Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories/Archive 1

message: The link in the line, "There is a wiki dedicated to disputing the official and/or unofficial story: The 911 Fact Repository" does not work. Does anyone know where it has moved? Amadeust 16:54, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

message: The text here on possible prior warnings and some of the text from Misinformation and rumors about the September 11, 2001 attacks should probably be moved to a new page titled something like 9/11 unresolved claims and questions.  There is a discussion about this currently at the Misinformation and rumors about the September 11, 2001 attacks page. --Cberlet 19:31, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Move material to new page?

message: # For a discussion of claims of conspiracies, I think controversy is not adequate, but would prefer a title of 9/11 conspiracy claims, and other titles that I have posted below in the comments section.--Cberlet 11:26, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 9/11 conspiracy theories

message: # "conspiracy theory" is a POV loaded term and its use should be deprecated on an encyclopedia.  "controversy" is a good general title signifying the alternative view.  "alternative theories" are not all, by default, "conspiracy theories".  zen master    T  08:24, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  9/11 controversy 

message: There is a new page, Wikipedia:Conspiracy_theory where there is going to be a larger discussion of the use of the term "Conspiracy Theory" in Wiki titles. It would be ideal if people with a variety of viewpoints joined the discussion on that page, since a number of page titles are likely to be discussed, and name changes debated.--Cberlet 19:50, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Debate on "Conspiracy Theory" in Wiki page titles

message: We have a growing 9/11 section in a conspiracy wiki for this where your information will be less likely to be edited out. We would be glad to have you come by and add it in. Conwiki 05:00, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: For disputed information showing US complicity in 9/11

message: Well, actually, thanks for the big rewrite.  The page reads better, and the claims are clearly enunciated.  Of course, I now will run around and look for the refutation pages and pop them in as clickable links. :-)    --Cberlet 12:58, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Big Rewrite

message: The article says:
:Minoru Yamasaki the Architect of the World Trade Center Towers has stated "We designed the towers to take multiple jumbo jet strikes, this is not architecturally feasible."
Actually, the Towers were designed to take a strike from the largest jet at the time -- the Boeing 707.  The 707 is not considered a jumbo jet.  --  Geo Swan 00:42, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you sure fire wasn't taken into account?  I think I've heard allegations that the fire resistance of the building materials and/or the adequacy of sprinklers and other firefighting systems failed to meet NYC Building Code standards, and that, if they had met those standards, the fire could have been contained and the towers would have stood. JamesMLane 19:40, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 707

message: Since this is merely a collection of claims, a source wouldn't need to consist of more than one persons opinion or belief anyway. A claim, however riduculous, is still a claim and should be recorded. I have written that not all claims can be proven in the introduction and I added a section where debunkers can put in false claims.
I've learned that Yamasaki has been dead since 1986 and moved that claim to the false claims section.
Initium79 01:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Source this material...

message: To me the title of this page implies the purpose is to document 911 conspiracy theories, certainly not to prove them, that would be impossible. This says nothing about the feasability of any particular theory or point. As stated in the introduction, this is a summary of beliefs.
That being said, our own POV can only remain neutral if these beliefs are accurately reflected. An article on christianity would not be neutral if the author felt it necessary to follup up every mention of Jesus with: "but it has never been proven that Jesus was the son of God."
I took your above quote from David Ray Griffin, a prominant figure in the 9/11 truth movement.
Should we distort his words? I want to work with you on this but we have to have some general agreement on the purpose of the page first.
Initium79 22:39, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: rethinking the purpose of this page

message: Feel free to join, together we are not ridiculed and dismissed as easy.
:*Wikipedia:WikiProject Conspiracy: The World Conspiracy Guild
:*Wikipedia:WikiProject Conspiracy: The Septeber 11 2001 Conspiracy Guild
:*Wikipedia:WikiProject Conspiracy: The London bombing Conspiracy Guild
--Striver 21:03, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guild 

message: I added a couple things about Ashcroft not flying commercially before 911 and some of the hijackers turning up alive. I was careful to phrase them neutrally but since there are invariably disagreements over new content, I want them to be discussed and resolved here. So if you have a problem with either of these new things, don't freak out, we'll figure out a way to make them mutually acceptable, just state your problem.
Initium79
:I think it sounds fine and is NPOV.  However, I wonder about the source on the Ashcroft line -- if you added that, it'd probably be more solid.  --Quasipalm 03:25, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New Stuff

message: I have been reading about September 11th attacks and conspiracies for a while now. For the past three years I noticed one thing in all of the videos on September 11th, the towers seem to have fallen very quickly. Most cases it takes time for the metal to get soft, normally around 2,000 to 3,500 degrees depending on the kind of metal being used. The twin towers had a steel frame and structure, as to which the steel heats or gets soften up at around 2,200 degrees. When the plane hits the building it explodes, mainly burning off the gasoline. The reports I've seen stated that the tempature never reached beyond 1,800 degrees, yet both towers somehow collasped in a matter of minutes. To prove that the towers should have never fallen so quickly, there are towers and buildings taller than the trade centers in other countries, mainly in Japan. A few of which caught fire, and burned for over 24 hours.. yet it didn't fall. Another issue is that watching the towers fall in slow motion clearly shows that there is some kind of outward explosion as the tower is falling. It's been dully noted that it could be the fact that the floors are falling down at increasing speed and with tons of pressure, therefore creating an outward explosion, it's a good answer but there's no proof that was the case. Watching it over and over again in slow motion, I began to notice and wonder why there was an explosion.. then it came to me.. bomb. The same kind of bombs that are used in construction to demolish buildings, they too also have an outward explosion. Even though they do have a delay on the fuse it can still be triggered within a matter of seconds. All in all, I think it's a cover up for the fact that our government wanted more natural resources from other forgein countries, even though they wouldn't surrender. The only possible way to gain or to take their resources is to start a war with them.. remember what happened when we nuked Japan?... we eneded up repairing everything, and giving up our electronics rights to them.
Drbovice (talk) 23:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Conspiracy