Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories/Archive 11

message: Erm, hey. On my computer, in all 3 browsers I own, at the beginning of this article below the box of links to sections, it says this:
"THIS IS WHAT REALLY HAPPENED!!!
GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS PURPOSLY PLANNED THE ATTACKS AND BEFORE THE AIRPLANES HIT THE BUILDINGS, MISSILES WERE FIRED AT THE BUILDING BEFORE THE ACTUAL CRASH. HOW DO YOU THINK THE EXPLOSION HAPPENED?!
THIS WAS ALL BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT U.S NEEDED OIL AND THEY WANTED TO INVAID IRAQ TO GET WHAT THEY NEEDED. THEIR EXCUSE? IRAW HAD WEAPONS OF MASS DISTRUCTION. DID THEY? NO!!!!!
SO TAKE THIS INTO CONSIDERATION!!"
I highly doubt that's supposed to be there.
But the strange thing is, that going into "Edit "This PagE", it... doesn't appear. I'm serious, in IE, Netscape, AND Firefox, the text does not appear , and as such I can't edit it out.
Could someone please do so and could someone PLEASE tel lme what might be going on? 199.126.134.144 03:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: All caps stuff at front of article

message: These words in the Incompetence theory section "This line was advanced, with much defensive language, in The 9/11 Commission Report" I find POV
and vague 02:32, 28 June 2006 (Ed Kollin)
::"MIHOP ("Made It Happen on Purpose"): The U.S. government, elements within the U.S. government, or foreign governments, possibly assisted by private forces, planned and executed the attacks."
It's not just generic unknown "foreign governments" is it? Nobody that I've heard thinks it was the Russians. The only conspiracy theories I've heard of say it was Israel or Saudi Arabia. Tom Harrison Talk 12:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pakistan and the UK are also frequently mentioned.  Seabhcán 14:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also China. SkeenaR 22:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It came from the New Yorker article. I think it's OK, and at least it's sourced. Better than catering to every theorist. I'm sure I could throw up "Mmx1 thinks Russians responsible for 9/11" on my blog if that would make you happy. --Mmx1 22:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a pretty broad list of potential conspirators, but as long as it's sourced that's fine. At least the Estonians weren't in on it; right? Tom Harrison Talk 23:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe thats what they want you to think! Seabhcán 13:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point; Some say the Teutonic Knights are part of the New World Order conspiracy. Tom Harrison Talk 15:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Main categorizations

message: Does the Loose Change video have enough unique notability to exist as a seperate article as opposed to a section in this article and a redirect or disambig (loose change has another movie with the same name)? Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be not a good idea to bring all those informations inside this article because there are several people here that say it is too long and must be splitted (and some tried to do it).--Pokipsy76 18:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I Oppose the merge. I would say Loose Change deserves its own article, since the film seems to have become a populist "gateway" into 9/11 conspiracy theories. Interestingly, a lot of conspiracy theorists have distanced themselves from the film. Likewise, I would oppose merging Super Size Me into McDonald's. -- MisterHand 18:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Oppose merge.; Film has garnered major media attention in broadcast, print, and internet sources.--Rosicrucian 22:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Oppose the merge. Loose Change warrants an article of it's own. SkeenaR 00:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Oppose. - RoyBoy 800 01:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: First, the question asked was whether to split Loose Change into its own article, not a merger.  Second, is this the Loose Change (video), whose article has an edit history going back to February, or something else?  Peter Grey 02:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's a proposed merger. Hipocrite has already posted the merger template on the article you mention.--Rosicrucian 03:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Loose Change 

message: The sentence "Significant damage to the exterior of the building [WTC1 & 2] and/or the trusses could and did cause a total failure of the system" now begins with an attribution: "Supporters of the official theory say that significant damage. . ." 
That small matter aside, the original sentence was followed by two notes irrelevant to what it asserted. The first note points to a resource concerning the structure of the First Interstate Bank, the second to a resource concerning the structure of the Windsor Tower. I have therefore moved the notes, placing them adjacent to the buildings they relate to. 
I have not verified that the resources confirm what the article says about those two buildings. I have only assumed they do.  
O Govinda 07:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misplaced references in "Controlled-demolition theory" 

message: In the first paragraph under "World Trade Center towers / Controlled-demolition theory," we have a quote from the NIST, who
:"found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001."
Further down, in the second paragraph under "Government inquiry," we again find the identical quote. 
I suggest deleting the first instance of the quotation. The first time around, we are hearing what the conspiracy theorists say. However mad we may think them, we ought to let them tell us their theory, uninterrupted. 
Further down, we are hearing scientific refutation from the government's report. This is where the quotation from the NIST is entirely in place. 
So I suggest: Once is enough. Delete the first instance, keep the second, and move the reference note, which is obviously worth keeping.
Yes?
O Govinda 08:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplicate quote from NIST 

