Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories/Archive 3

message: alternative theories or 9/11 skeptism are much more fair and accurate titles. Here's why
~using the definitive use of the word, the attack on that day was a conspiracy no matter who was behind it. Be it Osama, the CIA, Mossad or the Dalai Lamai. 9/11 was a conspiracy. So that makes the word settled and no longer neccessary.
~the current title is prejudice and insulting to real inquiries about 9/11 because of the flack recieved under the name "conspiracy theories." It makes people not bother to take it seriously. the Orwellian tendency to call speculation of 9/11 "conspiracy theories" originated from the same political seed that orchestrated the US to invade Iraq, US senators to pass the patriot act overnight,  the replacement of human rights with torture, and the stonewalling of a 9/11 investigation.
----
Let us not tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th -malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists themselves, away from the guilty."
George Bush, 2001
~These theories have ground and consistency, unlike the official story.
~9/11 skeptics arn't aluminum foil heads who share blogospheres with people who question wheter JFK was shot by aliens. There base garners huge support from victims' families. Over half the city of NY believes the governement had at least foreknowledge of the attacks coming and used them politcally and economically for their own self interests.
----
"Lucky me I hit the trifecta."
George Bush, 8 times in 2001 and 2002
~You don't get a label for openly percieving OJ to be guilty as hell. <<<officialy innocent
niether even the existence of God in today's society. So why 9/11???
'''
HOW DARE YE QUESTION OUR CORPORATE MEDIA'S GOVERNMENT SPONSERED STORYLINE?!?!?! Shame!!!'''
my thoughts--Lamrock 02:42, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your thoughts, but not a policy for Wikipedia. Angst and emotion do not trump facts and NPOV. Sorry.--Cberlet 02:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me digress. Emotions are everywhere on wikipedia and the plurality accepts that. You play those cards and you will lose, if you need me to prove it, just ask. Onto the point the title 9/11 skeptism is not only fair for everyone. If you studied it you'd also know it's accurate I ask everyone to vote for this name change--Lamrock 03:07, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me suggest that you check out the fact that this exact issue has been debated extensively already, and a vote was taken that said a name change was not appropriate.--Cberlet 03:22, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: golly, guess I missed the bus huh? Well... too bad guy, caus it's being debated again.--Lamrock 03:38, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's not being debated again -- not yet anyways.  That doesn't mean that wikipedia policy will never change, it just means that everytime someone decides they don't like a specific term, the world doesn't stop turning until they are satisfied.  It's been debated on a number of pages and "conspiracy theory" has been determined to be less POV than other options.  The same has been shown for "terrorist" and plenty of other hot-button words.  Just because you demand a debate, doesn't mean that the issue needs to be rehashed.  I would suggest going through the talk archives of this and other 'conspiracy theory' pages and policy pages, and finding some new information on why c.t. is no longer apt.  I would also find an adequate replacement before suggesting a change in policy.  (Neither skeptism nor alternative theories are new or have shown adequate for most wikipedians.) --Quasipalm 18:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I support a bid to change the name.  An actual conspiracy or not is immaterial to what we call the page.  The word conspiracy is pejoritive especially when coupled with theory.  It conjures tin foil hat wearing wackos and detracts from any serious inquiry into the concept.  I would prefer 9/11 alternatives or Skepticism or Criticism (or something similar).  These terms have been vetted all over wikipedia as npov.    Also the word has too many stipulative and colloquial meanings to actually be useful. Someone please email me if it comes up for a vote, which i think it should  TitaniumDreads 07:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. A couple of weeks ago there was significant disagreement over whether a section of this article should continue to be labeled with "conspiracy theory" if moved to a sub article. There has historically been disagreement over the phrase's use in titles within Wikipedia generally so alot more discussion may be necessary to find consensus here, see Wikipedia:Title Neutrality for the full scope and details. zen master T 08:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a consensus on the use of the phrase "conspiracy theory". Zen-master simply ignores it. Only a tiny minority of Wiki editors object to the term. In a democratic environment, the minority has rights, but it is anti-democratic for a minority group of editors here to relentlessly insist that we have the same vote over and over and over. To pretend this question has not been settled (and recently), is, to speak plainly, simply misleading and dishonest. This question has been raised, voted on, and defeated.--Cberlet 13:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus does not mean majority. The first straw poll on the issue closed over 6 months ago, if new people or anyone wants to re-open debate, discussion, and voting I fail to see your justification for restricting what other people do. The Wikipedia:Title Neutrality proposal has specifically been updated based on discussion page feedback, arguments, and concerns, including yours. It's obvious to many users that the phrase "conspiracy theory" is pejorative, we just need to seek a larger consensus and get as many people as possible aware of this issue. zen master T 18:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been discussed ad nauseum Zen.  Yes, consensus doesn't mean a majority.  But it also doesn't mean that a few renegade editors can force wikipedia to lose it's credibility by using it as a platform to push an agenda that has no basis in fact or evidence.  --Quasipalm 18:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree, I have often asked and wondered why the title of certain articles has to specifically be exactly "conspiracy theory" given all the alternative titles... zen master T 21:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request to change title 

