Jump to content

Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

The link in the line, "There is a wiki dedicated to disputing the official and/or unofficial story: The 911 Fact Repository" does not work. Does anyone know where it has moved? Amadeust 16:54, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Move material to new page?

The text here on possible prior warnings and some of the text from Misinformation and rumors about the September 11, 2001 attacks should probably be moved to a new page titled something like 9/11 unresolved claims and questions. There is a discussion about this currently at the Misinformation and rumors about the September 11, 2001 attacks page. --Cberlet 19:31, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Move

I disagree with the decision to move this article to the new name, 9/11 controversy. "Conspiracy theory" is a widely accepted term for what these "alternate explanations" are. I dont think "conspiracy theory" necessarily implies that it is wrong, just that it is highly questionable. The existence of these "alternate explanations" should be documented, but they shouldn't be given so much merit as to call it a "controversy". --Bonus Onus 18:11, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia's own definition of "conspiracy theory" defines it as connoting that the subject is unworthy of being taken seriously. Everything in an encyclopedia should be taken seriously (if only then to be able to "debunk" it factually, though that should be left as an excersize to the reader as well). Things that are "highly questionable" should be labeled with that instead of conspiracy theory. zen master T 19:38, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
This move is outrageous. We were in the middle of a discussion on another related page that zen-master refused to participate in constructively. See [1] When people announce they have a conspiracy theory about an event, and use the term conspiracy themselves, it is not POV to use the term in the title. This is an attempt to sanitize reality. --Cberlet 03:39, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
"Conspiracy theory" is unacceptable POV for an encyclopedia. On what basis are you logically claiming "conspiracy theory" is better than "controversy"? zen master T 03:46, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
"Conspiracy theory" is a well-accepted term for an observable phenomenon. You keep insisting that it is simply POV, and that it is unacceptable for an encyclopedia, but it appears that that is your POV alone, as I have pointed out on your Talk: page. Jayjg (talk) 06:52, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
As this article does not describe a theory of a conspiracy, "conspiracy theory" is an inaccurate and misleading title. "complicity theory" or "controversy" would be more appropriate. The theory is not that the U.S. took part in 9/11 (which would be a conspiracy), but that they knew about it and did not try to prevent it (this is called complicity). This theory actually has some decent substantiation, such as intelligence reports and the stated goals of members in the adminstration. I can also add that I talked to a person who was on a base in new york, around the time of 9/11 (either late 9/10 or early 9/11, i forget), and they knew something was up before the planes were hijacked. But I digress, the point is, the theory is a theory of complicity, not conspiracy, and that's a very important distinction. Kevin Baastalk: new 07:31, 2005 May 2 (UTC) My bad - that comment was meant for the 9/11 domestic conspiracy theory talk page. Kevin Baastalk: new 08:37, 2005 May 2 (UTC)

Title vote (conspiracy theories vs controversy)

9/11 conspiracy theories

  1. For a discussion of claims of conspiracies, I think controversy is not adequate, but would prefer a title of 9/11 conspiracy claims, and other titles that I have posted below in the comments section.--Cberlet 11:26, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  2. I prefer conspiracy theories as it's the standard term, and WP is supposed to use standard terms and not invent new ones, but I'd be fine with conspiracy claims as a second choice. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:11, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Controversy is too general. I prefer "theory", but "claims" would be OK.Carbonite | Talk 16:14, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  4. Wikipedia should call a spade a spade. Jayjg (talk) 16:23, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  5. Calling a spade a spade is good, but we must be careful about using loaded terms. The term "conspiracy theory" is used to dismiss people's explanations for events, and we shouldn't pretend that this is not the case. I think that a good way to make sure that we are not using "conspiracy theory" as code for "wacky theories that we don't agree with" is to add the official version of events (that Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden did it) to the list of theories. It was, after all, a conspiracy (the terrorists clearly conspired to direct the aircraft into the towers). If we can't summon up the honesty to do that, we might as well call the article Wacky theories about 9/11. Chameleon 17:28, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  6. "conspiracy theories" are what this phenomenon is. there is no use calling them something that they're not. The vast majority of the general public would identify them this way and that is how we should title the article. --Bonus Onus 19:13, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
  7. "Conspiracy theory" is the most used term for the phenomenon. An encyclopedia is supposed to reflect, not redefine/reinvent terminology just because they clash with someone's agenda. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 08:54, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
  8. These are not CONSPIRACY THEORIES. Once there is evidence they are no longer CONSPIRACY THEORIES. There is bundles and bundles of evidence to show that the militaryindustrial complex had intimate involvement with 9/11. There is more evidence to show this than not.

9/11 controversy

  1. "conspiracy theory" is a POV loaded term and its use should be deprecated on an encyclopedia. "controversy" is a good general title signifying the alternative view. "alternative theories" are not all, by default, "conspiracy theories". zen master T 08:24, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  2. Kevin Baastalk: new 08:34, 2005 May 2 (UTC) should be plural, thou.

