Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories/Archive 5

message: How does the article turn from a subject about 9-11 conspiracy theories into an article persuading the reader of their validity?
The WTC 7 section in particular could simply be renamed 911research.net, or prison-planet.com.   This might save a bit of space.  There was a photo that clearly showed smoke pouring out of the south face, yet it has been removed twice because of its “deceptive” nature.  A video shot of the same area supported the caption of the photograph.  I can only assume it would be troubling to see if one had a strong desire to hold on to the “limited fire” idea.   That and the numerous fire officials suggesting the building was severely damaged and raging with fire doesn’t mean too much either I gather.  
Repetitions keep creeping into the article such as the no plane statement, or the minimum fires, or the way it fell.  It’s not necessary to tell the reader this information 3 or 4 times.   
An article entitled 9-11 conspiracy theories should be simply that…an article about 9-11 conspiracy theories.  It should describe the evolution and the sub-culture of society that promulgates these theories and where they survive.  Instead the article list nearly 20 links to 911research.net, a website that’s operated by four individuals with only Hoffman having any sort of scientific credentials relevant to the topic.   It’s either this cite, or the Jones reference that gets utilized the most.  Even the BYU College of Engineering and Technology department went so far as to post a response on Jones’ paper stating, 
“Professor Jones’s department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review. The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones”
And the implosionworld.com response to 911research.net carried a critical tone in regards to the whole demolition theory; this is what they do for a living and they seem unconvinced.  Perhaps after their review of the subject, it will put some of this to rest.
Conveniently, the advantage of the conspiracy theory is its adaptability.  It’s like an amoeba that can change form at any time.   If this doesn’t fit, let’s try something else.  The pod theory, the once popular claim of conspiracy rhetoric, has faded to the background with the demolition theory taking more of a front seat.
I wonder if any of the employees in the buildings noticed their workspaces looked a little different on 9-11:
My point here is not to debunk these theories, because for some even time travel would make that impossible, but to suggest keeping this article as objective as possible regardless of your beliefs.  A summary of a certain claim is just as informative without a 10 point list on why that claim is important to those who believe it.  There are plenty of sites in existence already that do their best to convince readers of certain theories.--Doctor9 01:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree completely SkeenaR.  I think part of the problem is the passion of the conspiracy theorists.  Unlike controversial articles such as abortion, in which both sides are passionate and have unending will to keep the other side in check, I think that this article is followed mostly by belivers in the conspiracy theories.  People like myself get tired of trying to keep the POV in check at some point and stop checking in.  But I agree, I think a reworking of the article is in order.  --Quasipalm 22:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The persuasion orientation of this article is self-evident, but what to do about it?  As you say, the advocates are the most diligent of the editors here.  Trying to correct that POV is mostly pointless, as there's a determined group of people with the same pro-conspiracy POV that show up here and edit in that direction.  In that respect, the self-correcting promise of Wikipedia fails, and probably will never be remedied.  Indeed, Wikipedia's reputation as a reliable source has been deeply bruised by recent events, and probably won't recover without significant reform.  The Co-Founder of Wikipedia, whose name we "dare not speak", believes that the answer is to hire editors to sift the candidate entries, and has formed his own Wiki-like venture to pursue that aim.  In the meantime, this stuff is mostly harmless, and maybe even a little fun.  How we edit or don't edit these articles will not lead to the destruction of the Western World.  Wikipedia is just a starting point, not the last word.  Cheers brothers.  A happier and less-stressedMorton devonshire 08:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Aim of the article

message: How many see also links do we really need?  A few months I deleted my way down to about 20 -- does anyone want to do the honors this time?  --Quasipalm 22:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of the links aren't even categorized properly, or at least should be indented under others, particularly "Ben Chertoff, cousin of Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff Penned Popular Mechanics 9/11 Hit Piece" and "Alex Jones Responds To Ben Chertoff, Popular Mechanics 9/11 Debunking Campaign" - Scott McMasters
Why are people deleting links? I add one just to have it removed without discussion, so I add it again and it's removed again with no discussion. Is this really the way of Wikipedia? Chaos just because someone doesn't like it? 71.112.224.112 12:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Link nightmare

