Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories/Archive 9

message: I'm going to start an FAQ so we do not have to continuously answer questions like:
*Is the title biased?
*Can we prove "pull" really is an industry term?
*What counts as Original Research?
If it comes out decent we can link to it at the top of the page.
Feel free to contribute.--DCAnderson 21:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems good.--Pokipsy76 15:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't see any particular problem if the FAQ has some features in common with a vote page. I don't want the FAQ to be used just to shut up people that come here and say they want to change the title (or other related things), I think that the FAQ page can be useful to show the consensus around the different positions.--Pokipsy76 19:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAQ 

message: These two statements are Original Research:
*Another reference to a similar statement made by Zbigniew Brzezinski in his 1997 book The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives: As America becomes an increasingly multicultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat.
A third case of promoting an agenda appears on page 51 of a document titled 'Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century' published by 'Project for the New American Century (PNAC)': Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor.[138]
The first one is from a book written before 9/11 that has nothing to do with 9/11, and the second statement is an unatributed conclusion from a primary source document.
We need a secondary source saying that either of these two statements have anything to do with a 9/11 conspiracy.--DCAnderson 22:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Research in "Motives" section 

message: I'm assuming at some point, this will come up, so I'm adressing it now.
After looking for info on the recently added part about Willie Brown I came across this article which has been copied and pasted across the internet and claims that it was Condoleeza Rice who informed Willie Brown.
The article's source on this is a sidebar commentary on the original news story, where the commentator says he heard about this on Pacifica Radio. I checked Pacifica's web page and can not find any info there to corroborate this, and the only other info I can find with a Google search is multiple copies of the aforementioned copied and pasted article.--DCAnderson 00:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Next Inevitable Step of Willie Brown claim 

message: PureLogic here again.  Reading through this page, I see that sosij, Peter Grey, Ed Kollin, and myself, are generally agreed that the 9/11 Commission Report is only one point of view, and not a very complete or reliable one at that.  
DCAnderson, you prefer to look at the prevailing view and to accord it extra weight.  This prevailing view has been shaped by a relatively small number of people if you think of society as a whole.  Presumably you know that GE, a huge weapons manufacturer, owns NBC.  The Bush family has a longtime involvement with another huge weapons investor, Carlyle Group.  This power complex is all intertwined and its tendency is to shape public opinion to suit its reason for being, which is profits.  As profits grow, it becomes more powerful and controlling.  Eisenhower referred to it as the military-industrial complex and strongly warned that in a democracy it must be carefully watched by the citizenry so that it not take over and lead to fascism, as it did in Germany.  Military-Industrial Complex Speech, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961
I would like to take a vote here.  I propose that equal weight be given to the 3 approaches to interpreting 9/11, and that the 3 sections be renamed as I outlined above:
The most commonly accepted story, which has been advanced by the White House and the media (but not the firemen and police at the scene) belong under "9/11 Attacks:  Official Theory".  LIHOP's and MIHOP's belong under "9/11 attacks: Alterntive and Conspiracy Theories", because they are theories.  Other verified information that does not advance theories but simply asks question that were omitted from the official report belongs under the "9/11 Attacks: Truth Movement and Independent Investigations".
Please enter your vote here:
If we get consensus, we can approach an administrator to make the changes.--PureLogic 16:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to point out that there is no "equal weight" policy. There is however a policy against giving a minority view undue weight--DCAnderson 18:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  We are close to Consensus: Let's take a Vote 

message: FYI the news is that the video behind the 5 frames will be released today, as well as another video.  If it's only the 5 frames video then likely nothing will be solved.  If it is more than that, than hopefully the debacle of smearing all people who question the official story of 9/11 with "they think a missile hit the Pentagon!" because of In Plane Site, Loose Change and Thierry Meyssan, will finally be put to rest.  Stay tuned. 198.207.168.65 18:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Flight77 video to be released today

message: :http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4987716.stm --JOK3R 19:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Here it is

message: I was looking for a citation for how conspiracy theorists incorporate this quote, but then I found this page saying that the quote is falsely attributed to the Yamasaki.  Does anyone know who is correct here?--Bill 16:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those would be good to use to replace what's there if it turns out to be false.  I hope the quote isn't made up and/or misattributed.  Its been on this page for over a year.--Bill 21:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said, I couldn't find any reliable sources for earlier quotes, but it stands to reason that they should exist.  The ability to survive an impact from what was then the world's largest passenger plane should have been solid gold as marketing material even before construction started.  Especially if nobody else could make similar claims.
Remember that designing for an aircraft impact simply means that after the impact the building could remain standing long enough to be evacuated, which was the case with the World Trade Center towers. Peter Grey 21:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, the WTC towers survived the initial impacts.  The impacts didn't even do all that much damage, when you consider that they were caused by ~150 ton aircraft travelling at 490mph and almost 600mph respectively.  The buildings swayed violently when they were hit, but they more or less returned to their correct positions.  There's no way we can ever really know, but I suspect that without the fires the towers would have stood indefinitely.  Joel Blanchette 20:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "We designed the towers to take multiple 707 jet strikes"

message: I have added a tag for a split of the controlled demolitions theory. That section is long enouth to be its own article. When I previewed it with all that section cut but a summary, the page was 66KBs long.
I think a split like that should not constitute too much of a POV fork.--DCAnderson 17:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My concern would be the lack of reliable secondary sources. Tom Harrison Talk 18:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text: What would the new page be, beyond a summary of Jones' and Hoffman's websites? Tom Harrison Talk 01:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides a summary of Jones' and Hoffman's websites, (and books) there would also be relevant parts of Griffin's book, and summaries of the various videos advancing the theory, and of course there would be several excellent pictures, and there would also be an assortment of quotations from firefighters and others who witnessed explosions and published their comments in the New York Times. We could quote the Fema report that mentions the sulfer, the eutectic reactions, then top it off with the New York Times bit about "partly evaporated" steel members. Let't not forget the Van Romero quote. TruthSeeker1234 03:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: True. I'm gonna drop the tag.--DCAnderson 01:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controlled demolitions split 

message: Is there any particular reason this subject can only list 3 videos or documentaries? There are loads and loads of good documentary films out there, and Rick Siegel's 9/11 Eyewitness is definitely in the top division.
Who keeps deleting all mention of Siegel and 9/11 Eyewitness? And is this done in the interest of public enlightenment? What happened to «Freedom & Democracy»? 81.191.125.13
We are only listing the most notable videos. If a video could not justify a page of its own, then we are not going to link to it. (i.e. no redlinks)
Also, Wikipedia is not a democracy.--DCAnderson 22:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why just 3 videos? 

message: www.infowarscom/articles/ww3/iran_mcgovern_war_set_june_july.htm  Former CIA analyst and Presidential advisor Ray McGovern, fresh from his heated public confrontation with Donald Rumsfeld, fears that staged terror attacks across Europe and the US are probable in order to justify the Bush administration's plan to launch a military strike against Iran, which he thinks will take place in June or July.]
Thought I'd mention this important information.  CB Brooklyn 14:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ray McGovern says Staged Terror Attacks Coming to US and Europe 

message: ???     CB Brooklyn 21:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The real problem is when "wikispeak" starts to bleed over into real life. I'll leave the anectdote to your imagination. Tom Harrison Talk 22:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  what the heck is OR