Comments

Is everything relating to 9/11 that isn't the "mainstream view" really a "conspiracy theory"? zen master T 08:24, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Reply: no, as we have discussed endlessly. There needs to be pages on conspiracy theories that cover claims of conspiracies; and there needs to be pages on continuing controversies and unresolved questions; and there needs to be a page on early misinformation and rumors. That's what the discussion on this page was trying to figure out how to do.
Here is my suggestion. The first two pages would be linked to the main 9/11 table of contents:
This is a workable compromise plan.--Cberlet 11:26, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

I know this is a sticky subject. Certainly, there are people out there who present theories for what happened, and in their own discourse they use the word "conspiracy." There can be nothing controversial about calling such theories "conspiracy theories." There may also be theories out there that do not claim a "conspiracy" but that some people nevertheless consider a "conspiracy theory." I am honestly not sure whether such a theory should be labeled a conspiracy theory, but any discussion of such a theory should include the views that consider it a conspiracy theory. There is of course another way to distinguish different kinds of theories. The most obvious is "official" versus "unofficial." But even unofficial theories should be further categorized. Some are proposed by academics or journalists who seek out and have a wide range of verifiable facts. Others are ones that circulate popularly and are in fact rumors or perhaps even urban myths. However we label articles on different theories, I think we need to be clear about these distinctions. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:39, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

(Copied from Talk:AIDS conspiracy theories) The term "conspiracy theory" is used as a description and isn't only a perjorative term, though it is also that. A conspiracy theory explains a set of circumstances with reference to a secret plot by powerful conspirators. One of the distinguishing features of a conspiracy theory is that it tends not to be falsifiable in the minds of believers. In other words, if the claim is made that 4,000 Israelis were warned not to go to work in the WTC on 9/11, and it's later established that only 10 Israelis were, in fact, ever employed there, the conspiracy theory evolves to include the claim that the Mossad and USG conspired to alter the records, and that the names of 3,990 Israeli employees have now disappeared. That is, the conspiracy theory represents a closed system, not amenable to the standard rules of evidence (similar to psychoanalysis, for example). This evolutionary growth in the face of evidence disproving the theory is one of the things that distinguishes a conspiracy theory from a matter of simple controversy that surrounds the subject. A controversy or unresolved issue is simply a matter of a debate about the facts, but a conspiracy theory is ideology. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:55, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
I don't think that is a defining, necessary or exclusive characteristic of conspriacy theories. It is more of an expression of the phenomenon of cognitive dissonance in general. The ultimate example of people irrationally believing in something unfalsifiable, and moving the goalposts in order to be able to continue believing in it, is not conspiracy theories but religion. On the other hand, many people believed the official conspiracy theory about Saddam Hussein being an imminent threat with stockpiles of WMDs, and rationally stopped believing it when it was revealed to be based on fabrications and exaggerations. Your description of conspiracy theory as ideology is your POV, a point of view which is in line with the way that "conspiracy theory" is used to delegitimise and dismiss other people's explanations for events (as being nutty, ideological explanations instead of the truth). It is not a necessary objective characteristic of theories that involve plots. Chameleon 18:08, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

(Copied from Talk:AIDS conspiracy theories) I think that when you describe the "conspiracy theory" about Saddam and WMDs, you are not using it the same way Jayjg, SlimVirgin, and I have been using the term; I do not think you are using it the way most people use the term. Bush's arguments for an invasion were wrong, but they weren't conspiracy theories precisely because Bush believed that a thorough ivestigation would reveal WMDs. Nor do I think we need to bring religion into the discussion, it only muddies the waters. See my comment above (in the previous section); I think SlimVirgin is exactly right.People may indeed use "conspiracy theory" to mean "wacky theory." From what I have seen here at Wikipedia, many people use the word "religion" to mean "something irrational" or "something superstitious." Nevertheless, I do not think we should change the name of the article on "religion," or de-categorize such religions as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. That is because "religion" means something else, and it is a useful word to use to refer to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Similarly, "Conspiracy theory" means something other than "wacky" and I think SlimVirgin did an excellent job of explaining it. If you read what I wrote in the section above (on the AIDS page), you would know that I too do not define "conspiracy theory" as "wacky theory." The difference between a conspiracy theory and other theories is not political, it is epistemological. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:53, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Debate on "Conspiracy Theory" in Wiki page titles

There is a new page, Wikipedia:Conspiracy_theory where there is going to be a larger discussion of the use of the term "Conspiracy Theory" in Wiki titles. It would be ideal if people with a variety of viewpoints joined the discussion on that page, since a number of page titles are likely to be discussed, and name changes debated.--Cberlet 19:50, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

For disputed information showing US complicity in 9/11

We have a growing 9/11 section in a conspiracy wiki for this where your information will be less likely to be edited out. We would be glad to have you come by and add it in. Conwiki 05:00, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Disputed title

An editor created a new temple Template:TitleDisputed and added it to this article without comment on May 19. Since there has been no discussion on the title matter on this page in weeks, the dispute seems to have settled down. There does not seem to be a consensus on this page for a title change. -Willmcw 21:23, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