message: This article is titled 9/11 conspiracy theories and there is no end to the sources for these theories and speculation about them both pro and con. Does anybody have thoughts about removing the article from Articles lacking sources? It really doesn't make sense to me that the article should have that tag. SkeenaR 03:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not seeing this tag. Which one is it? Tom Harrison Talk 15:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Got it. See diff for what it was. Tom Harrison Talk 21:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Articles lacking sources

message: The better description to identify the science behind these theories is Protoscience and Pseudoscience, because these two concepts perfectly balance the dual nature in which people see these conspiracy theories -- some see the scientific evidence as science, and others see it as something which doesn't quite measure up to science.  The articles on these topics are informative and helpful for the reader in analyzing the scientific methods described in the article, and coming to their own conclusions.  Morton devonshire 21:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rather than reverting them because you don't like them (I will just put them back).  Please discuss it.  It's not the SkeenaR show.  I'm not 'fraid you boy -- I've tangled with the Cult of Mumia, and you couldn't hold a candle.  Let's be friends.  Your fellow WikipedianMorton devonshire 00:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Dude, I'm cool.  The only folks that shake my juju are the Mumia supporters -- man, those folks have drunk the Koolaid and are ready to tie on their matching sneakers and track suits, and take a ride to the Sun.  No reasoning with those Chumbas.  You guys are reasonble by comparison.  You find my lack of faith disturbing?  Still having fun here.  Morton devonshire 06:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The claim that it is "unquestioning" and that it is "everything" is unsupported; in fact, it is intellectually dishonest, self-serving and hypocritical.  The "ridicule" can be seen directly in your comments. -- Jibal 18:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The difference between 9/11 and other government "lies" (e.g. weapons of mass destruction) are the thousands of people that experienced 9/11, firsthand (yet alone the millions watching on television), as well as the hundreds of motorists and other witnesses at the Pentagon, and the thousands who would've taken notice of any effort at placing the amount of explosive in WTC7 necessary to take down the building.  There lacks any convincing evidence to the contrary of the "official" story.  -Aude (talk | contribs) 22:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Own it.  Don't be bashful bro -- you're a True Believer, aren't ya?  Morton devonshire 01:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The Onion does wonderful satire -- I assume you knew, right?  Morton devonshire 21:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Science, Protoscience, and Pseudoscience

message: "However, this does not account for the Jewish dominance in finance and the large population of Israeli nationals who worked at the World Trade Center." I'm missing the relevnace of this. What is it exactly that "does not account for the Jewish dominance..."? Does User:Pwner2 mean to suggest that disproportionately more or fewer Jews were killed? I don't see how this adds any useful information to the article. Tom Harrison Talk 01:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto.  Morton devonshire 01:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Me too.  MortonsSockpuppet 01:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well.  Since my sockpuppet agrees, it must be true!  Morton devonshire 01:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All (and their sockpuppets), I already removed this and replaced it with info on the proportion of Jews killed (15%+ of the WTC victims, and 25% of those killed who worked in the Twin Towers) compared to the proportion of Jews in New York City (12%), which should hopefully show how baseless the "missing Jews" stories are.  --Goodoldpolonius2 06:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claims related to Jews and Israel 

message: Is it just me or does the photo of the plane hitting seem like unnecessary advertisement? There are plenty of images just like it, so hopefully we can find a similar picture without 'CNN' plastered all over it. The comment could still portray the same thing with something like: "Video of the second plane crashes into Tower 2 was broadcast live on TV" (you get the idea...)
I don't think it's too bad. I think it has kind of a cool effect actually, giving a sense of immediacy. yea? nea? SkeenaR 23:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos 

message: We only own copyright on pictures we produce (graphic mock ups). Anything else is free reign.
 
Best regards, Paul Joseph Watson
http://www.propagandamatrix.com
Original Message 
From: xxx
To: prisonplanetweb@hotmail.com 
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 11:14 AM
Subject: image use request/wikipedia user
Hi Paul,
I go by the username Skeenar as a contributor on Wikipedia and I would like to know if it is possible to contribute pictures from the PrisonPlanet website without violating copyright regulations.
 
