Talk:September 11 attacks advance-knowledge conspiracy theories

message: Should the name of this page be 9/11 advance-knowledge debate instead of 9/11 advanced-knowledge debate, because we have an article entitled "Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge debate". Noah¢s (Talk) 03:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I created the page without the d, for precisely that reason, but it was quickly changed.  Thinking about it, perhaps its better with the d, so maybe the Pearl Harbor article should be changed to match this one for consistency?  Corleonebrother (talk) 18:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree - in conversational American English, "advance" is used to indicate one event preceding another in time: "advance warning," "cash in advance," etc. are standard, whereas "advanced-knowledge" appears to be a new coinage.  It is also potentially confusing (to speakers of American English, anyway) as "advanced" is used to indicate an object's position in space or the progress of some process: "one car advanced ahead of another," "advanced colon cancer."  I would suggest that the two articles should be called "Debate over advance knowledge of Pearl Harbor Attack" and "Debate over advance knowledge of 9/11 attacks."  Or use the word 'foreknowledge.'  Or actually add some content about the outlines of the debate, hopefully noting how quickly it devolves to juvenile mudslinging.  Why aren't the Bushite trolls crawling all over this article, by the way?  Maybe you guys tired them out.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.161.122.104 (talk) 05:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I was the editor that added the d to the name of the article, and now I'm thinking that was a mistake; the article should be renamed to 9/11 advance-knowledge debate. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 17:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Page name issue

message: The article has nothing about Sibel Edmonds and what she discovered! --Espoo (talk) 11:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added it to the article. Qworty (talk) 20:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Sibel Edmonds]]?? 

message: There's nothing in the article about Xinoehpoel who predicted the attacks on usenet. See http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D07E6DD173BF934A2575AC0A9679C8B63  Arnold1 (talk) 01:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Xinoehpoel 

message: This article doesn't cover the debate as much as the questions raised. A lot of the statements seem removed from any context and left completely open-ended. Some of the statements are also using dated sources (as early as Sept 12, 2001), which can be problematic since they tend to carry more speculation than research.-Wafulz (talk) 19:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hallo, I recently found an Israeli website www.debka.co.il, which writes under "mi anachnu" or "about us" that they had very precise foreknowledge about the attacks already in May/June 2000. Already at that time they wrote, hijackers would use civilian airplanes to attack the twin towers in New York and further targets in Washington. I am new to editing wikipedia, so I ask if this information can be translated and then added in some way. Peaceinchrist (talk) 17:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: DEBKAfile is an Israeli intelligence website that is not considered a reliable source per WP:RSN. __meco (talk) 23:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "9/11 advance-knowledge hypotheses"? 

message: Maybe they were in contract with U.S. government in 2001.
http://www.fedspending.org/faads/faads.php?fiscal_year=2001&recip_id=903577&sortby=f&datype=T&reptype=r&database=faads&detail=4&submit=GO  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.78.224.246 (talk) 15:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Urban Moving Systems 

message: Two months ago I requested a citation for "The 9/11 advance-knowledge debate is a debate about whether anyone outside of al Qaeda had foreknowledge that the September 11, 2001 attacks were going to take place." No citation has been provided, and there is no such debate, so I'm removing the inaccurate statement.  Tom Harrison Talk 19:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  No such debate 

message: In discussing evidence for or against the assertion that government officials should have anticipated the use of aircraft as missiles, is there a place in this article for appearances of such in popular culture? Of course one of the most infamous is the pilot episode of The Lone Gunmen, which premiered in March 2001. If millions of Americans had been exposed to such scenarios (however unrealistically), it seems like that lends some credence to the argument that officials should have at least seriously considered such possibilities. I know that after the initial waves of shock and grief, one of the first things I thought of was, "didn't I just see this on TV a few months ago?" (I also thought, "ah, so that's why they killed Massoud over the weekend," but that's a fairly different discussion.) 74.74.65.213 (talk) 03:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Lone Gunmen and other popular culture depictions of plane as missiles? 