message: The article said: 
"Though this report said there was no such evidence [that the towers were brought down by controlled demolition], professor Steven E. Jones (See individual viewpoints below), as well as others, continue to say that it did not address any of the specific analysis arguing for the demolition hypothesis.  Critics question Jones' credibility on the subject by pointing out that he does not have a structural engineering background. "
DrObjektiv deleted the setence about Jones's credibility on the grounds that it was an ad hominem. MisterHand reinstated it on the grounds the question of Jones's expertise is "very much on topic for the article."
I agree with MisterHand. Jones's expertise (or lack of it) surely matters. But not here. To question whether or not a report addresses a specific analysis, one doesn't need a background in engineering. One simply needs to be able to see "Did the report talk about the analysis or not?" 
Whether a report has addressed an analysis well is a different matter, which might reasonably call for special qualifications. But that's not what's at issue here. What's at issue is whether the report addressed the analysis at all. 
I have therefore deleted the sentence again, not because it's ad hominem but because it's non seq. That is, it's out of place. 
Whoever is keen to introduce Jones's lack of a background in structural engineering should reintroduce the point somewhere in the article where expertise in physics but a lack of expertise in structural engineering would matter. 
(And if you do reintroduce it, the second link needs editing; it's dead.)
O Govinda 13:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jones's credentials 

message: I've added a section on the reaction and coverage of the Main Stream Media to these theories. Please add material to this section. 
(Hopefully this will begin to realign this 'article' into a coherent monolog, rather than the jumble of random information that it currently is. Also who keeps removing the 'long article' tag? This article is nearly 100kb. Max article length should be less than 32kb) Seabhcán 10:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no point in having the tag if nothing is going to be done about it. Tom Harrison Talk 12:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And why can't we then do something? This is childish. Seabhcán 15:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We can do something, whenever there's a consensus what to do. Tom Harrison Talk 21:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Barring a radical overhaul, I think that's the case. Tom Harrison Talk 21:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  media reaction section. please add 

message: As you can read in the policy reverts must be always explained: 
:Because of the lack of paralanguage online, if you don't explain things clearly people will probably assume all kinds of nasty things, and that's how edit wars get started.
And this must not happen.--Pokipsy76 13:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverts must be explained 

message: This article throws around the terms "theorists" and "researchers" with abandon. It does not make it clear who it means by each of these. At other times it refers to "conspiracy theorists" and "researchers questioning the official account of 9/11". Are the former shorthand for the latter? If so, may I suggest that on the first use we say something like "researchers questioning the official account of 9/11 (hereafter, 'researchers')" and that when we mean "conspiracy theorists" we do not shorten it to "theorists"? Or if we means something else, we say that? Right now, the scope of who supposedly advocates certain claims is very vague. - Jmabel | Talk 03:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11 is a euphemism for conspiracy theorists. Or conspiracy theorists is a pejorative epithet for researchers questioning the official account of 9/11. Tom Harrison Talk 13:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who is being referred to 

message: From the article: "This claim suggests the building was destroyed to provide for an easy clean-up and removal of debris, often implying little study was done of the evidence." Suggests to whom? There doesn't seem to be any citation for this: it is in Wikipedia's narrative voice. And Wikipedia's narrative voice is not supposed to make POV claims like this. 
I don't have this article watchlisted; I was just passing by because someone said this article has POV problems. There do seem to be several; I'd also suggest that someone working on this might look for wordings like "points out", which implicitly endorse the claim in question. - Jmabel | Talk 03:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggests to whom? 

message: Why is there no reference to William Rodriguez or his report of the explosions near the bottom of the towers on this page? Were these reports debunked or refuted? --216.52.163.1 20:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  William Rodriguez testimony 

message: >"Steven E. Jones, a physics professor at Brigham Young University, with no structural engineering experience, and Judy Wood, a mechanical engineer at Clemson University, whose experience is in the mechanical properties of Dentin, say that without the use of explosives, the fall of the towers violates conservation of momentum.[11] "
The qualifiers seem peevish, especially in the case of Judy Wood. I'd imagine that angular momentum is not a particularly esoteric area of study.Icewolf34 13:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unnecessary Criticism of Sources? 

message: Tom Harrison (above) has suggested something that might offer a way of bringing this article onto a firmer foundation: secondary sources. I'm not quite sure what he means by saying that we are condemned to synthesizing primary sources, since most of the CTs out there are themselves syntheses of something. But I wonder what would happen if we used agreement across the LIHOP/MIHOP divide to identify a set of core facts, or at least issues. If we could have a consensus about foregrounding anomalies that meet the following two criteria, we might give a better sense of what a "9/11 conspiracy theory" involves. (1) A good primary source is available to establish the fact. (2) It is invoked by at least one LIHOP and at least one MIHOP theory. (A "theory" here might be identified as book-length connecting of dots.) I'm not suggesting that these are the only facts we should list, only that the article could begin there.--Thomas Basboll 21:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary and secondary sources 

message: The article says: The FEMA report says that its proposed explanation of the collapse of WTC7 has only a small probability of being correct. Where does this come from? Is that a misreading of the report which says: Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence.? Weregerbil 13:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: FEMA "small probability"

