Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories/Archive 2

message: The recent merge/vandalism decimated the information in the former 9/11 domestic complicity conspiracy theories article relating to the war games and disaster drills that "coincidentally" took place on the morning of 9/11, as well as the stand-down order. The article as-is is heavily skewed towards the Israeli/Jewish involvement theories, which amount to a red herring. Also missing is Mike Ruppert's indictment of Dick Cheney as the man in charge of the coincidental war games on 9/11.
This article has been ruined.
:Sounds like sour grapes -- you're upset because your pet theories aren't placed on a higher level than the others presented here.  Is that what you're saying?  --Quasipalm 01:40, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and by the way, I wasn't aware that someone's additions were gone, which of course changes my opinion about the merge.  Still, you might want to find out who actually did the merging before you jump all over me about it.  --Quasipalm 17:19, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree, not all theories are created equal.  What I was originally saying is that a singal user can't expect everyone to agree that their single pet theory should be held above all others.  Perhaps I didn't make that clear.  As for the merge, yes, I can see why you aren't happy about it.  Perhaps someone can wade through the history and find out who did it so we can ask them why.  --Quasipalm 18:08, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  War Games 

message: Is it possible to unmerge this disaster of a hodgepodge? Alternately, can a complaint be issued?
:I would suggest putting up a RFC.  --Quasipalm 17:20, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Un-Merge

message: The following was added by an anon IP user in this: 
The person who actually said this was the WTC Construction and Project Manager, Frank A. DeMartini, and he said:    The building was designed to have a fully loaded Boeing 707 crash into it (note that a Boeing 707 is about the same size as the Boeing 767s that hit the towers). That was the largest plane at the time.   I believe that the building probably could sustain MULTIPLE IMPACTS OF JETLINERS because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door,...    this intense grid,... and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting.    IT REALLY DOES NOTHING TO THE SCREEN NETTING.
I moved it here to address some issues.  First, the latter half has tone problems.  Please remember that this is an encyclopedia, and shouting is best left off.  Also, the conversational delivery is not the best way to provide factual, unbiased reporting.  Second, the claim that a 707 is equivalent to a 767 is not quite accurate.  The gross weight of the 707 is 160,000lbs according to this.  The 767 has a gross weight of 450,000 lbs according to this.  Please cite your sources and reword your addition to meet wiki writing style, POV, and accuracy.  Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:10, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Claim added by anon ip

message: I want the old material from this page to be merged with the material from the domestic conspiracy article. There is no reason that these two articles should remain separate. If the israeli/saddam/smoke demon/alien theories must be added to this article as well, then they need to be briefly summarized at the end of the article. Initium79
:you are entitled to your own opinion, but the discussion is on the talk page for said article, in which you msut discuss facts and reasons regarding merge, and in which the consensus will determine the course of action. Kevin Baastalk: new 14:57, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
::The vast majority of people on this page have already expressed a desire to see the artilces merged, despite Kevin's sneaky tactics. →Raul654 16:20, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
:::I have no idea what your refering to as "the vast majority", nor have I slightest clue what you mean to refer to by "sneaky tactics" in regards me.  I have been perfectly out in the open, soliciting people for their positions and reasoning on multiple discussion pages, explaining the need for due process (due process is completely antithetical to "sneaky tactics"), explaing my actions clearly on summaries, etc, etc.  I can't fathom how any of my actions can be construed to be "sneaky", or even "tactics" for that matter: enforcing due process and working towards consensus is certainly no way to push an agenda of any sort. Kevin Baastalk: new 16:33, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
Not so much an opinion as a proposal. If people want to see a merge, we should merge the domestic theory article with this one. After that is done we can discuss how best to deal with the remaining articles. Does anyone object to this idea? Is the domestic theory article recoverable? Lets discuss, that's what I've been promoting from the beginning.Initium79
:Good.  I agree.  Traditionally, the discussion takes place on the talk page of the page to be merged, in this case Talk:9/11 domestic complicity conspiracy theories, which really needs a shorter, more direct name, IMHO.  I've been trying to get a discussion there, but there are a few contributors who haven't been discussing it, but rather have been orphaning the discussion page, even removing the content and redirecting it to the page to be merged to.  - And also blanking the content of the article.  Obviously one can't merge the content if it's not there anymore.
:So ya, I stand corrected: proposal.  We're promoting the same thing: discussion. :) Kevin Baastalk: new 04:54, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
::The discussion has concluded, and the article been merged.  There's no patience for hostage-taken articles any more, Kevin, this has been going on for months now.  And please stop pretending the article has been "deleted" or the content has been "removed", as it was merged here, and is always available in history anyway. Jayjg (talk) 05:22, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The information from page has been merged, and you can find anything else in the history of that page. Jayjg (talk) 09:24, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Merge 

