Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories/Archive 4

message: Out of courtesy to Morton I will ask him to explain how he thinks "dominant view" is neutral? Why must one person's or another's view be presented as somehow having "won" or being the "most powerful" explanation? The official explanation of 9/11 is most certainly not "unmistakably ascendant". The 9/11 commission pretty much refers to itself as the "official view" so "official" is their language even. Our job is not to judge or rank one view over another but merely to signify who holds it, which in this case is many (but not all) of our elected officials and their 9/11 commission representatives for example. "Official" may be slightly suggestive itself but it is orders of magnitude better than "dominant". zen master T 21:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure our friend Morton will see your question, as he seems to think that the standard place for new comments is on the top of the page, which is ironically analogous to his misconceptions about what constitutes neutrality.  Blackcats 21:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So how should we go about fixing (or someone justifying) the "dominant view" phrase in the article? zen master T 21:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Be as accurate as possible. "Dominate" is not accurate without a poll supporting that claim. "Official" is inadequate as there are more than one official positions since this is a democracy. The position indicated by xxx paper, xxx pary, xxx administration are far more accurate. WAS 4.250 22:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well put WAS - at least we agree on this one :-)  -+-Blackcats 22:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Dominant view"?? 

message: On the topic of speculative theories, I wanted to point out a little more about the 911 research site.  On their main page they say “9-11 Research focuses on the facts of the attack and analysis of the official explanation.”   Their about page says:
: 9-11 Research critically examines the official government explanation of the attack and concludes that many of its key assertions are impossible. We do not pretend to know exactly how the attack was carried out or exactly who the perpetrators are, but there are plausible scenarios of how the attack could have been executed by insiders. (See our Frequently Asked Questions.)
And the only page I found on the site that engages in any sort of speculative theorizing is a page with a hypothetical theory entitled “Attack Scenario 404:  How the Attack Might Have Been Engineered (But Probably Wasn't)”  It was simply written to illustrate one of many plausible theories that could be made.
Its intro states the following:
:The case that the 9/11/01 attack was an inside job can be made quite apart from any specific theory as to how it was accomplished, by simply demonstrating that only insiders had the means and opportunity to execute key elements of the attack. The true nature of such an operation is undoubtedly hidden behind layer upon layer of cover story, and its details may never be discovered. Speculative theories of the operation, while not verifiable, nonetheless can be useful in answering important questions about the attack, such as the size of the conspiracy required to carry it out.
The conclusion states:
: Why "Scenario 404"?
:We chose this name for several reasons. First, it emphasizes that this is but one of hundreds of possible hypotheses that could be devised to explain the known facts. Its purpose is merely to show that the attack could have been executed by a small number of operatives using off-the-shelf technology. Second, it echoes the HTTP response code 404 issued by a web server when it cannot find a file requested by a client. Similarly, the evidence indicating exactly how the attack was executed will probably never be found, because part of the attack's design was to destroy that evidence.
So I would think that by WAS’s criteria, the rest of this site (other than this one page which they themselves say is speculative) would not be considered “conspiracy theory.”  They do come to a conclusion – based on their analysis of the available evidence – that 9/11 was carried out by people within the US gvt., but they don’t engage in idle speculation or assert speculative narratives about how the specifics of the plot were allegedly carried out.  Blackcats 23:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a good point, pointing out flaws in an explanation while not theorizing motivation can not be considered a "conspiracy theory". This article is more accurately described as alleged flaws and shortcomings in the 9/11 commission report or the mainstream media explanation. Though there is probably a more scientific and better way of saying "alleged flaws and shortcomings". I remember a documentary of sorts I think on PBS a few months to a year after 9/11 that pretty much offered up the "official" or straightforward explanation for the towers collapse (WTC 7 was conspicuously absent I just realized). How about WTC towers collapse irregularities and controversies for example? zen master T 00:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What a site says about itself is not evidence of anything except that the site claims so snd so.  Criticism about a government report should go on an article about that government report. WAS 4.250 00:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's true that you shouldn't just take the site at its word, so I would invite you to look around that site for yourself and see whether or not it matches your preconcieved notions.  Can you find any examples of "idle speculation" (other than the one page with the hypothetical theory)?...  Blackcats 01:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

text: The WTC towers collapse irregularities and controversies article would be a collection of various (all) things relating to the collapse of the 3 WTC towers, not just criticisms of the 9/11 commission report. The article would contain counter criticisms too. What do you think? zen master T 00:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