message: It is quite pathetic to state in the same paragraph that 5 Israelis were filming the burning skyline 4 HOURS after the event, and then to repeat a baseless claim from Ketchum of Counterpunch that this happened 16 minutes after the event. I deleted the remarks made by that defamatory hate site, as they are not even reputable in the realm of conspiracy theories.
---JD  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 18:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They were ARRESTED 4 hours after the event. They were most certainly celebrating 16 minutes after the first attack occurred because they have it on video and took photographs before the 2nd tower was hit. It was even reported that they were setup before the attacks had occurred.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryal-oh (talk • contribs) 15:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Um, yeah, kinda sounds like that would need to be in there.  Specifically: "The New York Times reported Thursday that a group of five men had set up video cameras aimed at the Twin Towers prior to the attack on Tuesday, and were seen congratulating one another afterwards."  In that report you linked to published 9/14/2001.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.37.144 (talk) 03:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia makes contradictory claims 

message: I'm surprised there is no mention of Susan Lindauer. Her testimony in a U.S. District Court hearing along with supporting testimony from reliable sources indicates she contacted the DOJ Office of Counterterrorism in August of 2001 telling them that "an attack is imminent and would occur in the southern part of Manhattan, involving airplanes and possibly a nuclear weapon with the WTC as the likely target". Relevance is supported by ..."The prosecution did not challenge Godfrey's testimony that Lindauer made the predictions in the time period given by the witness". She claims Richard Carl Fuisz gave her the information in his capacity as a CIA agent (this is not mentioned in his bio). The case is a bit confusing as the case against her claim put to the court is that "her willingness to produce witnesses to verify those claims were signs of delusion". Wayne (talk) 14:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Susan Lindauer  

message: Should illustrations depicting the WTC as a target be included such as...
Image:9-11 afman10-100.png|Page 49 of the Air Force Manual "10-100: Airman's Manual" from Aug 1999.
Image:Managing-wmd.jpg|The cover of a US Dept of Justice manual entitled "Managing Weapons of Mass Destruction Incidents: An Executive Level Program for Sheriffs" from June 2000.
I'm curious to know=P.Smallman12q (talk) 13:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm...well in that regard...that there aren't any reliable sources that discuss the images...thats true(unless someone can find such a source). While WP:OR states that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." It then states "This policy and the verifiability policy reinforce each other by requiring that only assertions, theories, opinions, and arguments that have already been published in a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia"... Are pictures considered assertions? This is a losing argument, but the pictures come from a reliable source... Well I was hoping to get the two pics included...but I can see that until an expert comes along and writes about it...I'm simply not qualified enough to discern what it is I see...Smallman12q (talk) 00:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's your OR connecting the pictures with the September 11 Attacks unless you find a RS that state that they are a significant part of the advance-knowledge debate. WP does not aim at introducing new elements into ongoing debates, but at accurately depicting them. That is, whether you are or are not qualified enough to discern what's on them is not the issue, the threshold for inclusion is not individual perception and analysis, but verifyability. 92.76.129.224 (talk) 13:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've concluded that it is indeed OR as I can't find any reliable sources pointing these pictures out...my apologies...Smallman12q (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 15:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Related Illustrations

message: Whoever had the flippancy to write this: 
"However, certain questions of 9/11 foreknowledge are distinct from conspiracy theories because they propose incompetence and failures on the parts of many people and entities, not a deliberate allowance of the attacks to occur."
Thank you for this elegant disclaimer. The Orwellian brutality of this sentence in and by itself is a damning indictment of consensus truth. I propose no change. No wording could more succinctly express the climate of self-censorship we subject ourselves to.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.72.202.138 (talk) 13:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: Is http://www.justiceblind.com/airplanes.html a reliable source? Do we have other sources for Senator Bob Graham's statements cited on that page? --Espoo (talk) 17:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  reliable source 

message: I remove the last paragraph in the Able Danger section due to a missing citation.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.231.25.98 (talk) 22:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed paragraph due to missing citation 

message: I noticed that at least one reference, the Globe and Mail article by Doug Saunders, is a link to whatreallyhappened.com which is not a reliable source, even if it does offer a reprint of a Globe and Mail article -- which I can't yet confirm, since the link is now broken. Andrevan@ 09:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate referencing 

