Talk:9/11: The Big Lie

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 9/11: The Big Lie article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

United States: September 11 Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject September 11, 2001 (assessed as Low-importance).

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook

France Mid‑importance

	France portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

FAA

This thesis would be complete with an explanation on the disappearance of the plane which, according to the official version, crashed against the Pentagon. Besides, the official version has been rejected by the FAA, for which the plane disappeared over a natural reserve 500 kilometers from Washington, without showing again on the radar screens.

Is Meyssan just claiming that the FAA rejected the official version of the events of 9/11, or did they really? It isn't clear. If they did, isn't a citation needed? Herorev 05:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have swaped a few words around here, I think it makes a bit more sense now. Hamish Cook 01:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing that the above italicized quote must be from some previous version of the article. But however the words get swapped around, it doesn't seem to make any sense. The suggestion that no plane hit the Pentagon is contradicted by numerous eyewitness accounts. NCdave 11:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criticsm vs. Praise?

Unbalanced. Totally. 203.218.112.238 13:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't understand how the criticism vs. praise section can be unbalanced? I find it hard to imagine a notable journal or other media outlet praising this book...CoolMike 22:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how criticism can be balanced. The people who originally added, and re-added, the unbalanced tag did not add them with their accounts nor left any information about what they believed was unbalanced. Retropunk (talk) 04:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With out getting into details, the Popular Mechanics 'article' has been most thoroughly debunked and as such should not really be cited as a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.70.28.30 (talk) 14:19, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish version much more complete

This is one of the rare entries where the spanish version is much more complete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.35.234.118 (talk) 20:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 9/11: The Big Lie. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130315195123/http://www.america.gov/st/webchat-english/2009/April/20050628163417atlahtnevel0.1261103.html to http://www.america.gov/st/webchat-english/2009/April/20050628163417atlahtnevel0.1261103.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:45, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 9/11: The Big Lie. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051222025237/http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Jun/28-581634.html to http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Jun/28-581634.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]