Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories/Archive 10

message: If the government really did orchestrate these attacks, how did they get Osama bin Laden to take responsibility for the 9/11 attacks?  Bin Laden doesn't just claim responsibility for everything.  He disputed that Al Queda was responsible for the London bombings in 2005 and he did not claim responsibility for anything that convicted terrorists not involved in his 9/11 hand-picked terrorists say.  What is one good reason why Osama would take responsibility for these attacks if they were not orchestrated by him?
: Osama was trained by the CIA. He could have performed that act on somebody`s order.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.137.120.236 (talk • contribs) .
:The December 2001 tape with bin Laden "claiming responsibility" has indeed been disputed as to whether the translation was correct or that the tape was doctored.  I'm not taking a position either way, but just saying there is dispute. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 01:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Al Queda Taking Responsibility

message: Steel manufacturer Corus Group (formerly British Steel) conducted tests on unprotected steel beems in an office fire. Despite temperatures of unprotected steel beams being in excess of 1100°C, there was no collapse [54]. A total of 7 tests were carried out between 1994 and 2003 on a 8-storey composite building with metal deck floors at a test facility in Cardington. There are no reports of any structural collapses during the tests [55].I read the cited articles, and they don't seem to say anything specifically about the WTC.
Do we have a source that cites these studies in relation to 9/11? Otherwise it is Original research.--DCAnderson 23:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The adiabatic flame temperature of the kerosene fuel Jet-A is 1727°C, well above the melting point of the WTC's steel.  These temperatures persisted for quite some time, to say nothing of the severe structural damage from the high-speed plane impacts that are discussed in the sections below. -- Huysmantalk| contribs 19:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Steel structure melted and collapsed at Madrid Windsor, so the last sentence is moot. -- Huysmantalk| contribs 03:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: www.engr.colostate.edu/~dga/me325/handouts/collapse_of_WTC.pdf; . -- Huysmantalk| contribs 03:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corus study 

message: The Good article nomination for  has failed
:This article has failed for a few reasons. First it is unstable, since many edits have been made in the past few days. Second, all the citations are not listed at the end of the article. Last, this article still seems to have many tasks still pending left. Fix those up before renomination.
 Alvin6226  talk  01:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These are all valid reasons.  I'm going to focus on removing weasel words from this article when I get the chance. -- Huysmantalk|contribs 02:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, upon reading the article I see that the number of weasel words has been greatly reduced, perhaps enough to have the weasel words item crossed off the pending task list. What do you think? -- Huysmantalk|contribs 02:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Good articles|Good Article]] [[Wikipedia:Good articles/Nominations|nomination]] has failed 

message: The main page is far too long, is tagged as such, and breaking the main headings into sub pages is clearly long overdue. Taking the main impact sites, WTC, Pentagon, Flight 93 site, combined with wargames, and foreknowledge, seems a sensible preliminary division. I propose the following and invite comments. Timharwoodx 09:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Strongly agree. This page is way to large on its own and should be split so that information about certain subjects can be easily found without refering to your internet's find ability. This would require a lot of pruning to make sure all necessary information is with it's appropriate page, and I'm sure many of you don't want to do this which is why it's been a month since someone replied to Timharwoodx. H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 09:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NO, actually 98% of this article is crap - badly written at that - and should be deleted. The rest should be used to write a concise, well written article. Raul654 09:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, do it. Start deleting, start adding sources, if you get into an edit war cite Wiki's standards, get protection if needed. You can't defend a conspiracy without researched sources from credible sources to back you up. I'm on the side that there is something hidden behind the attacks, but a conspiracy is just that without backing. H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 09:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did that once already - spent several hours rewriting the article, creating a reasonable introduction, 'etc.  I have no desire to waste my time doing that again, since apparently there are too many POV pushers here who cannot write a cogent sentence. Raul654 17:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This page needs to be split

message: Why is foreknowledge treated here as a "theory"? There is ample evidence to suggest it is factual.  --Laikalynx 20:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Foreknowledge