message: False flag and other conspiracy theories should be separated from the advance-knowledge debate, which is, while integral to the former, still fundamentally distinct in many ways.   — C M B J   20:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed split 

message: I spotted this interview with senator Hart. My edit  was reverted from the 9/11 main article. Possibly, some information from the source fits this article, what do you think?, which section: Intelligence Warnings? lessismore (talk) 22:05, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Senator Hart on his warnings to Rice 

message: The quote attributed to Rice isn't cited; since it's contentious and likely to be challenged I've removed it per WP:BLP. Tom Harrison Talk 11:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  blp 

message: Is this a real topic?  I'm not aware of any September 11 attacks advance-knowledge debate outside the 9/11 conspiracy theorist community (and we already have an article dedicated to 9/11 conspiracy theories).  I doubt if the advance-knowledge conspiracy theory is notable on its own.  This article seems like the result of WP:OR-y and WP:SYN-y research by Wikipedia editors to create a topic.  Thoughts?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:03, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This is probably a daughter article of 9/11 conspiracy theories...MONGO 20:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I just looked into the history and based on the edit summaries, it looks like it was created as a subarticle of 9/11 conspiracy theories.  If so, "September 11 attacks advance-knowledge debate" is a misleading name.  It should be "September 11 attacks advance-knowledge conspiracy theories".  Maybe fixing the article is as simple as renaming it?  But I don't think that 9/11 advance-knowledge conspiracy theories is notable on its own.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

text: I think it's a spectrum from conspiracy theory to mainstream debate (how much intelligence was there?, how actionable was it?). Some people hold outlandish conspiracy theories in this area. The spectrum then moves from there all the way to reliable discussion of the issue such as the Commission quote given, "During the spring and summer of 2001, U.S. intelligence agencies received a stream of warnings about an attack al Qaeda planned, as one report puts it "something very, very, very big."", and mainstream discussion of Massoud's warning. I've started a discussion at Talk:September 11 intelligence prior to the attacks about how merging these two articles may help resolve an undue weight issue. Superm401 - Talk 00:38, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

text: The question of advanced knowledge is hardly fringe and does get mainstream attention. Just the question of whether they could have predicted the use of planes as missiles has been covered extensively in major reliable sources. See a small sampling of those sources:         . Several of those cover the general issue of advanced knowledge in significant detail. This is not considering all the claims about al-Hazmi and al-Midhar.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I'm going to move the article to "September 11 attacks advance-knowledge conspiracy theories" but I still have to wonder whether this topic is notable on its own.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:29, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you even read what I wrote above? It is not a fringe issue as it gets mainstream attention, meaning it is discussed as a legitimate issue in mainstream sources. That means it is not limited to conspiracy theories and should not be labeled as such, especially since most sources don't discuss it as a conspiracy theory.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:35, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I did; did you read what I wrote?  The article started off as a spin off of 9/11 CT but given a bad title.  I've fixed the title.  If there's content in the article not about CTs, it needs to be deleted.  For mainstream issues, we have September 11 intelligence prior to the attacks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:01, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Who cares where it spun off from? It is, in fact, a legitimate mainstream issue and not a conspiracy theory. Therefore it should not be labeled a conspiracy theory. Like I have said several times, if you have any issue with the wording in this article you should fix those issues.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:16, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because conspiracists mention some of the points doesn't make them conspiracy theories. I can't even see any conspiracy websites among the references. The page looks to be largely legitmate discussion regarding the significance of factual information. If the tinfoil hat brigade is going to claim these are conspiracy theories then they better provide some good sources to support that no mainstream source has asked any of these questions. Wayne (talk) 18:26, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: @TDA: I just told you, we already have an article for that: September 11 intelligence prior to the attacks.  That's where majority and significant minority viewpoints are covered.  Fringe viewpoints don't belong there.  That's what this article is for.  Please stop trying to lump them together.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

text: Jumping in late my proposal is to change the name of the article to "September 11 advanced knowledge claims". Simply that accurately describes all the material in the article. Edkollin (talk) 21:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this a [[WP:N|real topic]]? 