message: I removed a paragraph elaborating on the ability of the towers to withstand impact of planes. I can appreciate what the author was driving at, however any expert opinion contrary to the offical story would be more appropriately placed in the wtc section. Initium79
:If the content should be moved, then move it, don't delete it!  I'll try to properly reintegrate the text. Blackcats 21:18, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Yamasaki

message: This section currently includes the theory of involvement by Iraq.  But this theory is actually one of the most common ones, and has gotten much more attention from the mainstream media than most of the others on this page.  I'm gonna move it up in the article to a new section on the official story as a "conspiracy theory." Blackcats 21:18, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Less Common Theories" section

message: I'm thinking now of moving the discussion of Yamasaki's comments out of this section and into the WTC section, and of course still including the note that any claims or rumors that he made those comments on or after 9/11 are obviously false.  Because once it's established that Mr. Yamasaki wasn't alive on 9/11, I don't think his comments are really any more disputed than any of the others discussed in this article.
The remaining section would then deal exclusively with interpertations the "pull it" quote, and therefore could be retilted something like "Silverstien's 'pull it' comments."  And this would avoid any npov issues with regard to the section title.
Blackcats 22:41, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree this is a good idea.  Yamasaki's quote could probably be just a few short sentences, I don't think this is a serious concern for most reasonable people.  (Alex Jones is pretty extreme, I think.)  The pull comments obviously are more of a hot-button issue, so it could be its own section.  I think the current section title ("hotly contested ...") is absurd because almost everything on this page is "hotly contested."  The whole idea of the original section was that these claims didn't hold much water even amongst conspiracy theorists, I believe.  --Quasipalm 18:28, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually went back and watched the Martial Law DVD last night.  At about 1:04  is where he mentions Mr. Yamasaki.  I wrote down Jone's exact words: "The architecht of the World Trade Center towers, Minoru Yamasaki, told the press many times before 9/11 that he specifically designed the towers to take massive passenger jet linere impacts." (my emphasis)  He in no way states that the man was alive on or after 9/11.  In fact the only factual error I found in the film was where he noted a report that bin Laden had gone for treatment at a US hospital in "Dubai, Pakistan" (Dubai really in UAE).  Blackcats 07:52, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: More thoughts on the "contested theories" section

message: When I see the phrase "one could reasonable conclude" in any article, I usually rewrite it to conform to Wiki guidlines to something like "some say." Many skeptics of the majority 9/11 explanation consider Alex Jones to be marginal and unreliable as an information source. I do not think I need permission to make changes such as these; but if folks want to dicuss every edit, then let's discuss them in a resonable manner--not by just reverting any edit authomatically.--Cberlet 18:29, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, my appologies for the delayed response.  I would appreciate, and feel that it would be much more conducive to the collaborative and compromise-based editing and discussion, if you would edit by section.  That way each section's changes can be evaluated and discussed separately.  Thank you.  Blackcats 03:49, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV edits

message: *a lot , but the main thing : what about the millions of dollars worth of extra transactions on 9/11 and the absurd increase in options in the week prior to 9/11 .. --Bverveen 09:06, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: good dummies page but im missing ..