message: Hi. Could I just say that I'm a bit disturbed that link 124, in the 'celebrating Israelis' section, leads to an article on the website of historian David Irving(). I know he (officially) claims not to be a Holocaust denier anymore, but is he really an acceptable source for Wiki? Maybe someone could find a better source for the original story. I shall try to myself.--Lopakhin 09:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anti-semitism is one element of some 9/11 conspiracy theories. I wouldn't want that to be exaggerated, but neither should it be minimized. Tom Harrison Talk 13:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  On 12.3: Mossad connection to filming of 9/11 attacks with "puzzling behavior"  

message: How can this article exist in the same encyclopedia as September 11, 2001 attacks?  The two articles do not line up well.  This one is full of unverifiable original research, and should be eliminated.  Not even conspiracy theorists can get it right.  Here's a quote from one of your own:  
*"Partridge ridicules the Pentagon no-jetliner theory: Hundreds of eyewitnesses on the George Washington Parkway at morning rush-hour were either (a) victims of mass-hallucination, or (b) taken aside and threatened or bribed to testify falsely that they saw a commercial aircraft. Immediately after the impact, squads of conspirators rushed to the scene (including the inside of the burning Pentagon) to plant body parts, personal effects, and bogus aircraft parts (some, like the engines and landing gear weighing several hundred pounds). Others dumped aviation fuel, to "falsely" suggest involvement of an airplane. 
*With just a few paragraphs Partridge disposes of the case against the crash of Flight 77 at the Pentagon by exposing its essential absurdities. He does not address detailed claims of the no-Boeing theorists, which are so numerous their debunking could amount to a full-time job." See 
It's time we take a serious look at deleting all original research from this article, or Afd-ing it.   Morton DevonshireYo
:Wow, I never thought I would say this, but I agree with Morton, we need to get rid of the original research, among other things, and if we can't agree on how to do that then we need to put it up for AFD and see if other people think it should be deleted. 69.179.124.166 16:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An AFD would be a complete waste of everyones time. There would never be a consensus to delete this article. Don't do it. I'm not worried about the article disappearing, I just don't think anybody will want to have to take part in that long pointless excercise. It's good that there are people working on improving it though. SkeenaR 23:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Contradictory Article

message: To get a sense of how long the WTC demolition section is I pasted it into a Word document. It's 15 pages long and 6,000 words. That's pretty much the size of an academic journal article. 500 words and about five links (to Jones, Griffin, King, Hoffman and Ross) would easily suffice to summarize the hypothesis and identify its main proponents. I'll be working on it over the next couple of days. Do let me know if you have any concerns about this.--Thomas Basboll 18:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We still need citations for your description of what constitutes a 9/11 conspiracy theory. Your plans for the section sound good, but it might be wise to not let the writing get ahead of the citations that support it. What we had earlier, while certainly flawed, did have some citations to support it. Tom Harrison Talk 19:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WTC demolition is way too long 

message: I'll repeat my argument for removing the "contradictory article" tag so that we can discuss it. If September 11, 2001 attacks says, "On this day 19 hijackers executed a coordinated surprise terrorist attack on the US" and the 9/11 CT article say, "Since 9/11, alternative a number of alternative hypotheses have been proposed...etc." There is no contradiction. To say, "It is raining but I don't believe it is raining" is a contradiction; but to say "It is raining but Larry doesn't believe it is raining" is not. The relationship between these two articles is very clearly the second case, not the first. Wikipedia provides the official story as fact and the alternative story as opinion, hypotheses, and speculation. It even emphasises that the 9/11 CTs are incompatible with the official version. Again, this article can be improved in many ways, and I'm sure we can do a better job of not introducing "facts" that are incompatible with the official account and difficult to substantiate. But there is no fundamental problem with the whole article.--Thomas Basboll 09:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The key is that the alternative/non-consensus views be attributed to major proponents. If wikipedia offers both opinions as fact, then we have a contradiction. So I've removed the tag. Antonrojo 15:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictory Article? 

message: I cleaned up the links, and removed the following:
Site better placed on the 9/11 wikisite
* 
Articles on a variety of topics, none on the front page had articles about 9/11 readily seen
* edited by Michel Chossudovsky
Will put on the Sibel Edmonds page
*  
Off topic
*  
Site down:
*  Pro MIHOP rebuttle to original article
Signed: Travb (talk) 01:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleaned up removed the following links

message: FOX News has a good video clip of Bill O'Reilly interviewing the supervising author from Popular Mechanics magazine. RonCram 15:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bill O'Reilly isn't really much of a reliable source; he's known to lie and decieve, and does so on a contiual basis. Is there a transcript anywhere? Titanium Dragon 09:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for sharing.  Is the supervising author of Popular Mechanics a reliable source? Mlibby 19:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. --Sloane 19:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Please reference proof when casually insulting someone's credibility. I'm not saying he doesn't lie (I actually have no idea who Bill O'Reilly is, just that he's some news guy), but please include proof when you accuse someone of habitual lying.--TelevisedRevolution 00:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Popular Mechanics debunks 9/11 conspiracy theories