message: I've added a merge request to this article: 7 World Trade Center#Conspiracy theories.  Anyone object?  The reasons being:
# This page has all of this information already
# The 7WTC page is overrun with alternative theories about collapse (yes, they should be mentioned, but it shouldn't be 3/4 of the page).
Thoughts? --Quasipalm 17:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[7 World Trade Center]] redundant with this page

message: I restored this flag because not only is this article badly written, but material keeps getting added that does not report on claims as claims, but makes assertion that are POV and highly dubious. This is an encyclopedia article on conspiracy theories generated after 9/11, not a cesspit for conspiracy cranks.--Cberlet 17:10, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Totally Disputed

message: It's best to put the neutrality tag as well. We need more editors to moderate this article's neutrality. This subject matter is extremely important and would do much service to the public (only when neutrality is established). We cannot risk allowing this article to appear manipulated or biased in anyway, because readers might think that this is propaganda and disinfo. Credibility works best with objectivity. The neutrality tag is on for now.
Ratherford Skills 18:48, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reinstated the neutrality dispute tag 

message: I took out both of the modifiers alternate and conspiracy. I think with "conspiracy theory" already in the title it would be redundant to have it in the paragraph also. I also think it better reflects reality to say that "Before the sun had set on the evening of September 11, theories were being developed..." Everyone was casting about for an explanation, and no particular view had emerged as dominant. I suppose for consistency we could change the next sentence to "For each event that transpired that Tuesday, multiple explanations have arisen" or "For each official explanation an alternative has emerged." Any thoughts? Tom Harrison (talk) 22:18, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro 

message: For the most part I liked the revisions and clean up that were done to my original version of this stub. I revised the wording some more myself and added that the Bush Family, Saudi Family relationship was part of the particular "bias" of the Micheal Moore film.
The description of Micheal Moore as a "left wing" filmmaker might be partially misleading or to inflammatory. He may also be described as liberal or populist. 
A need for further development is the reaction outside of the United States. 
I used in my original post such terms as "fruitcake" and "tin hat brigade" to describe common reactions to alternative theory threads because in looking at many threads on this topic those words were used over and over again. It was changed to "inventing stories" and "being paranoid" which is accurate but may not convey the emotional and personal nature of the reaction to the posters of these type of threads.
I made two other additions that need to be looked at 1. Added to the motives section a belief that the public needed to be made ready for a global conflict between Western Civilization and Islamic Fundementalism. 2. Added to the other areas of interest section a Marvin Bush connection to a firm that did security for the World Trade Center.--Ed Kollin 12/05/05
:I moved most of your section to 9/11 conspiracy theories#Claims related to the House of Saud since most of it was related to the Suadis more than it was the media.  However, one part that only dealt with the media's reaction to conspiracy theorists was:  "Many web sites have been set up to try and debunk the official theory and the subject often comes up in current events discussion boards. Reaction to the alternative theory threads have mainly negative even on websites hostile to the Bush administration. Common reactions include accusing the poster of inventing stories or being paranoid."  I wasn't sure if this merited it's own section, so we can recreate it using this as a stub and flesh it out a bit more.  --Quasipalm 19:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Traditional and New Media discussion in the United States 