text: wtc7.net is noteable enough to have its own wikipedia article. The credibility of its claims could be dealt with there. WAS 4.250 00:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

text: So then at least the three of us agree on this one?...  Blackcats 01:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the allegations themselves should get their own article (though the website maybe should have an article too). zen master T 01:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

text: For simplicity sake, I think the wording should be "WTC collapses" (with the "towers" ommitted).  I'll post again when I think of a good one.  Blackcats 04:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So just WTC collapses covering everything (the official, the irregularities, the critical, and the counter critical)? Or something like WTC collapses irregularity and controversy? zen master T 05:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Great point, I agree, that is a very appropriate location. zen master T 15:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

text: We are talking about splitting off well cited and researched allegations. Blackcats pointed out above the section does not theorize possible motivations, it only points out what appear to be irregularities in the "official" explanation, so "conspiracy theory" is inapplicable. zen master T 05:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on speculative theories 

message: A section was retitled "9/11 Commission Report challenged."  T.H. said this was a good compromise.  That would be true if it weren't inaccurate and misleading.  The fact is that the 9/11 Commission was not created until more than 2 years after 9/11, and only after considerable pressure from victims families.  And people started questioning the offical account (as the article says) "before the sun had set on the evening of September 11."  So I think it's fair to simply use "9/11 Commission" in place of "official" to describe the official view currently and for everything after the summer of 2004, but not for before the report was issued.  Blackcats 06:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section title 

message: It seems we had quite a number of editors a few days ago discussing splitting off the WTC tower collapse controversies from this article to its own new article, about half of the people claimed the collapse hypotheses were "conspiracy theories" and should remain titled as such while the other half argued they did not theorize motive and just noted irregularities and criticized the official collapses explanations' science so shouldn't be titled dismissively. Just to clarify, did that discussion drop off suddenly because someone pointed out the WTC collapses controversies were already covered in the Collapse of the World Trade Center article? Is there a plan to merge the content either there or here or keep it in both places? Separately, it sure would be nice if the same level of discussion would just suddenly spring up over on Wikipedia talk:Title Neutrality, though I get the sense that the "title neutrality" proposal still needs some tweaking (or the timing just isn't right for some reason) so I'd like to solicit comments, suggestions or boldness, please let me know. zen master T 01:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Surprise surprise, no responses. zen master T 19:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Few editors have the patience to respond to your posts, zen master, perhaps you could spend a moments reflecting on why.--Cberlet 19:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice emotional effect cliche canned response. Though you are probably right about a censorship loving majority having little patience. Assume good patience. Please clarify what, if anything, in my above paragraph is in anyway possibly patience lessening? Requesting clarity is always reasonable and should not be discouraged. zen master T 19:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that promoting logic and serious research is what provides clarity, rather than crackpot conspiracy theories and mythic folkore narratives that demonize and scapegoat. Thst's not a "censorship loving majority" view, but a claim that democracy requires informed consent, not hysteria generated by demagogues and charlatans.  Just my opinion. --Cberlet 20:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Labeling anything "crackpot conspiracy theories" is your point of view and does not promote logic nor serious research, if you want to disprove a subject point people at facts rather than try to portray it negatively. zen master T 22:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarify discussion from a few days ago 

message: How can the keepers of Wikipedia, in clear consicence, get away with advocating so many bald faced lies?  I just don't get it.
:I concur, but don't worry about it.  These theories are so poorly supported, or presented for that matter, that nobody could really take them seriously.  Their presence, however, is instructional for all of us, because it tells us that some people hate our country and the Jewish people so much that they are willing to believe any baloney so long as the US or Israel gets blamed.  Isn't it extraordinary that people would allow their ideology or their hatred to hijack their ability to reason?  Morton devonshire 01:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  It seems people like to make statements like you make but I don't see you backing it up with any details.  If you think something mentioned here is wrong why don't you just say so.  Rather, I find that most of the official stories have holes or unanswered questions where I can mention many facts that are wrong.  For instance, don't you find it interesting that the Official 9-11 Commission Report doesn't even mention building seven? Some websites may be weak in their research, but others, such as wtc7.net or the Complete 911 Timeline are very thorough, with hundreds of citations.  Kaimiddleton 01:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At 3 minutes after 9:00 on September 11, 2001, millions of us watched in horror as the second plane flew into the second tower.  There is simply no credible evidence that suggests that our government or "the Jews" had anything to do with it.  There is, however, plenty of credible evidence to suggest that those who believe these conspiracy theories are motivated by ideology, hatred, and greed in their advancement of these theories.  There is also plenty of scientific research debunking these conspiracy theories, including notable refutations by both The Scientific American and Popular Mechanics, among others.  Morton devonshire 02:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is corret in documenting this intriguing aspect (i.e. conspiracy theories) of beliefs regarding a major event. That is one of the main functions of Wiki as I see it. Origen 16:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Dude!  Fancy words from someone who called me a shill for mainstream journalism.  Oh, and said that everything I say is "bull****".  First take the plank out of your own eye.  Morton devonshire 03:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