message: I've started a discussion at Talk:September 11 intelligence prior to the attacks. Superm401 - Talk 00:31, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussing possible fork 

message: Brown never stated why he called the airport security staff and 
Odigo is a subsidiary of a much larger service(1).
For this article it may be worth mentioning:
1.Odigo is owned by Comverse Infosys(2) 
And a debate exists  about Comverse Infosys being an shell for Israeli surveillance.(3)
ArchthMikehlInfervras (talk) 02:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  I see Odigo and San Fransisco warning as linked.  

message: There's little doubt that 9/11 conspiracy theories are notable.  But are advance-knowledge conspiracy theories independently notable?  Is there significant coverage of this sub-conspiracy theory that is independent of the source?  I'm considering nominating this article for deletion, but want to discuss it first.  What does everyone else thing? 
A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this article is kind of a pov fork. There are sources about the state of intelligence before 9/11, sources about different hypothetical scenarios, and sources about some conspiracy theories; these have been assembled to support a fringe position, and then some of the most egregious nonsense has been removed. It does not seem that academics and researchers break out conspiracy theories about foreknowledge from 9/11 conspiracy theories generally. Nearly everything here is already somewhere else; the title isn't a likely search term. I'd support deletion. Tom Harrison Talk 13:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: POV fork. All conspiracy involves advance knowledge. Merge with main conspiracy theory article. Binksternet (talk) 17:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

text: Based on the Israel section alone I think it must be notable, if only in the context of the rhetoric that comes out of Iran. Andrevan@ 01:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the Israel section has good text and sources, but why does it need its own article? That material can be merged into the main conspiracy article. Binksternet (talk) 01:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Usually the reason for starting sub-articles like this is because editors of the main article complain that there is too much material to include in the main article, so large amounts of material have to (unfortunately) be deleted. Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this sub-topic independently [[WP:GNG|notable]]? 

message: In this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=September_11_attacks_advance-knowledge_conspiracy_theories&diff=next&oldid=563469397 edit the meaning has been altered:
#as i explained in the "edit summary" sections, so i fixed it back to the previous version.
#Also i re-inserted the second source link (two sorces are better than one, and also note that his statements to the press are way less relevant if compared with statements to the Senate Judiciary Committee' ).
#I'm also going to insert (from the CNN source) that he said that they got a clear warning and not something like "Moussaoui is one among many that could hit the WTC with a plane".
@Binksternet if you've something to say about it please do. Stop doing editwarring with such explainations like "no it was better like this" without specifing why.
thanks 79.45.101.243 (talk) 08:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: just to be clear on this: i made edits as 79.31.92.60 before (i'm the same user) -- Errico --79.45.101.243 (talk) 09:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Alteration of the meaning

message: I do believe that in the past under the insider trading section of this article, there was reference to a London Times Article located here: http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/sept11/londontimes_insidertrading.html. But it was deleted as the site 911research.wtc7.net was deemed dubious as a source. However archive.org does not have the article in its cache, nor does London Times itself. However, a few days ago, I spoke with the author, James Doran, on Twitter and he said, indeed it was his article. How can we re-add this article and cite it? I have been reading over on the Cite_Book Help Talk page concerning link rot on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Cite_book which states concerning WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT "This guideline doesn't demand that we note which content deliver holds the specific source that we accessed. It simply says, 'Don't cite a source unless you've seen it yourself.' I have seen the article on 911research.wtc7.net, which by the naming structure of the link, it is a cache of the article. What to do? I hope this makes sense as to what I am asking. Kona1611 (talk) 01:04, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Secondary Source Reliability

message: The Insider trading section is practically devoid of sources that cover the topic as a conspiracy theory. It appears to be mostly primary sources spiced with weasel words and phrases (e.g., "..an international team of experts showed that..."). This article is supposed to be about the phenomenon of  advance-knowledge conspiracy theories and is not the place to "document" what advance-knowledge conspiracy theorist see as suspicious, etc. Is any of the section salvageable?  ArtifexMayhem (talk) 06:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources and the "Insider trading" section 

