Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories/Archive 12

message: Why is Operation Northwood a link on this page? Seriously, Northwood has nothing to do with 9/11, hell I've seen all three versions of Loose Change and Jones still has not made the link.
If its to remain here, it needs a reason to be here. Like a citation of "A similar conspiracy plan to the proposed 9/11 conspiracy theories" right next to it.
*I removed it.--Sloane 13:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Operation Northwoods, Operation Ajax, Operation Gladio, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, and Cubana Flight 455 are all extremely important as to whether or not America has carried out false flag terrorism in the past. Which would show that it is not only possible for the American government to have carried out 9/11, but that it has carried out similar events in the past multiple times. Also showing that there is much credence to the arguement that western governments maybe behind most terrorist attacks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.250.113.190 (talk • contribs).
A lot of people say the American government would not kill 3,000 of their own people. The Northwoods documents prove thats exactly the sort of thing the people who run America would do, if they saw strategic long term advantage in it. It evidences the warped, power crazed, mentality of America's ruling elite. Timharwoodx 22:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

text: If it proves anything, it proves just the opposite, as Northwoods was rejected by the Kennedy Administration.--Sloane 04:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't prove the opposite.  The choices of a few is not indicative of the choices of the whole.  While some in the administration opposed it, it was Kennedy himself who rejected the proposal.  Likewise, just because one administration opposed the idea, doesn't mean every single administration would/will/does.  To say that is akin to belief that your own opinion expresses the views of the world. -Emhilradim 05:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Operation Northwood? 

message: This section seems totally extraneous to me; this is just people's opinions on it, and it seems unimportant. This is about the conspiracy theories, not about what people say about them, and it seems like the article would be stronger without them. Titanium Dragon 22:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Individuals Questioning the Collapse

message: I'm optimistic about the split off WTC article. If we get to keep it, we should cut the corresponding material out of this article and improve the relevant summaries. This would constitute a compromise with those who want to delete all the "junk science" from the CT article. They can then be presented as "issues" within the CT community in the WTC article.--Thomas Basboll 08:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion to delete all but a summary of WTC after split article passes VfD 

message: Whilst I can see why the viewpoints may be seen as contentious, this article needs to be retained in order to present both sides of what is a complex story Ianguy 02:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A complex story can be very well presented in a couple of articles - it's more readable, the reader doesn't have to read everything if he doesn't want to, he is presented with overwievs of components... "divide and conquer" - it's better this way, imho. --SalvNaut 14:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Keep as is

message: Tom Harrison has repeatedly suggested that this article, and especially the WTC section, is based on poor or missing sources. This may be true, I haven't checked them all. But surely we can agree that there is by now a solid set of sources to confirm the existence of the widespread belief that 9/11 was carried out by shadowy persons working inside the U.S. government and that the World Trade Center was brought down by controlled demolition. Many of these sources also allow us to go into considerable detail about these beliefs. We can, of course, not confirm their truth; but we can easily document their existence. I've opened this thread to discuss this issue and hopefully get Tom to make his critique of the sourcing of this article explicit. If there are problems with the sources, I'm confident that in 90% of the cases they can be fixed by appeal to any of three or four books, a couple of websites, a few papers, and the growing mainstream media coverage.--Thomas Basboll 14:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  On the quality of sources for this article 

message: The section tries to prove that all this theory was made up by hezboallah and this link [| TRying to prove that...] cleary states contrdict the npov by clearly writing at top of it to Stop the defamation of the Jewish people.It also tries to use wikipedia as a media outlet for Israeli pov.Pl check into it.Yousaf465
*Well then who created the rumour according to you?--Sloane 17:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV about 400 jews 

message: "While the demolitions of WTC 1 and 2 were by no means ordinary demolitions."
I really don't understand what that sentence is supposed to mean and how it is supported by the source. --Sloane 23:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Demolition experts generally agree that the collapse WTC 1 and 2 looked nothing like a controlled demolition they would carry out. Jowenko has been mentioned a few times and could perhaps also be used here. Blanchard (the cited source) explains that it's all about "where" they collapsed. His analysis is a useful piece of information. Penn & Teller's caustic infotainment is not useful. They found someone who makes a ridiculous claim (well beyond the range of his expertise) and shout, if I recall, "f--- you" at him, then they get him to dress up in a silly costume and drive a car (?).--Thomas Basboll 22:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, Walter is not a major proponent of the controlled demolition hypothesis. He's not a major thinker in the movement.--Thomas Basboll 22:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence is completely contradicting itself. First it says it could not have been an ordinary "controlled demolition" and then it says it would have been like any (ordinary) controlled demolition. About Walters, didn't he appear on a news show as well? He seems to be one of the more prominent 9/11 deniers. I see no reason for excluding him from the article, a lot of deniers believe they stowed the WTC full of explosives, that should be reflected.  --Sloane 23:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: demolition

message: I think that it is essential that there is an addition to the lead paragraph to indicate that the 'conspiracy theories' do not represent mainstream views to make this clear to the casual reader. I have added a sentence but am happy to consider a different wording providing it includes suitable caveats. TerriersFan 02:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree with the basic idea you want to put in there, the current wording contradicts the quote from Time magazine in the "origins and spread" section: "This is not a fringe phenomenon. It is a mainstream political reality." Perhaps we need to say that  9/11 CTs, while they currently enjoy widespread popularity, are not on the political agenda of either of the two major political parties in the US.--Thomas Basboll 09:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have put your phrase in pending a better suggextion. TerriersFan 23:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This phrase was not sourced, it was quite strong and opposed to what Times stated.(maybe not directly opposed but it left such an impression) And there is Robert_M._Bowman, he runs for Congress and he attended 9/11 Neo-con agenda where he said that he will "bring the 9/11 Truth into the Cogress". I don't find this sentence neccessary in the first paragraph - the one which is there now I like. Something like Thomas proposed would be better (as the impression left is different) --SalvNaut 00:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Took another look, this whole article need's heavy cleaning… please remove word speculation from the lead paragraph, it really doesn’t belong there, if you feel need for such ellipsis use it at the end of the article, in this form it's nothing but prejudice… I'll stay focused on improving that other article, and hopefully this one will become a place for truly outrages CT's, you know, like that one which speaks how Cheshire Cat did it… Anyway if you need to claim and state do so, there is no need to speculate -- Lovelight 02:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added a sourced sentence. It is essential IMHO for a balancing comment to be made for NPOV in this para, not at the end where some readers may never get! TerriersFan 02:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the sourced lead para statement has been removed from the lead para it no longer constitutes NPOV. TerriersFan 10:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I've removed "speculations" and replaced it with "suggestions". Given the elaborate range of circumstancial evidence, this hardly a speculative exercise, though it may be empirically flawed.--Thomas Basboll 07:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead paragraph 

message: Anyone who takes an objective look at the article in its present form can see that the material on the WTC needs to be removed for the sake of length, surveyability and general tidyness. No consensus can be won for simply deleting it. So the split is the best way forward. Does anyone know what is going on? (I'll post this also on the VfD page).--Thomas Basboll 09:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting. What's the delay? 