message: Two articles from the December 7-13 2005 issue article "The 9/11 Files Four Years Later What We Still Don't Know" 
and  article "The 9/11 Commission Dealt With Several Issues By Ignoring them" is an inspiration for several changes and additions. I am changing "Claims related to the House of Saud" to 9/11 conspiracy theories#Claims related to the Saudi Royal Family and other Saudi Government Officials.  The "Saudi Royal Family" is a more familiar term . I added a claim from that article to the section mentioned above as well as adding a motive to the 9/11 conspiracy theories#Motives
--Ed Kollin 3:21, 8 December 2005
:Great, I originally created the heading w/ "House of Saud" -- the reason being that seems to be the prefered title for the Saudi Family here on Wikipedia.  However, I agree that Saudi Royal Family is more common, so you edit makes sense.  --Quasipalm 21:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Village Voice ]] inspired changes and additions

message: ANTHRAX MYSTERY?
Is it surprising that the CIA and FBI haven’t exposed the anthrax killers? Are the anthrax killers near the top of the FBI’s most wanted list? We do know this about the anthrax murders:
1.     The letters contained highly classified weaponized anthrax (Ames Iowa strain, weaponized at Fort Detrick Maryland) developed by the U.S. military and/or the CIA.
 
2.     The letters were mailed from Trenton New Jersey while the Republicans were trying to jam through the Patriot Act that would give President Bush unprecedented power to disregard Americans’ civil rights, increase defense spending, control the media and wage war.
3.       Anthrax letters were mailed to:
a)     Tom Brokaw of NBC Nightly News (A fairly balanced news network) 
b)   The New York Post. (A high profile, fairly balanced newspaper)
c)   A boy died of anthrax after visiting ABC news (A fairly balanced U.S. news agency)
d)   A editor for the National Enquirer died of anthrax (A very widely distributed and widely hated tabloid that is prone to sensationalize conspiracy theories)
e)   A mailroom worker contracted anthrax at CBS News (A fairly balanced U.S. news agency)
The media was driven into hysteria from the Anthrax letters and fervently backed the war on Terror. Note that anthrax letters were not sent to war loving media giants FOX or CNN.
f)       Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (Democrat, S.D.) received the first Senate anthrax letter as he led the opposition to the original version of the Patriot Act.
 