message: The collapse of the World Trade Center was a great surprise to the engineering community. "No experienced structural engineer watching the attack expected the WTC towers to collapse," wrote the author of the first attempt to explain the collapses Bazant and Zhou 2001, Zdenek Bazant, in a later paper co-authored with Mathieu VerdureBazant and Verdure. "No skyscraper," they point out, "has before collapsed due to fire," and the task for engineers has been to explain how the local damage caused by the airplanes was able to bring on a global progressive collapse. While an explanation has now been "generally
accepted by the community of specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering" (see also WTC collapse), Bazant and Zdenek also identify a dissenting view, which is held by "a few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives". Indeed, the "controlled demolition hypothesis," which was explicitly rejected by the official NIST reportNIST 2005., plays a central, albeit not essentialMichael Ruppert, for example, explicitly refuses to let anything depend on proving the case for demolition, role in the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11.
Many journalists compared the collapses to controlled demolitions already on the day of the attacks. The first to suggest it in literal terms seems to have been Van Romero, a demolitions expert in New Mexico. He said that the collapses looked "too methodical" to have been brought on by the impacts and subsequent fires and proposed explosives in the building to account for the images he saw on television. He later retracted his suggestion but did maintain that "that is what it looked like". Jeff King and Jim Hoffman were early defenders of the controlled demolition hypothesis and published their observations onlinePlague Puppy, 9/11 Research. David Ray Griffin included it in his comprehensive survey of anomalies in the official story New Pearl Harbor, but see also his contribution to the studies in political economy volume (and weblink at 9/11 Review). It received its most notable proponent to date in early 2006, when Steven E. Jones, a phycisist at Brigham Young University, argued that a "gravity driven collapse "(i.e., one without explosives) would defy the laws of physics and fail to account for the full range of available evidence, which comprises mainly photographs and video material,  but also eye-witness reports and samples of the structural steel.
There is a range of opinion about the most likely sort of explosives, the way they were distributed, and how they were successfully brought into the building. Proponents of the hypothesis sometimes cite reports of unusual power outages, maintenance work and emergency drills in the weeks leading up to 9/11. Like any [controlled demolition], the role of the explosives would have been to remove the main structural supports in order to let gravity and the weight of the building do the rest. Many today follow Steven Jones in suggesting [thermite], perhaps in combination with other devices. 
Proponents of the controlled demolition hypothesis argue that it better explains the data than the official account, as presented in the NIST report and Bazant and Verdure's recent paper. They normally emphasise the speed (near freefall), symmetry and completeness of the collapses; the reported sounds of explosions going off before the collapses began; the presence of demolition "squibs" in the videos of collapses; and evidence of molten metal both before the collapses began and long after they were over. They also argue that the fires were not hot enough, and did not burn long enough, to significantly weaken the steel in the buildings (as required by the official theory). Finally, they note that WTC 7, which was not hit by a plane, also collapsed on that day, displaying many of these same features of controlled demolition.
The total progressive collapse of WTC 1, 2, and 7 has never been adequately modelled to either refute or prove the controlled demolition hypothesis. The NIST report provided a finite element analysis of the structural response of the building up to the point of where "collapse was inevitable" due to the "enormous" weight of the buildings above the damaged floors. Bazant and Zhou provided some rough estimates to support this characterization, concluding that the weight was at least an "order of magnitude" over that required to occasion total collapse. This was then reaffirmed by Bazant and Verdure. Alternative energy budgets have been produced to suggest the oppositive conclusion, namely, that the structure underneath the impacts should have easily withstood the failure of the top floors, in which case the tops of the buildings should have "fallen off" the towers, rather than straight through them.  As noted, this scenario is presently defended only by "outsiders claiming a conspiracy" and has not been discussed in mainstream engineering journals. 
There is widespread agreement, however, about the significance of controlled demolition hypothesis, even among those who don't endorse it specifically or conspiracy theories in general. The necessary explosives could only have been planted well in advance of the Semptember 11 attacks and would have required significant levels of access to three highly secured buildings. These housed not only some of the most important financial infrastructure in the United States, but also the offices of the CIA, the FBI and the SEC. If it were to be demonstrated that explosives were involved in the collapses, it would give much credibility to the idea that 9/11 was an "inside job".
===Comments welcome===
:This text is about 800 words, and I hope it can replace the 6,000 we've got. Naturally, there's probably something I've missed, and there's some work to be done on the sources. My aim has been to situate the CT in as close proximity to the official story as possible, and identify only the most salient aspects of it. With links to the papers by Jones and Griffin, and to 9/11 Research (Hoffman) and Plaguepuppy (King), it should serve the curious reader.--Thomas Basboll 12:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Say' avoids the potential tendentiousness of 'point out', 'cite', 'claim', 'note', 'argue', and so on. I have added notes where I think citations are needed. We need to make clear somehow that these assertions are what the theorists say, unless we have citations to a reliable source to state them as facts. For example, they note that WTC 7, which was not hit by a plane, also collapsed on that day, displaying many of these same features of controlled demolition. - What reliable source has listed the features of a controlled demolition, and has said the collapse exhibited those features? Tom Harrison Talk 14:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I understand this concern. The trouble is that pretty much any article in any encyclopedia deals with a topic that also deserves an essay-length or book-length treatment. Fortunately, those essays and books already exist. The reader of an encyclopedia article wants a quick overview of the main issues and some references for further reading. (I added the molten metal, which, you are right, is an important piece of evidence.) If we gave the controlled demolition hypothesis its own article (which I actually think is appropriate ... but hasn't it been tried?) then 6000 words would, IMHO, still be too long. 1500 ought to do it (again with proper references for further reading; it would be much better to send the reader on to either Griffin's survey of the arguments or Jones' paper, where all these claims are made with some authority and painlessly from within the CT POV). It would allow us to reduce the CD hypothesis section in the CT article to something like what we've got at WTC collapse. (If it's the talk we had there you're talking about it, I'd say it was very trying, but not wholly a fiasco. But, yes, I would like to avoid a process of that kind here.)--Thomas Basboll 07:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Draft of new WTC collapse section for your consideration 