message: Thanks for all the new and good work on here.  I think the intro is problematic in that it never openly refers to the actual pages which are directly connected to this page as far as content and relevance - the 9/11 researchers and 9/11 truth movement pages - while openly referring to 'conspiracy theories' and other reference pages.  The 9/11 researchers and 9/11 truth movement pages are the 2 basic pages that should be openly linked in the intro paragraph to this page which details the WHAT that those pages are referring to.  Currently they are linked stealthily under the same repeating phrase of 'conspiracy theory' - no one is going to check behind each 'ct' link to see if it's going to a different page, so that defeats the purpose of having them in there at all.  Why do we need to disguise them?  Are they getting too much traffic and need to be hidden?  bov 15:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro 

message: As the article stands, the story about 4000 Jews not showing up for work is not presented as an element in the conspiracy theories but as an urban legend associated with them. Unless someone can find a major proponent of that idea among conspiracy theorists, I think we should split it off, and mention it somewhere in passing (under other points of interest for example or perhaps, as now, with an explanation about the uneasy relationship between 9/11 CTs and anti-semitism). It would then become an article like The Submarine (shark).--Thomas Basboll 16:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we split off the 4000 Jews legend 

message: Just wanted to warned I changed somethings, added reference to PM guys having seen secret photos of plane goingo to Pentagon, which can't be shown to anyone else. Also added Mineta witnessing to Cheney giving no response to incoming "object" against Pentagon. Also changed the extremely POV captions of the pictures of the pentagon, one of them identified one white blur with the tip of the plane (?!), the other misidentified as representing the state of the pentagon after the hit, when it represented after the wall collapsed due to earlier hit.Please see changes, thanks. Forgive me for my horrible english.... <:-\ 85.138.225.87 22:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changed some things, think POV is very strongly pro-commission report 

message: "Security camera image showing controversial white blur (far right) just before impact. Is this flight 77?" Do you have a reliable source that says it is controversial, or that says it is anything other than flight 77? Tom Harrison Talk 22:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tom, it is the substance of the argument about that video on the conspiracy theory side. To present it as "obviously" a plane would be to not present the conspiracy theory. It would be like saying "here's a picture of debris and smoke being pushed out of the windows as is completely to be expected with the floors pancaking". The issue simply is how to interpret those blurs and puffs.--Thomas Basboll 22:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's well accepted that the tape shows AA 77, so I personally do not believe it is a problem. Should multiple editors have a problem with it however, it could be edited to just state that it is just the security cam footage, with no extra explanation of the image.--Sloane 22:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't believe I have to explain this. This section of the article is about people who don't "accept that the tape shows AA 77". The caption draws attention to the point of contention. On your approach, it would be impossible to explain, say, what flat-eathers believe, because you would keep showing us a globe saying, "they believe this thing is flat".--Thomas Basboll 22:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

text: You can certainly say that X says it was not a plane, or Y says it was a missile. Since no reliable sources say it was anything other than flight 77, neither can we. Tom Harrison Talk 23:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At this point, the text of the section is underdeveloped on this issue. It should probably says something like, "For a long time CTers called for the release of videos that would clearly settle the issue of whether or not Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. A video was eventually released, showing part of an object approaching the Pentagon in one frame and an explosion in the next. Identifying the object as flight 77, the mainstream media declared the issue settled. Conspiracy theorists, however, maintain that the frame is not conclusive evidence for AA77. Indeed, even those who oppose the "no plane" theory agree that the object could be almost anything, and is consistent especially with a small plane or cruise missile." It's not perfect, but it lays out the core of the dispute. Now, showing the frame is of course perfectly in order if there is a text like that; but labelling the object at the far right "AA77" is obviously needlessly confusing.--Thomas Basboll 23:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversial?

message: The recent editing conflict resulted in adding material the properly belongs elsewhere in the article. The interest in the demolition on the part CTers was already in there. The last sentence notes (uncontroversially) that engineers are not "on board" (to put it mildly) and that officials are sticking to their story. Maybe try thinking of improvements to lead in terms of changing individual words, not adding whole new claims. It's a nice tidy lead right now.--Thomas Basboll 02:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I couldn't help myself.  I had to add something to the lead.  It's not very long though, just more accurate.  Precision is important too, right? --Demosfoni 03:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A good rule of thumb (IMHO) is not to say something in the lead that you have to source or quote; that sort of thing should be kept in the main article.--Thomas Basboll 07:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please keep the lead simple 

message: This article for all the changes still does not give a coherent explanation to the reader what the “official story” is. Somewhere in the lead should be something along these lines “In the immediate aftermath of the attacks The Bush administration explained that the attacks were carried out by members of Al Qaeda headed by Osama Bin Laden who hijacked four commercial airplanes by using box cutters.  The organizations fundamentalist religious beliefs led them to hate Western values and culture. The administration had no advanced knowledge of the attacks. Flight 93 crashed in Pennsylvania after passengers hearing of the other attacks in cell phone conversations rebelled and brought the plane down becoming “the first solders in the War on Terror”. The towers were brought down (briefly explain NIST and pancake theory). Families of the victims not satisfied with this explanation demanded further investigation and after initial reluctance the administration agreed to further investigation. The bipartisan 9/11 commission was formed tasked with “not placing individual blame” but to explain what happened and making recommendations to prevent a recurrence of the attacks. In 2004 the commission released its report. It said that their were many prior warnings of varying detail the United States would be attacked by Al Qaeda. They were ignored due to lack of communication between various law enforcement personnel. The main reasons for this burocratic inertia and laws passed in the 1970’s designed to prevent abuses that resulted major scandals during that era. The report also faulted both the Clinton and Bush administrations with “failure of imagination”. The report found that although the passengers did revolt on Flight 93 the hijackers brought the plane down and that the hijackers used other weapons such as Mace besides box cutters to hijack the planes.
The explanation laid out in the report have been accepted by most members of both major political parties, network, cable and print news media."
Also the basic explanation and motives section seem redundant.  69.114.117.103 05:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree with you about the redundancy; but I do like this section you are proposing. I'd say just do it. Put it in before "origins and reception"; call it "The official story". Maybe just at the sentence, "It is this 'official story' that conspiracy theorists find too implausible to believe."--Thomas Basboll 07:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't call it "the official story" because that seems to be a too narrow title. --Sloane 11:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just put it in quotes. I.e, The "official story". We do need a section that specifies the content of this commonly used phrase by conspiracy theorists.--Thomas Basboll 12:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative theory to what 