message: What happened to this page?? --71.36.251.182 17:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To the best of my knowledge this page and the two mentioned below were never started, and have always been redlinks. -- Huysmantalk| contribs 03:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WTC complex

message: What happened to this page?  --71.36.251.182 17:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Pentagon

message: What happened to this page?? --71.36.251.182 17:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Flight 93

message: PLEASE make the proposal before making such a drastic change in an article that so many of us have been trying to get right through so many disagreements and compromises.  We are getting around to deciding on what splits to make if you care to read the discussion above. SkeenaR 09:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tim, I agree the article needs to be broken up, but you need to leave a one-paragraph stub behind, not just a link to the new article. -- MisterHand 10:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "I propose the following and invite comments."

message: Please, unless you're specifically discussing an improvement to this article, please keep it off the talk page. Thank you.--DCAnderson 21:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree 100% and will cease. CB Brooklyn 21:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Me too.  I will reserve it for blogging and will post a link on my userpage eventually. -- Huysmantalk| contribs 20:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: CB Brooklyn, you and anyone else are invited to continue discussion at User talk:Huysman/911 conspiracism -- Huysmantalk| contribs 01:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Not a "chat" page

message: I have deleted "It is unclear exactly what warnings he is thought to have received" because the statement itself is unclear. Does it convey any specific verifiable facts? The next sentence says, "Mr. Schippers has said the information dated back to a 1995 warning that indicated a possible terrorist attack planned for lower Manhattan using a nuclear device." Mr. Schippers may be a nut case, or his informants imaginary or wrong, but that sentence does say, with a fair amount of exactitude, what warnings he is thought to have received. 
O Govinda 19:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What information Mr. Schippers received 

message: Fellow Wikipedians: I split this off to a new page because of the long article notice. The new page is 9/11 Jewish conspiracy. It is unchanged. The section on this page is jsut an abbreviated section, with fewer points and support (because otherwise, why split it off?) Scoutersig 03:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just so you know, a similar attempt at a fork just a few days ago was swiftly shut down by an AFD. -- MisterHand 03:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think Jews and Israel should have been the article to split.--DCAnderson 04:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: If this was just deleted at AfD, it should not be recreated. Or is it something different? Tom Harrison Talk 14:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: We didn't lose any info. We reverted all the info back in, didn't we?--DCAnderson 15:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I see what you mean.--DCAnderson 16:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

text: -). ILovePlankton 16:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jewish/Israeli conspiracy split 

message: Okay.....anticipating debate over these.
*Removed statement that amateur 9-11 researchers believe evidence suggests foreknowledge - insignificant that these particular researchs believe this - after all, that's why they're "amateur 9-11 researchers". Maybe if the SEC or some other credible authority held this opinion it would be interesting.
*Removed D.A. statement regarding Elgindy, $300k trust isn't large in the scheme of the options being traded that day and Elgindy is just a shady penny stock trader to begin with. He was cleared of the 9-11 allegations (but convicted on many other fraud charges), the D.A. statement was just a smear from the D.A. prosecuting him, and ignored by the Judge presiding the case (over unrelated matters) .
*Removed reference to the "Lone Gunmen" episode - fiction preceding the events. Belongs, if anything, in the Lone Gunmen article.
*Moved the entire Bin Laden tapes and videos section to Osama tapes, which I will tag to merge to Videos_of_Osama_bin_Laden. Both those articles are a mess, but the latter is cleaner and probably the best target for the merge. The tapes are of tangential relation to this page and only a stub is needed --Mmx1 01:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It has already been reverted. ILovePlankton 07:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Before deleting so much you should first discuss and make sure to have the consenus.--Pokipsy76 07:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have deleted three small lines, the justification for which is given above. How about challenging the merits rather than defending the status quo? It's been established that the page is too long. The entire section about Bin Laden was poorly written, copied itself, and was largely inconsequential to the conspiracy theories. It wasn't deleted, it got merged to Osama tapes where it belongs. Write a paragraph about the conspiracy aspects of the tapes, but a detailed timeline of them does not belong here. --Mmx1 16:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a link to "Osama tapes". It is, of course, not at all "inconsequential" to the conspiracy aspect of 9/11 whether or not the tapes are real or fabrications, or to what extent bin Laden is involved and how this is proven. These are important questions for all those writers who have been labelled "conspiracy theorists". I thought this was rather obvious. The timeline was actually not very detailed but rather concise, although I agree it could be improved. Rkrichbaum 02:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course the dispute over the tape is related, but a straight timeline is not directly related. What I'm looking for is a direct discussion of the main allegations the conspiracy theorists; not a tally of every tape made, their content, and the nitpicks of each of them, which is what the moved section contained. --Mmx1 02:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: You have deleted a lot of things, and the problem is that before doing a massive deletion you should first discuss the merit. The fact that the article is too long doesn't give the right to delete what you believe to be "poorly written". The topic is controversial and your personal aesthetic taste is not a guideline develope it.--Pokipsy76 21:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: More blather about procedure and not content. DO YOU DISPUTE THE REASONS FOR THE DELETION? There was no massive deletion, there were minor and inconsequential lines removed; plus the move of a large body of content (that appeard to be copy-pasted multiple versions) to an appropriate page. --23:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I have already said, I dispute the massive and weakly motivated deletion that has been done.--Pokipsy76 08:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletions 