g)     Senator Patrick Leahy (Democrat, Vt.) received an anthrax letter after he expressed reservations about the Patriot Act. As Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, he managed the debate on the Bill.
4.       No Republicans received anthrax letters. George Bush Sr and Collin Powell didn’t receive anthrax letters. No CIA agents, Military Personnel, Weapons Dealers, Oil Companies or Jewish Organizations receive anthrax letters. No large public gatherings were targeted with anthrax.  (This all lends serious doubt that either Arab militants or Saddam Hussein were behind the letters) 
5.       The Letters contained scribbled words “Death to America, Death to Israel, Allah is Great” that were written by someone worried that his handwriting could be traced. Tom Brokaw, Tom Daschle, Patrick Leahy and the NY Post have no obvious connection to Israel. The anthrax letters, instead, looked like they might have been forged to frame Islamic militants. 
After receiving his anthrax letter, Senator Daschle switched from supporting a 2 year limit on the Patriot Act, later defending a 4-year sunset clause as the appropriate balance.
6.       The letters were precisely targeted and perfectly timed to unite the media and the opposition (Democrats) in the War on Terror, the War on Afghanistan and the War on Iraq.
7.       The letters (only 4 were positively identified) did not kill their intended targets, but the anthrax material was so sophisticated that the spores passed through the envelopes and infected people all along their path--including secretaries and postal workers. Five people are known to have died from inhaling spores from these letters, and 13 others were infected but survived.
8.       The Anthrax Letters created the maximum amount of terror with the minimum loss of life.
9.       Dozens of hoax anthrax threats have been widely publicized in the media. The CIA and Bush administration have promoted some of these hoax threats – encouraging many American to buy gas masks and seal off their houses with duct tape. Faulty (read: fabricated) CIA “intelligence” about Iraqi Anthrax built hysterical U.S. support for an invasion despite serious doubts from Americans, Brits and most of their closest allies. Hoax anthrax scares are still creating front page headlines and extreme terror throughout North America.
10.   The day after the anthrax letters were mailed to Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy (6 days before either Senator received the letters), the original batch of Ames strain anthrax was destroyed with the permission of the FBI --- making tracing this anthrax type much more difficult.                                                                                                                                                    Could it be incompetence, conspiracy or cover up that, two months after the anthrax attacks started, the FBI still had not investigated the only facility capable of producing weaponized anthrax -- the biological warfare program based at Fort Detrick Maryland.
11.   Within a ten day period, immediately after the USA Patriot Act was passed, three top anthrax experts with knowledge of the U.S. bioweapons program died under suspicious circumstances. Within four months 8 more world-leading microbiologists were killed. Coincidentally, the controversial coroner of one microbiologist (Don Wiley) was later found wrapped in barbed wire with a live bomb strapped to his chest.
12.   British microbiologist, weapons expert and would-be whistle blower David Kelly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kelly) died in an “alleged suicide” on July 17, 2003 – amidst world wide publicity that the U.S. and Britain had invaded Iraq largely based on fabricated “intelligence”. Half the world was anxiously waiting for further news releases on Kelly just before his mysterious death. It is notable that on the morning of his death, Kelly e-mailed New York Times reporter Judith Miller (of Valery Plame leak and Lewis Libby Indictment fame) and told her that many dark actors were playing games.                                   (Email sent by Dr Kelly to Judith Miller on July 17, 2003   http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/com/com_4_0076.pdf )
Were some of these dead microbiologists capable of exposing the anthrax killers?  Had they been e-mailing each other about the attacks? This stuff has got all the makings of a detective thriller other than creating any serious doubts as to who was responsible for the letters. The only thing that really has to be established is a motive.
(A)    Did the perpetrators mail the letters because they honestly believed that the American people needed to be shaken up – even after 9/11 – in order to face the threat of suicide bombers? 
(B)    Did the perpetrators mail the letters to cash in on hysterical support for:
a.       Increased Weapons Spending? Hundreds of billions of dollars are going into somebody’s pockets.
b.       An Invasion of Afghanistan with its strategic presence along the east border of Iran, and the oil-rich Caspian Sea?
c.       An Invasion of Iraq (on allegations of stockpiling anthrax and other WMDs) with its strategic presence along the west border of Iran.
d.       An invasion of Iran with current (delayed) allegations of its complicity in 9-11 and the terrorist attacks?
e.       Complete control of the oil-rich Middle East?
f.        Note that Shell Oil is paying $150 million in fines to the SEC and FSA for overstating its reserves by (at least) 20%. Shell’s auditors warned the company as early as January 2000 that its reserves were overstated. Could other oil companies also have been overstating their reserves and pressuring the U.S. and British governments for access to oil in Iraq, the Caspian Sea, Iran, (and Venezuela)? 
(C)    Did the perpetrators mail the letters because they wanted to create a massive distraction from the financial meltdown on Wall Street that was being caused by widespread exposure of corporate corruption (ENRON, WorldCom, Merck, Arthur Anderson, Halliburton etc. etc. etc.)? 
The people who profit the most from a crime are the people most likely to have committed it. Who profited the most from the Anthrax letters?
I really hope that the answer to the above multiple choice question is (A) but it makes you want to get some straight facts from the people Americans are trusting with their lives. 
It would be better than Santa Clause if there was a believable: (D) None of the above; answer 
Who else has a clear, believable motive to precisely target the media and the opposition with anthrax?
Remember how Karl Rove and Lewis Libby were willing to pre-emptively threaten the life of Valerie Plame (by leaking her identity to the press) to prevent Joseph Wilson from providing America with good intelligence on Iraq’s (non-existent) WMDs? Remember how Bush was willing to use the forged “Yellowcake” document? How much of a stretch is it to assume that one or two members of Bush’s administration were willing to brutally threaten the media and the main senate opponents to the Iraq war????
Remember that some of the people that were so desperate to invade Iraq were among the few people in the world capable of accessing the weaponized anthrax from Fort Detrick.
It's chilling that it might only take a few hundred people, a few billion dollars, some orchestrated scare tactics and a lot of greed to completely hijack a government with an annual budget of a trillion dollars. 
Even with all the inconsistencies surrounding 9/11, Bush's team figures that it's in their best self-interest not to co-operate with investigations. What are they trying to hide? Are people just too apathetic or dumb to need to know what's going on in the world? 
Like Bush said, terrorists have to be brought to justice—no matter who they are. 
It would be best if the whole Bush Administration (Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Lewis Libby, Karl Rove, Paul Wolfwitz, John Ashcroft, John Bolton, Trent Lott, Richard Perle etc) was put on polygraphs to see if they know of any conspiracies around the WTC bombings, Anthrax letters or Iraq invasion. 
For consistency, other Washington insiders like Zbigniew Brzezinski, Tom Daschle, Patrick Leahy, John Kerry etc should also be put on lie detectors.
It’s laughable that lowly police officers and CIA agents are rigorously tested with polygraphs, but the directors appointed to control the agencies are considered “untouchable”, “beyond suspicion” and “above the law”– even during global debacles like 9/11, the War on Terror and the War on Iraq.
:This is a talk page, not a soap box.  Please keep content relavent to improving the article.  Thanks.  --Quasipalm 21:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ANTHRAX MYSTERY 