message: Whoever reorganized this article has sapped the essential points and left only the dross.  I believe it would be better to include the main points of why people believe that 9/11 was cause by actors outside of Al Qaeda and to put more detailed discussion into the sub-pages.   This is the current structure:
# Origins and reception
# Main approaches
# Basic argument
# Government foreknowledge
## Intelligence issues
## Possible early warning
## Allegations of insider trading by people with foreknowledge
#  World Trade Center
# Pentagon
# War games and training exercises
# The President's behavior
# Other points of interest
# Claims that some of the hijackers are still alive
# Motives
# Claims related to the Saudi royal family and other Saudi government officials
# Claims related to Jews and Israel
## 4,000 Jewish employees did not attend work at the WTC on 9/11
## Sharon was warned by Shabak to stay away from New York
## Mossad connection to filming of 9/11 attacks with "puzzling behavior"
## Israel advance warning
# Less common theories
# Media reaction
# Criticism
I believe it can be reorganized into:
# Intro
## Origins and reception
## Main approaches
## Basic argument
# Reasons to doubt the Official story
## Evidence of Gov't foreknowledge
## Evidence of Controlled Demolition
## ....
# World Trade Center
## Buildings 1 and 2
### Analysis of Collapse
## Building 7
### Silverstein's Admission?
### Analysis of Collapse
# Pentagon
## Missing debris
## Destruction Inconsistent with 757
## ....
# Flight 93
## Witnesses of Jet in vicinity
## Missing last minutes of cockpit recorder
# Other Points of Interest
## War Games and Training
## The Presidents Reaction
## Claims Hijackers still alive
## Claims Related to Jews and Israel
# Motives
# Less Common Theories
# Criticisms of Alternate Theories
=== Straw Poll ===
I would like to take a poll of fellow editors.  Who would like to make changes to the structure of this Wiki page so that has the format that I proposed (with minor modifications of course)?  Please include your ~~~~ signature under one of the following headings:
* In favor of structural changes:
** Demosfoni 16:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is "the deniers agenda"?  Why are you even participating in this discussion?  Who are you?  Sloane, do you happen to know the title of this Wiki page?  It is called "9/11 Conspiracy Theories".  I think it only makes sense to organize the page around Conspiracy Theories.  Do you have a Non-Conspiracy Page you could work on and leave the rest of us alone?  --Demosfoni 16:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please, read WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox, "Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not: Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views." --Sloane 16:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This has nothing to do with being on a Soapbox.  This is a web page about conspiracies OUTSIDE of the NIST report.  Your argument is that we should not talk about things OUTSIDE of the NIST report.  Basically, you are saying that you don't like this Wiki page and you want it deleted. Again, why are you even participating in a discussion about the contents of this page when you don't even want it to exist? --Demosfoni 16:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Where did I call for the deletion of this article? --Sloane 16:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You mentioned AfD in one of your edits and you have removed most of the contributions of people who agree with the conspiracy theory. --146.115.123.152 17:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was referring to the afd of the Controlled-Demolition Theory (9/11 Conspiracy Theory) page.--Sloane 18:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Demosfoni that the article could stand some cleaning up. I think we should talk more about exactly how to do that, especially when the sections themselves are a bit more focused. The POV criticism was probably aimed specifically at "reason to doubt...", by which you no doubt mean "reasons CTists offer to doubt..." and which could just be called "Criticisms of the official story". I think your outline understates the value of the war games, however, and we should keep in mind that while controlled demolition is an exciting issue, with lots of details, it is really just a single claim in the larger CT. (Having written them,) I also think the need to preserve that "basic argumet", "origins and reception" and "main approaches" sections, which just jam-packed full of good information right now. So I'm curious about where you would put that stuff and/or why you think it's messy.--Thomas Basboll 16:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I just modified the structure to include your introductory sections under the main "Introduction" section. --146.115.123.152 17:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Ouch. As I see it, the immediate rambling is elsewhere. Sections 8 - 14 all cover what has become peripheral elements of theory (some of which have almost no place in them today) and need to be merged into one or two sections on loose ends. Section 4 needs to be turned into a couple of prose paragraphs. After that, all of them could probably be trimmed down. I think we should add a section on major statements of the theory (Griffin, Tarpley, Ruppert, Ahmed come to mind, including influential films like Press for Truth and Loose Change. We might also want to mention some of the websites that were on this from the beginning: Rense, PlaguePuppy and Hoffman's 9-11 Research.) Again, I agree there are things that need to be done. But the section you identify there are sort of my favorites.--Thomas Basboll 18:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: (This remark also goes to Tom's comment up in the straw poll.) Having looked at the arguments for and against CTs for about a year now, I don't understand how anyone can claim that there is no core and periphery to distinguish between. Consider six claims: (1) 9/11 was a welcome opportunity to realize the policies of the Bush administration, (2) the military responded exceptionally poorly (but perhaps only ineptly), (3) the war games were an integral part of the attacks (not a coincidence), (4) the World Trade Center was demolished, (5) the pentagon was not hit by flight 77 but something else, (6) twelve foot shapeshifting lizards did it. (1) is asserted by people even outside CTs and by (I'll venture it) every CT. (2) is also on everyone's list of talking points. At (3) LIHOPpers make their exit, but all MIHOPpers are still on board. Ruppert and other "peak oilers", while granting it is possible, stop insisting at (4). (5) is dropped from the agenda even by people who suspect it is true. And, well, (6) is crazy. It is just not helpful to suggest that it is OR to distinguish between these claims, to give them different weights, and to allot different amounts of space to them. Even journalists have understood this by now.--Thomas Basboll 20:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: If you would wander some 9/11 CT pages(911 truth movement, 911 blogs etc..) you would notice that they bring "scientific" claims or motive/intelligence/response issues, and they don't bring "Claims related to Jews". Why this section is even here? Have you checked how is it sourced? "No Planes and No Gas Chambers" -- Holocaust deniers push hoaxes that sabotage 9/11 Truth Movement??? This section should be out of here. I agree that others sections are more or less the same weight and it's not up to us to weight them. That's why I proposed chronological order. --SalvNaut 20:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My remark about "not weighting" applies to reorganizing the order as Demosfoni proposed. I must agree with Thomas that effort should be made to find out which in the first place should get here at all, and which are on the main agenda of CT-iers, which are side issues. This is exaclty the job of a wikipedia editor. --SalvNaut 20:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: If they all look the same to you, why bother with the page at all?  Just go someplace else that actually does interest you.  There are a lot of other pages. bov 05:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This article is a mess