message: This should be placed in the main article as well. 
CB Brooklyn 01:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another Former High Level Government Insider Speaks Up 

message: Maybe if someone finds a link that might explain just what the hell actually is going on with the hijackers and their id's we can clear this up for everybody. I'm a bit confused about the issue right now, but at least we are sourced. SkeenaR 01:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hijackers' identities questions

message: I think the term "researchers" is used too loosely on this and the other conspiracy theorist pages.  What exactly is a "researcher"?  Is it anyone, including laymen, who cobble-together uneducated theories?  What does one have to be to be a "researcher"?  Isn't a researcher someone who has some expertise in the particular area being researched, and therefore can make a thoughtful and objective analysis of that which he researches.  A "researcher" is not someone out to advocate on behalf of a particular theory, such as the conspiracy theories presented here, but someone who has an objective mindset.  As such, persons such as Hoffman, Jones, et al. don't qualify.  Morton devonshire 08:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because someone may have a particular point of view does not mean that they don't qualify as a researcher. Stephen Jay Gould had strong opinions, but that doesn't suggest that he wasn't a researcher. Are you seriously suggesting that people who have dedicated the majority of their time, expertise and knowledge don't qualify as researchers? There is no orthodox way of defining it that I know of, but I've read that someone who steals the work of another is a plagiarist, while one who takes from the work of many is a researcher. I know what you are saying, but I honestly can't think of better terminology than researcher. SkeenaR 09:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Researchers

message: I removed a source from the section regarding conspiracy theories about Jews which quoted a passage from www.jewsdidwtc.com, a ludicrously anti-Semitic website sponsored and maintained solely by the Gay Nigger Association of America, a ring of internet trolls whose main goal is essentially to be as offensive as the venues of the internet allow.  I assume I'm not alone in thinking that we should find another source for the quotations in that section, and that, as the GNAA's web site is an extremely inappropriate reference for this project, it's better left as a fact tag than linking to that site. JDoorjam     Talk 04:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of source 

message: If there was a mention of Pentagon financial shenanigans and WTC insurance policies here, I missed it.  These are big, and need to be part of the article.  Also, Thermite theories have plenty of evidence that could be expounded on here.  --71.36.251.182 17:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference to Pentagon money laundering and WTC insurance fraud 