message: :This text is about 800 words, and I hope it can replace the 6,000 we've got. Naturally, there's probably something I've missed, and there's some work to be done on the sources. My aim has been to situate the CT in as close proximity to the official story as possible, and identify only the most salient aspects of it. With links to the papers by Jones and Griffin, and to 9/11 Research (Hoffman) and Plaguepuppy (King), it should serve the curious reader.--Thomas Basboll 12:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Say' avoids the potential tendentiousness of 'point out', 'cite', 'claim', 'note', 'argue', and so on. I have added notes where I think citations are needed. We need to make clear somehow that these assertions are what the theorists say, unless we have citations to a reliable source to state them as facts. For example, they note that WTC 7, which was not hit by a plane, also collapsed on that day, displaying many of these same features of controlled demolition. - What reliable source has listed the features of a controlled demolition, and has said the collapse exhibited those features? Tom Harrison Talk 14:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I understand this concern. The trouble is that pretty much any article in any encyclopedia deals with a topic that also deserves an essay-length or book-length treatment. Fortunately, those essays and books already exist. The reader of an encyclopedia article wants a quick overview of the main issues and some references for further reading. (I added the molten metal, which, you are right, is an important piece of evidence.) If we gave the controlled demolition hypothesis its own article (which I actually think is appropriate ... but hasn't it been tried?) then 6000 words would, IMHO, still be too long. 1500 ought to do it (again with proper references for further reading; it would be much better to send the reader on to either Griffin's survey of the arguments or Jones' paper, where all these claims are made with some authority and painlessly from within the CT POV). It would allow us to reduce the CD hypothesis section in the CT article to something like what we've got at WTC collapse. (If it's the talk we had there you're talking about it, I'd say it was very trying, but not wholly a fiasco. But, yes, I would like to avoid a process of that kind here.)--Thomas Basboll 07:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments welcome

message: Is there any proof at all for the claim that 4,000 Israelis were somehow warned about 9/11?  This seems very unlikely.  If no one can cite any evidence for it, I propose we delete the section.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.239.233.98 (talk • contribs) .
:There does not need to be "proof" of 4000 Israelis having foreknowledge. What is important in the context of this article is the widespread reporting of this in the Arab media and opinion polls showing widespread belief in this in that part of the world and significant belief of this in other parts of the world. I would describe the theory as illegitimate but important. Important is what makes it article worthy. It is worthy in that a reader looking to this article to get knowledge of the main theories out their needs to know of this theory. 01:56, 22 August 2006 (Ed Kollin)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.114.117.103 (talk • contribs) .
::Good point.  I find the claim to be pretty ridiculous - is there some kind of registry of all Israelis that could be used to make these warnings?  I really doubt it.  But you're right; the article is about theories that have been put forth, and this is a claim that comes up very often.  Thanks.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.239.233.98 (talk • contribs) .
:::Your Welcome (Ed Kollin) 69.114.117.103 04:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sections on Israelis

message: SkeenaR and I have hit on a possible way of shortening the article. I have a vague sense that it's been tried before, but here's the suggestion anyway. Could we stablish a new article called "Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center"? It would work a bit like (but not quite) the single bullet theory in the JFK assassination. In my opinion, this article would still need to be shorter than the current CD section here. But it would obviously allow some detail.--Thomas Basboll 07:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there are enough secondary sources to support an independent page. Tom Harrison Talk 13:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that is a problem. And I suppose we can just keep our eyes open until a critical mass is reached (a barrage of secondary works on 9/11 CTs can't be far away). At this point, there are a number of indpendent sources that attest to the existence (not truth) of the controlled demolition hypothesis. I've mentioned the forthcoming Bazant and Verdure article (pdf here) in the shortened CD section above and there is, of course, also the NIST report itself. The new Popular Mechanics book, though I haven't read it yet, certainly presents the hypothesis. Griffin's book the NPH is not strictly speaking secondary, but was offered at the time only as a summary of a body of arguments, not a strong claim. These all work with overlapping primary sources, and while they arrive at different conclusions about them, again, attest to the existence of the materials that the hypothesis is constructed out of.--Thomas Basboll 14:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spinoff article on controlled demolition? 