message: I would like to take a poll of fellow editors.  Who would like to make changes to the structure of this Wiki page so that has the format that I proposed (with minor modifications of course)?  Please include your ~~~~ signature under one of the following headings:
* In favor of structural changes:
** Demosfoni 16:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Straw Poll 

message: No, this article is already pushing the 9/11 deniers agenda. Your structure would be even more POV.--Sloane 16:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is "the deniers agenda"?  Why are you even participating in this discussion?  Who are you?  Sloane, do you happen to know the title of this Wiki page?  It is called "9/11 Conspiracy Theories".  I think it only makes sense to organize the page around Conspiracy Theories.  Do you have a Non-Conspiracy Page you could work on and leave the rest of us alone?  --Demosfoni 16:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please, read WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox, "Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not: Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views." --Sloane 16:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This has nothing to do with being on a Soapbox.  This is a web page about conspiracies OUTSIDE of the NIST report.  Your argument is that we should not talk about things OUTSIDE of the NIST report.  Basically, you are saying that you don't like this Wiki page and you want it deleted. Again, why are you even participating in a discussion about the contents of this page when you don't even want it to exist? --Demosfoni 16:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Where did I call for the deletion of this article? --Sloane 16:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You mentioned AfD in one of your edits and you have removed most of the contributions of people who agree with the conspiracy theory. --146.115.123.152 17:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was referring to the afd of the Controlled-Demolition Theory (9/11 Conspiracy Theory) page.--Sloane 18:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Demosfoni that the article could stand some cleaning up. I think we should talk more about exactly how to do that, especially when the sections themselves are a bit more focused. The POV criticism was probably aimed specifically at "reason to doubt...", by which you no doubt mean "reasons CTists offer to doubt..." and which could just be called "Criticisms of the official story". I think your outline understates the value of the war games, however, and we should keep in mind that while controlled demolition is an exciting issue, with lots of details, it is really just a single claim in the larger CT. (Having written them,) I also think the need to preserve that "basic argumet", "origins and reception" and "main approaches" sections, which just jam-packed full of good information right now. So I'm curious about where you would put that stuff and/or why you think it's messy.--Thomas Basboll 16:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I just modified the structure to include your introductory sections under the main "Introduction" section. --146.115.123.152 17:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Ouch. As I see it, the immediate rambling is elsewhere. Sections 8 - 14 all cover what has become peripheral elements of theory (some of which have almost no place in them today) and need to be merged into one or two sections on loose ends. Section 4 needs to be turned into a couple of prose paragraphs. After that, all of them could probably be trimmed down. I think we should add a section on major statements of the theory (Griffin, Tarpley, Ruppert, Ahmed come to mind, including influential films like Press for Truth and Loose Change. We might also want to mention some of the websites that were on this from the beginning: Rense, PlaguePuppy and Hoffman's 9-11 Research.) Again, I agree there are things that need to be done. But the section you identify there are sort of my favorites.--Thomas Basboll 18:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: (This remark also goes to Tom's comment up in the straw poll.) Having looked at the arguments for and against CTs for about a year now, I don't understand how anyone can claim that there is no core and periphery to distinguish between. Consider six claims: (1) 9/11 was a welcome opportunity to realize the policies of the Bush administration, (2) the military responded exceptionally poorly (but perhaps only ineptly), (3) the war games were an integral part of the attacks (not a coincidence), (4) the World Trade Center was demolished, (5) the pentagon was not hit by flight 77 but something else, (6) twelve foot shapeshifting lizards did it. (1) is asserted by people even outside CTs and by (I'll venture it) every CT. (2) is also on everyone's list of talking points. At (3) LIHOPpers make their exit, but all MIHOPpers are still on board. Ruppert and other "peak oilers", while granting it is possible, stop insisting at (4). (5) is dropped from the agenda even by people who suspect it is true. And, well, (6) is crazy. It is just not helpful to suggest that it is OR to distinguish between these claims, to give them different weights, and to allot different amounts of space to them. Even journalists have understood this by now.--Thomas Basboll 20:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: If you would wander some 9/11 CT pages(911 truth movement, 911 blogs etc..) you would notice that they bring "scientific" claims or motive/intelligence/response issues, and they don't bring "Claims related to Jews". Why this section is even here? Have you checked how is it sourced? "No Planes and No Gas Chambers" -- Holocaust deniers push hoaxes that sabotage 9/11 Truth Movement??? This section should be out of here. I agree that others sections are more or less the same weight and it's not up to us to weight them. That's why I proposed chronological order. --SalvNaut 20:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My remark about "not weighting" applies to reorganizing the order as Demosfoni proposed. I must agree with Thomas that effort should be made to find out which in the first place should get here at all, and which are on the main agenda of CT-iers, which are side issues. This is exaclty the job of a wikipedia editor. --SalvNaut 20:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: If they all look the same to you, why bother with the page at all?  Just go someplace else that actually does interest you.  There are a lot of other pages. bov 05:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debate 

message: I think Demosfino's point above is very correct. Removing all that material about the WTC looks odd, while leaving these two sections in. First, they are not part of conspiracy theories in the sense that this article deals with them. The Saudi connection, for example, is a suggestion that there's a link back to the "official terrorist". Michael Moore is not a 9/11 conspiracy theorist. The 4000 jews rumor is a rumor and has been put to rest. It has no currency, and none of the sources grant it any as far as I can tell. The section tells the story of a dead rumor. So I'm removing these. In their place, to give Tom a place to source his claims about the "intrinsically" anti-semitic aspects of 9/11 CTs, I will put a section about how 9/11 CT are sometimes accused of anti-semitic motives.--Thomas Basboll 20:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Michael Moore never espoused a specific conspiracy theory but by giving details of the Bush family and Bin Ladin family business ties and by discussing "The Flight of the Saudis" he was implying one 69.114.117.103 04:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note the way Moore is mentioned in the President's behavior section. There is no doubt that Fahrenheit 9/11 helped to make "My Pet Goat" a familiar point of reference, which could then be construed in more sinister ways by CTists. I think the Fligt of the Saudis was just supposed to show that Bush was not going to embarrass his friends, and that his friends (the Bin Laden's) should/could have done more, as Bush's friends, to keep Osama in line. I don't think Moore meant the "My Pet Goat" incident as part of an implicit conspiracy theory anything like the one's we're describing here. And I think the same goes for the Saudis. But if we can find a conspiracy theory that latches on their "Flight" and explicates a theory, then Moore's claims would be an informative part of the article.--Thomas Basboll 07:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm going to remove the anti-semite section, as it consists of only one sentence. Maybe the sentence belongs in the criticism section instead? --Wildnox 21:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First, this is not an article about 9/11 deniers. Second, the vast majority of the material was off topic and over-detailed even if that we the case. Third, find me a good primary source of a 9/11 CTist who has made overtly anti-semitic remarks (or has a history of such views), who has status among CTists that is even comparable to Steven Jones, Mike Ruppert, David Griffin, Alex Jones, ... etc. and a nice mainstream media source that has recently suggested this connection (or the Saudi connection) is a dinstinguishing feature. Then we'll have something to talk about. To put all these claims on the same level is to make them look bad. To remove this material is just good scholarship.--Thomas Basboll 21:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: What sources support your claim of "4,000 Jews..." story to be part of 9/11 conspiracy theories? Sources which were there were nothing more but confirmation of "Conspiracy theorists sometimes have to defend themselves against charges of anti-semitism.". It's not about "being debunked" but about being abandoned by CTist or even never having been pushed forward... Is it so hard to understand? This article is about conspiracy theories movement. And do you really have so inaccurate view of this matters? Maybe you should familiarize yourself more with this topic before contributing here? --SalvNaut 21:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: If the sections were about theories that actually existed and were involved with 9/11 conspiracy theories, they should be included regardless of whether or not the theories presented were debunked. Now if they were never related or purely invention unique to this article, they should remain removed. I am not fully familiar with the two sections in question, so I can't say for sure which of the aforementioned categories these would fit under. --Wildnox 21:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you feel like it, you can add something about it under "Less common theories". It should be stated though, what the consensus is within CT community (and it seems that those theories were abandoned or disowned).--SalvNaut 22:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm pretty sure I didn't cut anything that belongs here. But I may have missed something. Here's the archived version of the article.--Thomas Basboll 22:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleting sections on Saudis & Jews 