message: In American English, the term conspiracy theory is perjorative. Since all theories of 9/11 are conspiracied, including the official story, perhaps we should change the title of this article to "Alternative 9/11 Theories".
TruthSeeker1234 04:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, we shouldn't.  Already discussed; the title is entirely accurate. Peter Grey 05:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, it's pejorative, and well-deserved.  Not an ounce of verifiable fact.  Just made up crap.  Morton DevonshireYo
You've been taking lessons haven't you?. Please check your discussion conventions. SkeenaR 08:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It's not true: the claims involve skepticism on the official account, involve suspect of complicity but not always "theories": a theory is a system of claims that attempt to give an explanation, there are not so many "theories" as far as I can see, there are a lot of questions instead.--Pokipsy76 10:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The term "conspiracy theory" is considered by different observers to be a neutral description for a conspiracy claim, a pejorative term used to dismiss such a claim, and a term that can be positively embraced by proponents of such a claim. The term may be used by some for arguments they might not wholly believe but consider radical and exciting. The most widely accepted sense of the term is that which popular culture and academic usage share, certainly having negative implications for a narrative's probable truth value.
So there are negative implications in the term according to the "most widely accepted sense of the term". The question is over whether "Conspiracy Theory" is a term intended to be used as a perjorative or whether it is an official term for describing a certain kind of theory. The term "Conspiracy theories" is generally used by debunkers who contest the theories while the "researchers" who support the theories never use it, they use the term "skepitcism".
This topic has been fiercely debated since the page was created. There was a vote on this when this page was first created and since the term does not show up on Words to avoid the consensus thus far has been that it is an acceptable term for use on this page.
Some arguments against the title:
* The term has objectively negative implications (there can be no discussion about this).
* When a topic is *controversial* (and this is the case) the title must be neutral: you can use title with negative implications when you speak about nazis or pedophilia because in those case there is an almost unanimous consensus (they are not controversial topic). If the topic is controversial you must use a title that is accepted by all the point of views.
* It's not correct to say that topic of the article are *theories* about *conspiracy*: the article is about the skeptic POV about the official account: alternative theories are part of the content of the article not *the* main topic. 
* It wouldn't be neutral to dedicate the article to *theories* about *conspiracies* (even if the article wanted to do so): to put emphasis on the *theories* is a way to discredit the skeptic POV: it's more difficult to believe someone when he says "I have a theory" rather than when he just says "I'm skeptic".
--Pokipsy76 08:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Change Article Name

message: I would like some more eyes on the Steven E. Jones article; in its current form it reads too much like a soapbox for Jones's theories, and I am currently having a dispute with another editor regarding inferences made on the article. --Mmx1 02:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Theories based on physical evidence. CB Brooklyn 03:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does Issac Newton contain a synopsis of his work on calculus or geometry? --Mmx1 03:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh come on CB Brooklyn 03:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea, I know, the two are not exactly comparable; but Newton has a decently written article for comparison's sake. And I don't see a synopsis of his Principa Mathematica taking up half the article. --Mmx1 03:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Comment 

message: It should also be included in the main article.
Published by Elsevier, one of the TOP publishers.
CB Brooklyn 16:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  All wiki 9/11 editors should read this book 