text: You use a double-standard, calling people names, and when someone disagrees with you you call them more names.  If you want to engender real debate here, then please allow it to happen without the name-calling.  See Wikipedia:No personal attacks.  Peace out.  Morton devonshire 01:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: My comments are about the motivations behind the ideas (i.e. why people would sacrifice reason for myth).  It's not about SK, SkeenaR, Ombudsman, Blackcats, Bov, WAS 4.250, Zen master, Dschor, Jmabel or any of the other advocates for these theories.  I'll start working on a section about the motivations of those who are the believers in these theories, as the motivations may be more important than the theories.  Also, I don't want to be your little bitch.  : )  Truce?  Morton devonshire 02:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Morton, I think your point of view is coming a little more clear to me.  I think you view 9-11 conspiracy theorists (e.g. myself) as having a general mindset that precludes being able to see the big picture properly.  So that we "rat hole" on phenemona that we see as conspiracies, sort of the paranoid approach, when these are just complicated situations/events that can be broken down logically if one wants to go to some stupendous effort.  I think Noam Chomsky has a sort of similar viewpoint; Peter Dale Scott, a 9-11 conspiracy theorist, said that he has argued many times with Chomsky about 9-11 as an inside job.  He said that Chomsky thinks looking for conspiracies is a counter-productive activity, and that the over-arching systemic problems are more important to address, that Chomsky sees 9-11 as blowback. Kaimiddleton 02:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accountability? 

message: There is clearly a vast amount of material about 9/11 that just makes no sense at all. Hijackers not listed on the passenger manifests. Buildings falling down with no rigorous scientific explanation as to why. Silverstein even went on TV and ADMITTED he ordered building 7 demolished! $3m allocated for an investigation, compared to $40m for Clinton's sexual antics. NORAD standing down for first time in history, etc, etc.  
There is going to be constant pressure for 9/11 'conspiracy pages' until more space is allocated to it. Constant WIKI war. Why not just give over a 9/11 conspiracy category, state 'This page is a conspiracy theory rejected by the American government and all reputable commentators' at the top, and be done with it? Can we sort out a template tag to that effect? I don't see the issue with a page grounded in fact reported from mainstream press articles, SO LONG as it is properly tagged up front. Timharwoodx 13:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right.  The objections to the American government's conspiracy theory are so many, and fall into so many different categories, that a single page cannot accommodate them.  The major pages might be:
* Controlled demolition of the North and South Towers
* Controlled demolition of WTC Building 7
* Incompetence of the alleged Arab hijacker pilots
* Was 9/11 America's biggest insurance scam?
* The pre-9/11 put options
* Whatever hit the Pentagon was not a Boeing 757
* Bush's strange behavior on the morning of 9/11
etc etc etc Adam Adler 20:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 9/11 conspiracy should be a subject category not a single page

message: What's a good link to video showing this 'crimp?' Tom Harrison Talk 20:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dan Rather worked at CBS before he retired in March of 2005, after the Killian documents incident. Not that he retired because of that. I'd be willing to cite and quote Dan Rather in this article;) Seriously, I would like to see the video sometime if you find a link. No rush though, I'm kind of busy myself. I'll post a link myself if I find a good one. Thanks, Tom Harrison Talk 22:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks! I'll check it out. Tom Harrison Talk 23:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I couldn't get some of those files. If I use bittorrent they come and take away my AARP card. Maybe I can find a documentary at the library. I did see some videos called wtc_7_cbs.mpg, wtc7_collapse2.mpg, wtc7_collapse.mpg, and an animated gif. I couldn't really see any crimp, but maybe the angle was wrong. Tom Harrison Talk 21:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Dude, I am soooo busted.  Morton devonshire 03:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video 

message: *Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whatreallyhappened.com
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prisonplanet.com
--Striver 06:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Please vote

message: Does anyone have a reference on how long it takes to set the charges for a controlled demolition? Tom Harrison Talk 17:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mechanics of controlled demolition