message: The next thing I want to do is trim the claims that the hijackers are still alive. This has also been largely debunked. The section basically walks us through the mistaken identities involved and leaves us no wiser than the CTists themselves. It could probably be done in a couple of sentences. But what could be added is the central idea that they were "patsies" (a central CT notion, familiar from JFK). Here the claims that Atta was not a devout Muslim and Hanjour was a terrible pilot might usefully be added. In short, a section about the range of CT views on the hijackers would be interesting.--Thomas Basboll 21:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because something has been debunked doesn't mean it shouldn't be mentioned in the article as it was a 9/11 conspiracy theory at one time. Remember we are here to present information about 9/11 conspiracy theories in general, both plausible and implausible. --Wildnox 21:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, of course it should be mentioned but in away that gives the reader the most accurate view on the matter, that is who claims what, what is the present consensus, knwoledge about it, and within space appropriate to the topic's notability. It seems to me that Thomas proposed exactly this. --SalvNaut 22:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, I misread Thomas' comment. --Wildnox 22:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: In the collapse of the World Trade Center article we hit on a good way of separating the current "best" explanation (NIST's) from the various no longer relevant early speculations. Before that, the article had used what we ultimately incompatible explanations to account for the same event. All it took was a section on "Earlier attempts to explain the collapses." We could all agree on where the current, received view could be found, and we helped each other to understand the NIST report. The result is quite nice. Even conspiracy theorists probably find the article useful in understanding what the official explanation is. The same method might work here. (Though we lack the luxury of an "official" CT report.) The question with these claims is not so much whether they have been debunked, but whether they have been taken out of active service. (The article on Elizabethan literature does not cover everything that was written back then, only what still seems important.) My point here is that the "patsies" angle is much more important for the CTs than the outside possibility that they weren't even on the planes.--Thomas Basboll 22:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The hijackers 

message: Basically I think the revisions presented the material much ia a more readable manner. I did notice   the differences between the early official account and the 9/11 report findings were deemphasized. If I am not mistaken the theories that other items besides box cutters were used in the attacks and that  Flight 93 was brought down by the hijackers reacting to the passenger revolt instead of  the passengers themselves were results of the 9/11 commission report. The article implies that early government theory was the same in that regard.
I am going to change “immediate aftermath” to the "years immediately following the attacks" because according to this article the NIST findings were presented three years after the attacks 69.114.117.103 15:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Official Account Section

message: The WTC section needs to sketch the hypothesis that the WTC was brought down by controlled demolition. It needs to link primarily to the separate article on that hypothesis, and secondarily to the article on the collapses themselves. It should not provide any detail in re NIST's collapse mechanism, but needs to efficiently note that it, and the engineering community, acknowledges that CD hypothesis exists and rejects it. The reader of this section is not trying to understand how to the WTC collapsed but how conspiracy theorists think collapsed. IMHO, we are wasting the readers' time in an attempt to protect them from thinking that the buildings may have been demolished.--Thomas Basboll 15:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think its ridiculous that the official version areas have to repeat on here.  I support Tom's position. bov 05:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I second Tom's opinion.  We should give NIST its own sub-heading for the sake of organization and consistency. --Demosfoni 04:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "It should not provide any detail in re NIST's collapse mechanism, but needs to efficiently note that it, and the engineering community, acknowledges that CD hypothesis exists and rejects it." That is completely wrong. NIST is actually looking in to the CD hypothesis for WTC building seven. Here is the quote from the NIST's web site; "This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation. NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements." It can be found here at the end of question 14; http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm   They obviously do not reject the CD hypothesis.70.250.113.190 01:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WTC section: too much NIST, available elsewhere 

message: I have restored the section with a prefatory sentence that puts these stories into what I belive are a relevant context. If you believe that the section is mis-titled, it would be more appropriate to re-title it than to delete it wholesale. Ribonucleic 20:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allegations of cover-up 

message: The article specifically questions whether the Pentagon was hit by an airplane. [And FWIW, I can't make out a jet in that picture.] So I think the caption must be changed to reflect NPOV. Ribonucleic 22:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. (Have argued this before.)--Thomas Basboll 11:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caption of security camera still 

message: If you want to mention that it was proposed during the Kennedy administration by way of adding Cold War context, I have no objection. But to say "However" crosses the line into POV, in my opinion. And your statement that "the plan was rejected" does not even say by whom, let alone provide a source. I respectfully ask that you not add it back without addressing both those concerns. Ribonucleic 03:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Presentation of Operation Northwoods 

message: The AfD on the split has been completed and has been upheld.
:"The result was delete Controlled-Demolition Theory (9/11 Conspiracy Theory), which is what is up for deletion. Keep (or at least no consensus, which is effectively the same thing) Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center." (Read more here ).
That is, the article that was originally split has been deleted, but the second attempt at the split has been upheld. This means that we can move more of the details of the CD hypothesis over in the CD article if we want.--Thomas Basboll 11:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD on split decided 