message: Is up for review at .  Thought all of you would want to know.  Morton devonshire 20:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Category:Conspiracy theorists

message: To me it seems this section and the few extremely bias sources are not realizing that the presidents statements were mispunctuated. And perhaps misunderstood, I will admit the president has a POOR way of phrasing things. 
*"I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on. And I used to fly, myself, and I said, well, there's one terrible pilot. I said, it must have been a horrible accident..."
**It was phrased like this "...outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw...an airplane hit the tower..." Obviously, all of us who had a television on that morning saw that an airplane hit the first tower, it dosent mean we physically saw it happen.
*"Anyway, I was sitting there, and my Chief of Staff -- well, first of all, when we walked into the classroom, I had seen this plane fly into the first building. There was a TV set on. And you know, I thought it was pilot error and I was amazed that anybody could make such a terrible mistake. And something was wrong with the plane, or -- anyway, I'm sitting there, listening to the briefing, and Andy Card came and said, 'America is under attack.'"
**"I had seen this plane fly into the first building" Im sure could be intrpreted into "I had seen a plane had flown into the first building"
In both phrases, the president mentions the TV being on. It seems the persons who proposed this theory are assuming that he was watching a TV which depicted the first plane crash. If you stop and think for a minute you will realize, the president is talking about the coverage of the building just after the plane crash.
I recommend this section be deleted, as it lacks unbias sources and it is a simple misunderstanding of wording, punctuation and pronunciation.
Aspensti 23:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This section should not be deleted because many if not a majority of "conspiracy theory" websites use this information to imply or accuse President Bush of having advanced knowledge of the attacks. Of course these websites are biased that is the reason they are cited. Despite what it seems at times this article is not a debate on whether the 9/11 conspiracy theories are correct. The cites "debunking" these theories are there to show reaction to the theories. The article is about the main 9/11 conspiracy theories that people believe. Your interpretation of these remarks is interesting and might be correct. If you can find a cite that agrees with your view put in the article. I do agree with you that the last paragraph is biased and not explanatory. I will make a change to change that and delete a bad link.69.114.117.103 06:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Ed. (and actually the White House retraction supports the original, more sinister, punctuation). Here's a draft for a more concise version:--Thomas Basboll 07:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The Presidents Behavior" 

message: :If we are going to say they were oddities, we need a reliable source to cite. Otherwise it should be 'what they say are oddities.' Likewise for 'seemed to suggest.' Tom Harrison Talk 13:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed 'oddities' to the more neutral 'aspects'; I don't think the "seemed to suggest" is beyond the scope of the sources. Even the White House agreed that that is what his remarks suggested; the correction lay not in the interpretation of the words, but in the president's recollection.--Thomas Basboll 18:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments to Prez draft:

message: :We need to add part about WTC 6 building in which explosion was occured and created a huge deep crater within the building. The moment was happen at the same time when the plane hit the WTC 2 Tower. It's clearly caught by CNN television. It's forgotten by most people and researchers (see WTC 6 mystery).--124.168.89.215  18:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that it is not dealt with by most researchers indicates that it may be a pretty marginal issue, probably not deserving of a whole section. WTC 6 could be put on a list of proposed minor anomalies along with the link you provide. 911studies.com is not (last I checked) a very central node in the CT community. And this mystery seems a bit forced to me. (My gut says they've got the times wrong and that it is a cloud from the collapsing tower, but I haven't looked at ít closely yet.) Webster Tarpley does mention it in passing in his talks, I think, but not the explosion, just the crater (which seems very plausibly to have occured during the collapses .... again, just my gut talking).--Thomas Basboll 10:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: have you see the following pages after within that site, it tell details and it's clearly through the video captured on CNN, CBS & NBC television that the cloud suddenly rise from the base of WTC 6 even before the both towers collapse & the WTC 2 tower just hit. The crater which was several stories deep was not caused by the collapsing tower. WTC 6 building is far away than WTC towers. It's clearly can be see through the video. --12.170.1.226 10:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Woow!!! I must say that this page is a GREAT piece of investigation! Those photos from Pentagon firerescue http://911studies.com/911photostudies1.htm are shown to be fake without NO DOUBT. The person that made this page deserves loud BRAVO! I think MONGO, Tom Harrison, MortonDevonshire should do their homework and read those page by page. I would like to hear what they think. (I suggest starting from page http://911studies.com/911photostudies32.htm but previous photos were also very strange)
--SalvNaut 15:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  Yeah, I was a bit struck when I've found that this guy investigated "moon hoax", too (and JFK). But did you look on his pages starting from page 32? Those Pentagon photos really look to be faked! Unless this guy produces his own evidenced, this is meaningful. --SalvNaut 23:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, you right, I was wrong :( . --203.59.167.177 17:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  I don't know who are you and what are you reffering to. I suspect some kind of irony. :) --SalvNaut 20:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WTC 6 Explosion Mystery

