh this page is only semi-protected. If you have a user you can do it yourself. - Debeo Morium: to be morally bound (Talk | Contribs) 05:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  # 5.1 Claims that Al-Qaeda investigations were blocked and warnings ignored 

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