message: I'm removing the Jimmy Walters hypothesis again. He is quoted for saying that explosives were planted "on every floor". Walters, however, is not a notable theorist in the CT community but a (quite notable) supporter of the movement. His opinion here is both ill informed and reported by a plainly hostile source (who calls Walters ideas "bullshit" and belives that "f-- you" when yelled very loudly - as a voice over it would appear - constitutes critique). It can certainly not be used to represent the controlled demolition hypothesis. If you want it in, Sloane, you are going to have to find some sources, either among CTers or in objective reporting, that situate Walter as an opinion leader on the WTC demolition in the 9/11 community.--Thomas Basboll 19:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jimmy Walter's expertise 

message: Hey.  Did anyone ever bother to consider that when one says the "engineering community" one is referring to a group of engineers.  You could say "a pod of engineers", "a gaggle of engineers", etc.  This community however does not have bylaws.  They do not live in one geographical location.  They do not all know eachother.  They do not have time to read each other's technical publications.   The idea of an "engineering community" agreeing about anything is ridiculous.  All we have is peer-review which as I showed above is not perfect and can let erroneous charlatans proposing things like "cold fusion", "prayer aiding medical recovery", etc.
Anyway, I have found ONE ENGINEER who disagrees with the engineering community.  Now, if you are all reasonable people (one can assume anything).  This should be reason enough to remove the outlandish claim that "the engineering community does not support demolition" of the buildings.  Here is the evidence: [ Charles Pegelow].  So since there is not unanimous agreement among the engineers, to be technically accurate you need to change "the structural engineering community" to "most of the structural engineering community".  I assume that we are all reasonable people and this correction will not meet with unreasonable resistance by a certain few.
--71.232.14.77 01:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that was me.  I have also added Larry Silverstein's admission to PBS that he agreed to have the building "pulled".  Of course there is some doubt as to what he meant but I think that if you are going to say "all engineers agree" then it is only fair to balance that statement with Mr. Silverstein's innocuous statement about "pulling the building". --Demosfoni 01:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but Silverstein specifically said "they made that decision".  They, the fire department made the decision to pull the firefighters out and end operations. This quote is explained in detail on the CD page, and is not needed in the intro here. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 01:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that both sides of the story need to be told.  His explanation of what "pulls" means is doubtful at best. --Demosfoni 01:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Both sides are told on the Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center page, which is a subpage of this article. Now, I would be fine with merging that article back into here, and deleting the subarticle. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 01:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good Idea!  Oops!  It was deleted by __________ (fill in the blank: Sloane, Tom Harrison, Weregerbil) --Demosfoni 04:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Yea I like the idea of rewording the statement. I find it hard to believe that not a single engineer in the engineering community would support the statement. It's current form seems poor and slightly biased to me. --Wildnox 02:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you ever heard of Hillary Clinton's statement of a "vast right-wing conspiracy"?  Well I think we are viewing a bush-league version of that right here at the 9/11 conspiracy front. --Demosfoni 04:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Our Noble "Engineering Community" 

message: I've removed a non-sequitur note quoting FEMA report, which noted that "...the development of the fires was not significantly impeded by the firefighters because manual firefighting efforts were stopped fairly early in the day."  This has no relation to the rest of the section, except as an insinuation that there must not have been any firefighters in or near the building at all if they didn't fight the fires.  The reasoning seems to go:
:If they weren't fighting the fires later in the day, there must never have been any firefighters there at all.  Thus, nobody to "pull."  Silverstein's statement that "they decided to pull it" must refer to the firefighters deciding to do a controlled demolition on the building, rather than the firefighters deciding to pull the team of firefighters from the building!  Silverstein's in on the 9/11 conspiracy, and he foolishly admitted it on national television!
But when did Silverstein suggest that they "pull it"?  I haven't seen anything indicating just when it was, but I'd bet it was around the time that "the firefighters made the decision fairly early on not to fight the fires".  They observed early on that the fires were practically insurmountable, so they decided, like Silverstein said, that it wasn't worth losing more lives trying to stop an unstoppable fire in a 40-story building.  Especially when there's more important things for the firefighters to do, like rescuing people trapped in the rubble from the two tallest buildings in the world.
In addition, the FEMA report cannot be used to imply that there were never any firefighters inside WTC 7, as it notes that there were.  (Page 20: "According to the account of a firefighter who walked the 9th floor...")  It appears that they went inside the building, assessed the damage, realized that they wouldn't be able to stop the fires, and decided to pull out. Later that day they watched it collapse. --Mr. Billion 07:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that I've reduced this section, not to end discussion but to move it over the controlled demolition main article. Not trying to step on anyone toes, just cleaning up a little.--Thomas Basboll 20:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

text: That's fine. --Mr. Billion 21:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manual firefighting stopped fairly early in the day 

message: Everyone's been doing such a good job of verifying the facts, that the theories are sometimes not represented. I think we need to cite sources that emphasize the facts in this article to the end substantiating a conspiracy theory. (I am talking about the source's aims not this article's, of course.) On my reading of the field, the strongest accounts are Griffin, Tarpley, Ruppert and Ahmed. While Thompson is a great source for facts (actually: he's so good at sourcing we don't even need to quote him) he doesn't really offer a conspiracy theory (some might argue he offers a conspiracy allusion or something on that order.) An example of a source I think works really well in the article right now is Ruppert's critical assessment of the WTC demolition hypothesis. It really gives us a sense of the importance of this element but also the problems with it. But I'm going to add Tarpley as well because he calls Building Seven the "reductio ad absurdum" of the whole operation, which is what many CTists believe as far as I tell.--Thomas Basboll 20:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CT sources 

message: A Pentagon report released Friday said the able danger unit had no actionable intelligence related to 9/11 or knowledge of Atta. I put the story and reactions by Weldon and Kean below the original Able Danger entry 69.114.117.103 07:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Able Danger

message: It might be necessary to include the deducted motives for people creating the conspiracies in the first place. The first thing a lot of people who disagree with the conspiracies think is "why on earth would they think this?", and often endeavour to look deeper than the proposed motives for a 9/11 government conspiracy and at the psychology of conspiracy theorists themselves, before they consider evidence for and against it.
:If you have proper citing it would definetly belong in the criticism section 69.114.117.103 07:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motives Expansion 

message: The section should be split into two. The first under "Other Points of interest" should have the Carlyle meeting on 9/11.Marvin Bush as CEO of company that ran security. The second section should be "Public Officials suggesting conspiracy theories" and that would list remarks by the Iranian and Venezuelan presidents,Jesse Ventura,Cynthia McKinney 69.114.117.103 06:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did split it and I put the public officials section in between media and criticism 69.114.117.103 17:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other Points of Interest Should be Split 