message: I need to put back the changes that Tom Harrison removed.  I reworded a paragraph and changed a sentence that someone added.  Instead of fixing the sentence, Mr. Harrison reverted the text and removed my changes.  It's funny that Weregerbil also reverted my changes for other reasons.  I am putting my changes back which should not upset the boat too much. Demosfoni 20:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what "funny" revert you refer to. Do you mean this edit of yours? I didn't revert that. I did revert earlier edits by an anonymous user, do you also edit as that anonymous user? The edit summary appeared misleading or mistaken: "Returned unintentional delete" when, in fact, the anon edit was removing sourced information. Weregerbil 12:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WTC 7: Larry Silverstein

message: I have just read this article, and in doing so, I realized that the main focus of the article may be in a rather misguided place.
Currently, this article deals with 9/11 "conspiracy theories", and the ideas thereof. Wouldn't it be more productive, relevant, and less controversial to shift the focus of the article to a broader, yet related subject, such as...9/11 skepticism?
A conspiracy regarding 9/11 refers to the idea that a group of people other than the members of Al Quaeda, often the government, conspired to either commit or involve themselves in the terrorist acts committed on 9/11, usually with some sort of massive cover-up. 9/11 skepticism, however, makes no claims as to what actually happened, but more generally contends that the general public knowledge of the 9/11 terrorist attacks is inaccurate.
We have a choice in which of these two subjects holds more weight on wikipedia. We can either have an article which primarily discusses ideas, and people who have ideas, that there are inaccuracies in the current account of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, or we can have an article which primarily discusses ideas, and people who have ideas, that the government, or some other entity, conspired to commit a terrorist act, then covered up the conspiracy with falsehoods. The differeince between the two is that while skepticism attempts to dispute a claim with facts, conspiracy theories put out their claims in addition to disputing others. The two are not the same thing, and this article must draw a distinction between the two.
In addition, the name of the article itself is, to a degree, inappropriate, or at least too vague. The 9/11 terrorist attacks were a conspiracy, an idea which virtually everyone accepts, as it is generally understood that Al Quaeda conspired to commit these crimes. In the interest of correctness, and the avoidance of colloquialisms, I believe it would be more appropriate to use a title such as "9/11 skepticism and conspiracy theories", "9/11 governmental conspiracy theories", "Theories of 9/11 government conspiracies", "Theories of 9/11 conspiracies involving the United States government", "9/11 skeptical conspiracy theories", "Skeptical conspiracy theories regarding 9/11", "Conspiracy theories of 9/11 skeptics", or something better, if you can think of anything.
152.163.100.69 20:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "The 9/11 Commission Report - Skepticism and Alternative/Conspiracy Theories". The article would start with a brief overview of the commission findings which the article currently does not do to give the reader an idea of what is being challenged. It would go on in a more brief manner then it does now to explain that the report is the official theory and in the popular lexicon “9/11 conspiracy theories means LIHOP, MIHOP etc. It is a must that somebody typing in “9/11 conspiracy theories” be directed to this article. 69.114.117.103 05:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Redefinition of article, cleanup suggestions, name change

message: Did these get somehow deleted? I know there's an abridged version on the page regarding Flight 93, but the link back here is invalid...plus they left out a good deal of stuff... 65.12.115.249 01:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Flight 93 theories

message: I've inserted a longer intro to this section based on the draft I posted to this talk page above. My hope is that we can move the references from the body of the section up into the summary and then delete the rest of this very, very long section. I'll be adding the references over this coming week (help is welcome) and then I'm going to boldly delete the remainder. I hope we can settle any issues before this happens to avoid a revert crisis. (I'll back down long before that happens anyway, of course.) My hope is to end up with a shorter section (about 1000 words) that efficiently links to the people who are making the detailed arguments, instead of representing those arguments in their entirety here. An encyclopedia article should make the ideas more surveyable, not less.--Thomas Basboll 20:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New WTC summary 

message: With 9/11 conspiracies on the cover of Time magazine , isn't time to make this article a nice tidy reference tool? Brief summaries of major points, links to online sources of more information/mythology, and a list of major books and videos on the subject. Let this be a place to begin understanding this "process by which Americans deal with traumatic public events", which is "not a fringe phenomenon" and (!) "part of mainstream political reality".--Thomas Basboll 18:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TIME to clean up? 