message: This section contains what amounts to OR opinionating of a dubious nature:
"In her testimony to the 9/11 Commission, Condoleezza Rice stated that "the threat reporting that we received in the spring and summer of 2001 was not specific as to time nor place nor manner of attack. Almost all the reports focused on al-Qaeda activities outside the United States." However, on August 6, 2001, the President's Daily Briefing, entitled Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US warned that bin Laden was planning to exploit his operatives' access to the U.S. to mount a terrorist strike:
FBI information... indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country, consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attack."
First there isn't a reference but more importantly the word however indicates the following passage would disprove Rice's statement but it doesn't. It's like saying "The market claimed they were out of apples, however we went there later and found they really did have oranges". "Hijackings or other types of attack" is far too broad of scope and in fact confirms her claim of manner of attack, and no intelligence report detailed a time or place. 
If someone wants to find a way to express this factually with references that's great but I'm going to remove that whole passage until then. Batvette (talk) 14:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, finally someone sees how "however" generally sucks on Wikipedia (or I at least see them seeing it). Good job. But the lack of a reference is still the more important flaw. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intelligence Warnings- OR and wrong. 

message: Per WP:WikiProject Qworty clean-up, all edits by User:Qworty are being examined.  Qworty, who was known to be a liberal activist and POV-pusher, removed the following content from the lede.
::With reference to intelligence failures that took place before the attacks, the 9/11 Commission Report concluded that both the Bush and Clinton Administrations had been "not well served" by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) or Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). It also concluded that no-one outside of al Qaeda had any foreknowledge of the attacks.
I leave the question of whether this content should be restored to the editors actively involved in this article, but per Project Qworty-cleanup and Qworty's tendency to POV-push, I'm bringing this to the article talk page for discussion. Seth Kellerman (talk) 03:33, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Content removed from lede by banned editor

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on September 11 attacks advance-knowledge conspiracy theories. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/abc/20010921/wl/wtc_recovery_rescue010921_1.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:38, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I came here expecting false claims of the administration intentionally letting it happen (doesn't really warrant an article) but instead find much information of actual warnings and prior knowledge. How does this fit into a conspiracy theory article? Either change the subject or move the information. There are plenty claims of Bush not taking warnings seriously without resorting to conspiracy theories. Article XXXIII of the Bush impeachment attempt bill was: "Repeatedly Ignored and Failed To Respond to High Level Intelligence Warnings of Planned Terrorist Attacks in the U.S., Prior to 9/11". Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 13:27, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Odd subject/content disjunction 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on September 11 attacks advance-knowledge conspiracy theories. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080306024230/http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&complete_911_timeline_key_events=complete_911_timeline_key_warnings to http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&complete_911_timeline_key_events=complete_911_timeline_key_warnings
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080528105732/http://www.business.uiuc.edu/poteshma/research/poteshman2006.pdf to http://www.business.uiuc.edu/poteshma/research/poteshman2006.pdf
*Added  tag to http://www.timesherald.com/site/index.cfm?newsid=14720231&BRD=1672&PAG=461&dept_id=33380&rfi=8
*Added  tag to http://www.scrippsnews.com/content/may-al-qaidas-big-fat-iranian-wedding
*Added  tag to http://positiontoknow.com/S-11/html/Americans%20Probing%20Reports%20of%20Israeli%20Espionage.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/DailyNews/2020_whitevan_020621.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2242594.stm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060215193716/http://amenusa.org/prior.htm to http://amenusa.org/prior.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080516062500/http://www.atnewyork.com/news/article.php/8471_893851 to http://www.atnewyork.com/news/article.php/8471_893851
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.progressnowcolorado.org/blog/2008/06/Cq4N.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: It appears Prince predicted 9/11 in 1998. It's eery. Worth adding to the page? Tanath (talk) 15:43, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. Just a minor variation on other existing conspiracy theories. https://books.google.com/books?id=vpzPrKINxSIC&q=conspiracy+theories+that+suggested+that+Israel+was+somehow+responible --Guy Macon (talk) 16:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prince appeared have foreknowledge. Worth mentioning?