Sincerely,
Skeenar
 
As well as www.prisonplanet.com prisonplanet.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used Prisonplanet] and Propaganda Matrix the same rule applies to the following.
*www.infowars.com infowars.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used Infowars] 
*www.prisonplanet.tv prisonplanet.tv is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used PrisonPlanet TV]
*www.infowars.net infowars.net is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used Infowars.Net]
*Arnold Exposed
There was a dispute over this matter. SkeenaR 07:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Image use

message: There are a number of conspiracy theories involving the Jesuits, and the head of the order - sometimes known as the Black Pope.  There are several webpages alleging that the BP was responsible for/linked to 9/11 - a mention should be made of this (rather implausible) theory. Jackiespeel 16:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Head of the Jesuits and conspiracy theory

message: "Donald Rumsfield let his guard down and said in a speech that the flight was shot down."
While this sentence could have used some work, and a better reference, it does constitute "evidence" in support of a conspiracy theory.  Instead of removing it, why didn't somebody spend 30 seconds on Google, find the reference, and maybe clean up the language?  Any non-controversial article on Wikipedia would at least get this benefit.  It looks to me that a few very active people on this article spend more time whitewashing than editing. --Benjamindees 04:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Donald Rumsfield let his guard down is speculation.  The rest, suggestive, but not exactly evidence: the flight wasn't shot down, but it was brought down more or less deliberately. Peter Grey 06:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Systematic Whitewashing 

message: Why, in this massive article, is there no mention of the presence of several huge diesel fuel tanks in WTC.  They were placed there by the Giuliani administration, in violation of building codes, to fuel emergency generators.  Isn't it likely that THESE, and not deliberate sabotage, were the cause of the explosions that felled 7 WTC.  Why don't the conspiracy theorists address this question.  What happened to those tanks?  If there was a big explosision at #7, wasn't this the cause?
Adam Holland 19:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  7 WTC: Diesel fuel tanks for NYC's OEM "bunker" 

message: I was just wondering how the official explanation can be considered anything other than a conspiracy theory.  Is it not theorized that hijackers conspired with Bin Laden to carry out the attacks?  I suggest people look up definitions of the words conspiracy and theory.  This phrase has been turned into a label for any theories not released by what are considered official sources when it is simply a pair of words used to describe an idea that people planned an event.  
I do not consider any of the explanations given by anyone to be beyond speculation...does this make me a conspiracy theorist?  When questions are asked answers can be engineered.  When answers are questioned, they are immediately placed into the same category as the wildest of speculations.  
I would place the official theories in this article myself, but am far too lazy.
69.92.89.60 13:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Conspiracy Theory

message: This line seems to be more of a personal attack on Jones, and biases the minisection:
Prof. Jones does not have a bachelor or advanced degree in engineering, is not a trained structural engineer, and has never worked as an engineer.
I believe that this should be changed or deleted. I've left it up for now, but want another's opinion on the subject. Flame0001 19:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:RS says that sources we rely upon should have special training or education for the opinions they render.  While Jones is a professor, he's a professor of physics, not engineering, yet he's rendering engineering opinions about the collapse.  That's why the info is relevant.  It's not an attack, it's simply the truth.  Morton devonshire 21:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He's not rendering engineering opinions, he is discussing the physics of the collapses.  Physics is ideally suited to this situation because the laws of physics are in question with aspects of the collapses.  Basic physics underlies all building engineering - it is required for all engineers.  One doesn't need to know what specification of gypsum board was used to make an observation and put forth a theory based on the speeds of the collapses.  Furthermore, Jones is also focusing on the molten metal, and metals are his area.  I think we should change it to reflect the truth - that yes, he is not an engineer, he is a physicist.  As it is now, it only says what he is not. 198.207.168.65 23:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes.  The fact that he's a physicist is factual, and probably also relevant as you describe it.  Morton devonshire 23:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Attack on Prof. Jones

message: I'm just adding a couple of pictures. If someone thinks they are redundant or gratuitous let me know or remove some or something. I just figured they would be visually appealing and add to the article. If anyone still wants that one with the CNN logo changed let me know, otherwise I'll just leave it. SkeenaR 23:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Images