message: There seems to be some ambiguity around the timeline of the WTC 7 rescue opertation and collapse which, if sorted out, would poke a hole in some of the conspiracy theories. Could anyone confirm or refute any of the following?
*Does FEMA report statement that "manual firefighting activities [in WTC 7] were stopped fairly early in the day" contradict Silverstein's claim that he told the police chief to 'pull the firefighters' rather than the building? If firefighters were in the building for other reasons, such as rescue or crowd control, the two statements would not be a contradiction.
*Does the quote from Captain Ray Goldbach about "taking out all of their units out" of the WTC 7 building contradict the statement by Silverstein that he ordered the same action? If Silverstein spoke to the police chief before that order was given, the statements are not in conflict. Antonrojo 14:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WTC 7 Timeline

message: I have not seen any reference to this in the article but - In the popular Command and Conquer game Red Alert Two, which came out in October 2000, there is a mission on the Soviet side where the Soviets wanted to destroy and capture the capitalist World Trade Center, they also send migs to destroy the buildings too and in order to win the mission, you must bring down the "Twin Towers of the World Trade Centre" - don;t you find that strange?
Amlder20 11:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just see it as coincidence. ILovePlankton 11:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the Columbine killers wrote about crashing a plane into New York City  69.114.117.103 06:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

text: What? Now you're accusing video game developers of conspiring with international terrorists? A Rainbow Six game that came out shortly after was planned to have a plane level, but that was cancelled. Is Tom Clancy in on this too?--TelevisedRevolution 00:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To bring something to your attention

message: Something that isn't addressed here (not that I can see) is a rather major unanswered question. If the evidence (as some claim) indeed shows that a major airliner did not hit the Pentagon, then a mystery erupts: what happened to the plane and the people on board? A similar question can be asked regarding the theorists who suggest that the aircraft that hit the WTC weren't airliners (one of the theories says something about one of the planes carrying a bomb or a large oversized fuel tank. Certainly in the case of the Pentagon, if something else hit the building, certainly the destruction of an airliner elsewhere would have been noticed (vis a vis the one that crashed in Pennsylvania. I'm not advancing a POV here, simply pointing out one aspect of the conspiracy argument that I haven't personally seen addressed. It would be helpful if a source discussing this aspect of the event could be found. 23skidoo 22:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea comes from Operation Northwoods. That plan suggested destroying an unmanned drone masquerading as a commercial aircraft supposedly full of "college students off on a holiday". For more detail go to page 13 in the actual document . Other Conspiracy theorists point to early media reports of flight 93 landing in Cleveland 69.114.117.103 06:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

text: If the question hasn't been asked, it doesn't belong in wikipedia.  Find a reputable source that asks it.--Tbeatty 06:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  If no plane at the Pentagon, then ...

message: I just reverted a bunch of minor elaborations on the overview. They introduce information that belongs, if anywhere, in specific sections underneath (at least for now). In fact, I suspect that, if there something wrong with the overview as it stands, it is that it says too much, not too little. (Some of the edits also introduced grammatical errors. And one of the questioned the engineering consensus that makes controlled demolition an outsider position. That controlled demolition is beyond the pale of mainstream engineering is not controversial. CT'ers are very aware of this; it is that consensus that they are trying to affect.)--Thomas Basboll 06:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Overview" (keeping it that way) 

message: I think most of these are already linked in the 9/11 template, and in the body of the article. In general we prefer not to link in See also what is already linked on the page. Is there a reason to do otherwise in this case? Tom Harrison Talk 19:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also 

message: This article is way too long; we need to cut it down by splitting off daughter articles. I already split one off for the controlled-demolition theory; I'd appreciate it if people would help me format that article correctly and cut down the controlled-demolition theory on this page to be much shorter and more concise. Other long sections should also be split off into their own articles. Titanium Dragon 20:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *There is no reason not to split this up; there are huge numbers of people who believe in it, and a number of people have critiqued various sections. Claiming "it needs to be cut" is kind of silly; the 22kB is important and it is a belief held by many, particularly about WTC7. Wikipedia is virtual space, and there is no reason to not have this information there - its hard to find good sites regarding this sort of thing, it is notable enough for its own WP article, it is large enough for its own WP article, and it has enough sources given its classification as a conspiracy theory, and many of the sources are primary ones. This page is far too long, and there is no good reason to delete something that a huge number of people believe, even if they're wrong. It'd be equivalent to me saying there should only be one article on Creationism, and that Intelligent Design should not be split off onto its own page because they're the same people. Just because people are crackpots doesn't mean they only get one page, especially if their theories are believed by many. Titanium Dragon 20:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: *Worth noting: the section I split off is 22 kB in size, more than enough for its own article. Its 8 pages long in MS Word. Titanium Dragon 20:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I'd like to point out that the Kennedy conspiracies also consists of only one article. No reason to give a fringe phenomenon undue weight.--Sloane 20:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Creationism is a fringe phenomenon, but has a ton of pages related to it, ranging from Creationism to Intelligent Design to creationism in schools and about 50 other articles. More people doubt the official WTC story than doubt Evolution. Titanium Dragon 20:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've posted this analogy (perhaps incorrectly) to VfD page as well, but I just wanted to point out that the WTC issue is a bit like a single movie (e.g., Never Say Never Again) in a longer series (e.g., James Bond) and Wikipedia routinely establishes separate articles for individual films and or albums by the same artist. That's really all this is.--Thomas Basboll 11:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Splitting up this article