message: Hi all, I'm new to wikipedia, so I thought I'd give and get some opinions before jumping in and changing anything:
Additions:
Under prior knowledge, I would like to point out two videos, currently available on youtube.
#. Lone Gunman pilot episode. This is a spin off of X-files, produced around a year before 9/11, that has a substantial likeness to 9/11. Its main theme is that 
rogue elements in the US government/millitary/millitary industrial complex, mainly millitary contractors, remotely take over an airliner and attempt to fly it into a WTC tower, for the purpose of boosting millitary spending. In the last seconds the pilot regains control and skims the roof of the tower. Strangely enough it was supposed to have been seen by over 10 million viewers, and yet is rarely mentioned in the mainstream media
Personally I see this as one of two things: A warning by someone with foreknowledge, or a red herring by an insider. As a warning its purpose is obvious. As to why I consider it a red herring: mainly because it minimises blame, and because of its source (FOX entertainment) (although obviously a mainstream TV show wont normally go around accusing large portions of the current government of conspiracy, so Im not certain either way)
#. "Alex Jones Predicts 9/11" again available on youtube. In this video from a few months prior to 9/11, Alex Jones describes how the US government is preparing for martial law, and reports of plans to blow up planes in supposed terrorist attacks. He states that if they happen, we will know it is the government who is the terrorists, and even goes as far as predicting that osama bin laden will be blamed! 
Under Government Inquiry
"conducted a three year $24 million investigation" I would like to add something along the lines of the following (but more concise):
"Critics of this study point out that, in comparison, over $40 million was spent investigating Bill Clintons sex life (or insert other multi million dollar investigation into (relatively) smaller matter here), whereas 9/11 is considered the largest ever attack on US soil/failure of US intelligence/procedures, and recieved only 2$4 million, that even this was only provided after much public pressure, and after most of the evidence had been destroyed (*). They also point out that The report does not model the actual collapse itself, nor does it include the undamaged floors below the impact zones in its models, satisfying itself by only modeling up to the point where the buidings where about to collapse. Hence it does not explain any of the features of the collapse seemingly inconsistant with a gravity driven collapse."  see here for some details :http://www.911review.com/coverup/nist.html
(*) claims that most of the evidence was not destroyed are rediculous: Not only was this a terrorist attack of unprecedented size, It was also an unprecedented failure of 3 steel highrise buildings due to fire, and a multiple aircraft aviation disaster, each of which deserved massive investigation by themself!. In normal airliner crashes, investigators painstakingly find every possible piece of a plane and piece it back together, and NOTHING is disturbed untill it has been thouroughly documented and photographed, yet in the case of the WTC's, "A total of 236 recovered pieces of WTC steel were cataloged; the great majority belonging to the towers, WTC 1 and WTC 2. These samples represented a quarter to half a percent of the 200,000 tons of structural steel used in the construction of the two towers" (not to mention tower 7).
Would you normally be satisfied with an investigation where 99.75-99.5% of the physical evidence was destroyed before photographic evidence of it was taken or testing on it could be done?
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3Draft.pdf
I am also unsure why the following line is included under Gocernment Inquiry: "Critics question Jones' credibility on the subject by pointing out that he does not have a structural engineering background." Is this relevant? No claim was made that he DID have such a qualification, it is already specifically pointed out that he is a physics professor not an engineer, so why is this ad hominem attack needed? Of course critics point out his alleged lack of credentials. When they cant refute the arguments what else can they do?
Under "The Debris"
"Physicist Steven E. Jones has pointed out that these molten metal observations cannot be known to be steel without a metallurgical analysis being done." 
Addition: He also, very importantly, pointed out that from the colour of the metal being pulled out (bright yellow) its temperature was in excess of 1000 deg C, ruling out aluminium (which would be molten at 600 C), and strongly suggesting that it was infact steel, but more importantly; this temperature is hotter than should have been possible from normal fires alone. (this can be read in his paper "why indeed did the WTC buildings collapse")
Another Question:
why is the NY firefighter and the TRAC volunteer refered to as "two men" rather than "NY firefighter Nicholas DeMasi and TRAC volunteer member Mike Bellone"? especially since this information is in the documents listed? should we refer to NIST's report as "some guys report"?
Im also concerned by the wording "Alleged recent chemical analysis of recovered molten metal". Perhaps "preliminary independant analyisis of recovered molten metal" would be better. Is someone disputing that the analysis is taking place? Even "Preliminary independant analysis of alleged recovered molten metal" would be a little better, but unless you have some evidence/good reasons for believing it is not a legitimate sample, then even this is unneccessary. 