message: I have made several correction due to, frankly, fraudulent misrepresentations of underlying sources.--Cberlet 01:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Outlandish misrepresentation of underlying sources

message: I dispute the truth of the lead sentence "No structural engineers have come forward to support the controlled demolition hypothesis". The Organisation "Scholoar For Truth 911" has four members who are structural engineers: Joseph M. Phelps, Doyle Winterton, Michael Lovingier, Ted Muga. Phelps is a Chartered member of the "Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers" and "Structural Dynamicist Charter". Even that paragon of bias "Screw Loose Change" accepts this , although they oddly try to use his age and experience to discredit him. Mongo disagrees, declaring it to be 'baloney'. I've been around Wikipedia long enough to understand that Mongo's word is law, so I won't argue further. However, I do humbly lodge my powerless misgivings here. Self-Described Seabhcán 13:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a fifth structural (baloney) engineer, Charles N. Pegelow.  Self-Described Seabhcán 13:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I like the previous version, where it just said "majority" the use of the word "No" is ridiculous unless it can be proven that "No" engineers support the theory. --Wildnox 15:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

text: On second thought, see WP:RS as you have not supplied a reliable source. --Wildnox 16:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be happy with a sentence saying "No structural engineers who are experts in building collapse have published reviewed papers that contest the NIST collapse theory". That would be true. The current version is not true and is unsourced. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 18:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Phelps is retired - do you loose your right to an opinion when you retire? He, and the others, are structural engineers. Charles N. Pegelow is a working structural engineer with 30 years experience. He is not a member of ST911 but is on the record questioning the NIST version of collapse and supporting the CD theory. Do you have any source for the statement "No structural engineers..."? No. The sentence is unsourced POV and should be cut. There is nothing wrong with the pervious version "Most structural engineers don't support CD" and this version should be returned. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 18:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Its an improvement, but it really should either include the word 'most' or explain which structural engineers reject it. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 18:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Generally" would be considered a weasel word.  No need for it.  Also, in most states it is illegal to represent yourself to the public as an engineer unless you are licensed by the state.  This is especially true of engineers that design buildings and structures occupied the public.  Structural and Civil engineers are almost always licensed.  Regarldess of their other credentials, they cannot represent themselves as "structural engineers" without the license.  The closest I have seen is the EIT person who didn't apparently didn't complete the licensing requirements or he would be a Professional Engineer instead of an Engineer-in-Training.   --Tbeatty 18:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I always bring this up because I think it's the most reliable source. Bazant and Verdure say that NIST's explanation is "generally accepted by structural engineering and structural mechanics experts" and explicitly contrast this general acceptance with controlled demolition. I don't think we're weaseling here. I think we are stating the consensus as such.--Thomas Basboll 19:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "generally" in that case isn't juxtaposed against CD and isn't appropriate here.--Tbeatty 19:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It sure is juxtaposed against CD: "As generally accepted by the community of specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering (though not by a few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives), the failure scenario was..." NIST's explanation. Or do you read that differently?--Thomas Basboll 20:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be completely happy if we use the Bazant and Verdure wording and reference the statement to them. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 20:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I would be happy with a sentence saying "No structural engineers who are experts in building collapse have published reviewed papers that contest the NIST collapse theory". That would be true. The current version is not true and is unsourced. Lord Seabhcán of Baloney 21:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

text: It used to say "The structural engineering community rejects the controlled ..." I think that's the best way of putting it.--Sloane 23:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I like "No structural engineers who are experts in building collapse have published reviewed papers that contest the NIST collapse theory", whichLord Seabhcán of Baloney. It seems like it is right on the money, in my opinion. --Wildnox 23:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like this one, too - it seems very reasonable, NPOV.SalvNaut 17:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[baloney]] and structural engineers 

message: A just released poll has these results "Do you think that George W. Bush personally knew before September 11th 2001 about intellegence reports that warned of possible terrorist attacks against the United States using airplanes, or not?" Personally knew 57% Did not know 33%  DK/NA 11% this compares to a May 2002 CBS poll which showed  knew 41% Did not know 43$ DK/NA 16%  The question is on page 30 of the linked PDF 69.114.117.103 08:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New York Times/CBS Poll Advanced Knowledge 

message: Just did an episode on 9/11 conspiracy theories.  This is very relevant.  How do we work it in?--Tbeatty 05:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: South Park

message: Later, in Chicago, the boys find another group, who, with the Hardly boys, reveal that all the conspiracy websites are fake, and run by the government---and then Bush comes, and it becomes evident that the government wasn't behind 9/11---they actually run the websites, so that the 1/4 of the country who are dumb enough to believe conspiracies will believe the government is all-powerful---which the government wants them to believe---while the smart ones know the truth, which is that "a bunch of pissed off Muslims" actually did do it. And an even bigger secret then comes out---Stan was the one who pooped in the urinal ("the stalls were all full and I didn't want to be late for recess! I didn't think it'd turn into such a big deal!") Thus at the end, the terrorists were behind 9/11, though the government wanted some people to believe otherwise for their own power; and Stan had to clean the urinal he pooped in.
--Tbeatty 05:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Mystery of the Urinal Deuce]]

message: This article is not a graduate course in logic. The fact that half of the space in that section is taken up trying to explain affirming the consequent means that it really does not belong there. Just say this is how the president and secret service acted. Cite people who claim that this shows foreknowledge leave in the cites for the rebuttals (he was trying to prevent panic) and leave it at that.
The section mentions how Farenheit 9/11 made the reading “My Pet Goat” that seem famous. While true enough in the film a British General is quoted as saying that he has seen that look many times meaning Moore was explaining the behavior as shell shock or combat stress not foreknowledge. 69.114.117.103 17:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Presidents Behavior 

message: These topics were mainly mentioned in the 2001-2004 period. To my dismay dispite the fact that these  topics cause me more sleepless nights then any other topics mentioned in the article these topics are rarely mentioned in websites and discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories these days. We have to decide if theories that are not mentioned much currently belong in the article. If we decide that LIHOP in general really does not belong. If we do decide that this is article worthy then this should have a section of it’s own. 69.114.117.103 17:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bin Ladin /Bush family relationship -  Flight of the Saudis 

message: Rep Welden as most of you know has accused the agency of having a secret unit Able-Danger that named Mohammed Atta and three other hijackers a year before the attacks a charge that was recently denied in a Pentagon Inspector Generals report is facing an investigation by the agency into charges that he used his influence to secure lobbying and consulting contracts for his daughter.
69.114.117.103 10:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rep. Curt Weldon faces Investigation by the FBI 