message: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Conspiracies Guild--Striver 00:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How about working towards presenting "conspiracies" in a neutral way that doesn't play up the X-files angle which indirectly ridicules and dismisses various non-mainstream theories? For starters, lose the word "guild". zen master T 01:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like a great idea, and id love to see you make sure the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Conspiracies Guild does not do that! Id love to see you active in that guild, removing anything inappropriate from it, and adding anything appropriate to it ! --Striver 03:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, then rename the project. Creating a "conspiracy" wiki project seems redundant to just pointing out and correcting various NPOV violations in articles involving "conspiracy" allegations. zen master T 21:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately a couple of posts on message boards do not equal serious attention. Arkon 01:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: join!

message: I've seen it mentioned before on some conspiracy website that 7 WTC might have been brought down due to the fact that it was hit bu a US missile shot at one of the hijacked planes. If I recall, this claim had some phootos that purported to show this missile. The 7 WTC main page briefly mentions a missile but I don't see this claim mentioned here. Is this a well known claim? If so it clearly needs to be included. We need to also note that unlike 'controlled explosion' and bomb claims and the like, the missile claim doesn't suggest the US did it on purpose, in fact it suggests it was an accident. (Of course, it's possible and I'm sure some people have claimed that the US purposely fired a missile at 7 WTC and if this is also well known, we should mention it) Nil Einne 13:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It sounds like you might be confusing WTC 7 with WTC 1 and WTC 2.  Nil is talking about the short note on World Trade Center 7 about a missle.  I think the missle line should be removed, as it doesn't appear to be a common conspiracy theory.  --Quasipalm 16:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  7 WTC 

message: I've been working to NPOV some of the sections here.  Many have been set up as a debunking - frequently using wording and phrases like "however," (more info at WP:WTA) and essentially asserting a "debunker's" POV.  NPOV allows Wikipedia to present and cite the opinions of both sides, but not to assert one point of view or opinion on the matter.  Also, all criticisms must be directly cited and specifically relevant to the matter being discussed, and comments in somebody's blog don't count.  Blackcats 22:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV and the debunking set-up format