Next:
"They also say witnesses specifically describe seeing explosions or the result of explosions before the planes hit the towers, during the evacuation, and immediately prior to the collapse of the towers"
This should be 
"Many Witnesses describe seeing, hearing and feeling what initially appeared to them to be explosions, before the planes hit the towers, during the evacuation, mmediately prior to, and during the collapse of the towers. Many (some? there are quite a few) initially thought they where witnessing a controlled demolition"
I have read numerous statements by witnesses (firefighters etc) backing this up, as shown below, and have also seen news footage talking about the explosions, and heard what seems to be the sounds of the explosions on footage of the collapse (see 9/11 eyewitness, the camera across the water, there appears to be a huge rumbling explosion about 10 seconds prior to the collapse).
Karin Deshore -- Captain (E.M.S.)
"Somewhere around the middle of the World Trade Center, there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building. " (emphasis mine) http://www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/oralhistories/explosions.html
etc etc
Dominick Derubbio -- Battalion Chief (F.D.N.Y.) [Division 8]
"It looked like it was a timed explosion, but I guess it was just the floors starting to pancake one on top of the other". Note I left the end speculatory comment in, even though his initial opinion of what it looked like was a timed explosion.
Under Motives: I would like to add the following:
"Claims have been made that large amounts of gold and silver bullion went missing from the gold repository underneath WTC 4. There were unverified rumours of up to 160 billion in precious metals stored there prior to 9/11(*), although more realistic estimates put the amount a little under a billion. There are also claims that some of this was found abandoned loaded in trucks under the WTC, though this seems to be based on a misreading of the initial news story. Officially the gold was recovered in its entirety; an amount of around 250 million dollars worth."
(*) I realise that this is not well backed up, however this IS a conspiracy theory explanation page, and this IS part of the conspiracy theorists alleged motives for 9/11. I have unsuccesfully tried to find accurate figures for the amount of gold down there, and although not entirely successfull, it certainly seems to be quite a bit more than 200 million. (eg just one of the banks claimed they had around 200 millions worth worth down there, yet there where quite a few banks using the vault).
see here: http://www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/gold.html
other motives:
"It is also claimed that the attacks where used to allow the US to invade Afghanistan and Iraq for various reasons:
* To allow the building of the planned Amoco(sp?) oil pipeline through afghanistan, and allow the US to gain influence in this area of the world, due to important oil resources in the area.
* To reverse the ban on opium poppy growing that the Taliban had put in place. It is interesting to note that prior to the Taliban ban on opium growing, Afghanistan was the worlds number one opium grower. During the ban opium production dropped 95%, yet after the US defeated the Taliban government, the ban was lifted and Afghanistan is once again the worlds largest supplier of opium. see http://www.copvcia.com for why this is considered by some people to be extremely important to the US economy 
* To stop Iraq from selling oil in Euros rather than USD. Conspiracy theorists believe that since the USD is no longer backed by gold (is this true by the way?), one of the main things holding its value up is that OPEC nations only allow oil sales in USD, basically making it an oil backed currency. It is claimed that both Iraq and now Iran were/are being targeted due to their attempts to sell oil for euros instead of USD.
*Personal motives for people claimed to be involved in the conspiracy include the 5 billion dollar insurance payout recieved by Larry Silverstein, owner of WTC7, who had just taken out a 99 year lease on the entire WTC complex 6 weeks before 9/11, and the Federally funded cleanup of buildings which are alleged to have had massive asbestos related problems. 
Anyway, thats enough for now (lots more to go though), got other things to do, be back again later. Let me know what you think. Personally, I think this article is full of POV statements/wording and seems almost deliberately laid out to minimise the impact of the more important claims/discourage people from understanding the real issues. Example:
"The rubble of the Twin Towers smoldered for weeks after the collapse. [47]
    * This claim is meant to point out that steel could only have smoldered as a result of pre-placed explosives."
This is a strawman argument, in what is supposed to be a NPOV resource on these theories! The problem is not that it smoldered, it is that there was "dripping metal steel", according to various members of the cleanup team, and this could not have come from the heat sources (normal fire) officially present. Stating that it was the smouldering that was out of place right at the start of this section immediately makes this claim/section appear ludicrous, encouraging casual readers to skip over the section where it explains the actual problem.
I have tried to word my possible additions in as non POV way as possible, but a little of my bias may have slipped through.--Diablomonic 12:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed additions/ Edits