message: Who added the mainstream account to this article?  If there is an issue about the length of this, why is MORE mainstream description added when there is a huge article devoted to this already as the September 11, 2001 attacks?  I think it should be removed and replaced by a link. bov 19:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The mainstream account section was added to give the reader a summary of what theories are being challenged or disputed without having to click a hyperlink to the lengthy main 9/11 article. I proposed it (See "Alternative to What" above)and wrote the original section Others have modified it since 69.114.117.103 07:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mainstream Account 

message: I have restored the United Airlines Flight 93 section at 9/11 conspiracy theories#United Airlines Flight 93.  It was deleted when this page was supposedly being split into subpages.  I have given it a bit of a clean up, but many of the references need names and it needs the general scrutiny the rest of this article has gotten. — Reinyday, 19:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  United Airlines Flight 93 

message: as israel conspiracy has become very popular, why don't we create a new main page related to it (rather than a page section)? Nielswik(talk) 23:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there's nearly enough information to make a useful Israeli conspiracy theory page about this, though maybe there is and maybe it could be expanded. I know a lot of people in the Middle East promote this due to their anti-semitism, but I'm not really sure whether it'd belong in its own article or should be mentioned here and perhaps in articles about anti-semitism. Titanium Dragon 05:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes. Anomo 23:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  israel conspiracy 

message: in the criticism section, the comments of michael shermer are repeated, as i dont have too much experience with the history of the article, i just figured i would mention it and someone can take a closer look at it KarlJohannes 14:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for spotting that. I removed the second reference. Tom Harrison Talk 14:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  shermer repeat 

message: It seems bizarre to have to read the text of September 11, 2001 attacks all over again laboriously at the start of this page, even though the whole point of this article is supposedly to refute many of the claims in those paragraphs.  For example in the second paragraph it says, "they piloted these planes themselves," but many 9/11 researchers believe that the planes may have operated on autopilot or some other means.  Why repeat the entire official version at the start of this article?  For example, the article Holocaust denial does not need to restate the whole holocaust in parapgraph 2 of that article -- it's common knowledge, the same as what happened on 9/11, so why the overbearing repeat of the official version here, yet barely 2 sentences of the questioning of the official version on the September 11, 2001 attacks page? bov 05:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.--Thomas Basboll 08:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree. -- While most people remember "Bin Ladin did it" I would bet it is not common knowledge what the official scientific explanation for the collapse of towers 1, 2 and 7 are. If the controlled demolition theory is the most popular conspiracy theory these days it is important not to make the reader click on to another link to find out this scientific explanation. Remember it has been over 5 years since the event and while the “official explanation” is obvious to those who edit a 9/11 conspiracy article many people have forgotten even important details so a brief summary of the official theory is needed. That being said I do not know why these couple of paragraphs was changed from a separate section to the main overview. 69.114.117.103 09:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we actually agree about this. I've moved the two paragraphs out of the lead, For the reasons Ed suggests.--Thomas Basboll 19:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro paragraphs 

message: When I first saw this video clip on YouTube, it just creeped me out. Watch the last 30 sec, you'll see what I mean. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1V7yqCbfxEg   aido2002 09:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is a bit weird is that Letterman sounds like a member of the Project for the New American Century "To me it's an act of war" while Bush is advocating a Clintonian surgical strike . Also as good as the You Tube revolution has been you can not "fast forward" to the end as you can with some streaming video's 69.114.117.103 07:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something Creepy Readers of this Article May want to See 

message: If the article is correctly comprehensive without degenerating into too much fluff, then don't worry about reducing the length to arbitrary limits. Byzantine Empire is 120 kb and a recent Indian FA was passed at 100 kb despite several standing objections to its length. Let the topic define the length. I'm not endorsing winding passages, but I've seen too many forced reductions and splits going on. --Zeality 17:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Length issues

message: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0v0_HDwg84&mode=related&search
this may or may not deserve a mention in the article. He's probably just going crazy :P 216.52.163.1 19:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been floating around for years. I would not have a problem if you put it in the "Other points of interest" section. But before that I would research the date it was said and find out if it was a one time statement (I believe it was but not 100% sure). Going a little bit off topic the links here should be more youtubish to keep up with what everybody else doing on the net these days. 69.114.117.103 09:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rumsfeld shootdown commentary about flight 93 

message: This claim has small tidbits of fact but is essentially false. <-- Is this vandalism? It looks like the next sentence is in reference to the one that this interrupts. A number of conspiracy claims in this article are shown by evidence in the article to lack validity. However, this particular sub-section introduces little countering evidence, other than the suggestion that, if we take the accused at their word, the group of men were not celebrating as the WTC burned. Instead, this "misreporting" was exaggerated due to personal differences with a certain eyewitness. "This claim has small tidbits of fact but is essentially false" sounds like a comment, possibly in response to reading the section. Is this vandalism? --Sin cloro 23:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mossad Vandalism?

message: There is a number of scholars and professors who question 9/11. For this article to put out that the scientific community in a whole agrees is wrong, please revise that. --63.224.245.74 03:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific community quote 

message: This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it.  Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed.  I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy.  In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright.  If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed, feel free to ask me on my talk page and I'll review it personally.  Thanks. ---J.S (t|c) 07:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  YouTube links 

message: On Topic:
First off Rep. Curt Weldon was defeated so does his claim about able danger carry less import? If the able danger section is kept should his defeat be mentioned in the article? And after Jan 20th the article has to be changed to former Rep Curt Weldon.
Indirectly on topic:
Now I am going to break Wikipedia protocol and briefly discuss the elections effect on the “9/11 truth investigation”. As of late on the morning the day after the election this was not being discussed in the mainstream media or 911truth.org or prisonplanet. The short answer is there will be no reopening of the 9/11 investigation. The Democrats won on Iraq not 9/11 conspiracy so any investigations should they occur will be Iraq related.  The 9/11 commission is held in high esteem. There will be a move to pass their recommendations. In most of the post election interviews with Democrats about Iraq the Hamilton/Baker commission was mentioned. I do not have to tell you Lee Hamilton was the cochairmen of the 9/11 commission and Jim Baker’s prominent role in the Carlyle group. The core democratic base is not 9/11 conspiracy friendly. To oversimplify their views Bush is a moron who can not get anything straight therefore could not pull off a 9/11 conspiracy. It should be noted that many of the independent libertarian types who were part of the democratic coalition are 9/11 conspiracy friendly but in the short term will continue to go along with the Democrats.  In the long term as Bush time in office grows smaller and then disappears the issue becomes less prominent. Of the 2008 contenders on only Hillary Clinton and Giuliani would have even a very arguable relationship to a possible 9/11 conspiracy.  As for the mainstream media I think the recent spate of 9/11 conspiracy talk was a one time thing spurned by the release of the poll results and the 5th anniversary of the attacks. 69.114.117.103 17:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Election effect on matters discussed in Article