The title of this article is still 100% disputed. There was no consensus for YOUR edit! zen master T 21:29, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
On the contrary, it's only 63% disputed. ;) Maybe no one commented because no one posted a remark here when the tag was added, as is traditional when adding a dispute tag. In any case, there does not appear to be a consensus for a move. Since there has been no discussion then, like other dispute tags, it shouldn't be left to linger. If you have any other case to make for the move, go for it. -Willmcw 21:43, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Individual editors cannot hold Wikipedia articles hostage with unsightly "warning" labels on them forever. There is no consensus for a title change, please recognize this and move on. Jayjg (talk) 21:45, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
I created the TitleDisputed header precisely because people were arguing on Wikipedia talk:Conspiracy theory that titles should be decided on a case by case basis. I acquiesce that "conspiracy theory" is not going to be renamed globally, but I am still working to find better titles on an individual case by case basis. It should also be noted that 10 people voted rename which is more than enough to constitute a dispute. Given that fact, how can you claim there is no dispute? Voting can't decide to sweep controversy under the rug. zen master T 22:03, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
Well, there's no agreement for a change here, and you can't hold articles hostage forever. As for the 10 who voted rename, 3 times as many voted not to rename. That's the way consensus works in Wikipedialand; please accept it and move on. Jayjg (talk) 22:09, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
Let's please move on. This is a waste of time. The vote has been taken. Let go. Think Zen...

--Cberlet 22:11, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Cberlet. Let's move on, this has already been decided. Bonus Onus 01:59, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

If there is a legitimate neutrality dispute it's not unreasonable to note that with a simple header. I am thinking zen; as much as Cberlet would like to portray this neutrality dispute as a waste of time it most certainly is not. There exists a better, more neutral title for this article, we just have to work towards finding it. zen master T 07:31, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

you claimed in the edit summary my arguments have been "refuted" can you please point, with a citation, to where they've been refuted at? A popularity contest does not count as a refutation. zen master T 21:36, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You folks lost a vote, and now want to start the debate over again. Play fair. Stop pretending there was not already a lengthy debate and vote--WHICH YOU FOLKS LOST! You seek to wear editors down with this anti-democratic farce.--Cberlet 12:10, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
A vote should not result in sweeping legitimate neutrality complaints under the rug, that would encourage sock puppetry rather than encouraging people to logically and respectfully debate the issue on talk pages. zen master T 17:17, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You insist you have a legitimate neutrality complaint, but the majority disagrees. Please accept consensus. Jayjg (talk) 21:12, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
A vote can not sweep legitimate neutrality disputes under the rug. A majority is by no means consensus. zen master T 21:26, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
We've been through this already. How many times are you going to repeat the same claims and arguments? And when people start ignoring them because you have nothing new to say, are you going to again claim that you defeated them in debate, or that they stopped talking in good faith? Jayjg (talk) 21:34, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
With regard to the 'foregone' merger of the researchers article into this conspiracy article, the proposition is patently absurd. It will be an unfortunate precedent, if this fait accompli takes place. The essential mission of the Wikipedia would seem to be a collective drive to enhance institutional memory, not to marginalize vital realms of knowledge as the merger would accomplish. The fact is, the US perpetrated a preemptive military attack upon Iraq based upon the weak foundation of a flimsy conspiracy theory. But that isn't often how the war is portrayed. The evidence turned up by 9/11 researchers should not be relegated to an article whose title, disengenuously, has the effect of discouraging readers from taking it seriously. Ombudsman 29 June 2005 00:55 (UTC)

Big Rewrite

Well, actually, thanks for the big rewrite. The page reads better, and the claims are clearly enunciated. Of course, I now will run around and look for the refutation pages and pop them in as clickable links. :-) --Cberlet 12:58, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

source this material, damn it!

I am seriously tempted to put in an NPOV warning into this page. before reporting any such crap as is on this page, it *must* be sourced! many of the investigations refuting the conspiracy theories have shown that quotes and other information is often made up out of nowhere or highly distorted. given this fact, statements from conspiracy theorist should never be published unless they are clearly sourced either to the actual place they came from [if they are legit at all and this can be located] or to the conspiracy-theorist who made the claim.

Benwing 9 July 2005 02:38 (UTC)

Block Revert

Anon user 65.69.86.156 made a long series of edits over the course of the past few hours. These edits removed quantities or reasoned discussion, replacing them with unverified claims. I have reverted them all. (Note that user Initium79's edit was accidentally included. This was due to an edit made while I was reading the changes made, and is not a disaproval of that users edits.) --Icelight 23:17, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

707

The article says:

Minoru Yamasaki the Architect of the World Trade Center Towers has stated "We designed the towers to take multiple jumbo jet strikes, this is not architecturally feasible."

Actually, the Towers were designed to take a strike from the largest jet at the time -- the Boeing 707. The 707 is not considered a jumbo jet. -- Geo Swan 00:42, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

The 707 is not that different from the planes that did hit. The towers were indeed designed to withstand the *impact* of jet strikes, which they (obviously) did; but fire was not taken into account. Benwing 04:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Are you sure fire wasn't taken into account? I think I've heard allegations that the fire resistance of the building materials and/or the adequacy of sprinklers and other firefighting systems failed to meet NYC Building Code standards, and that, if they had met those standards, the fire could have been contained and the towers would have stood. JamesMLane 19:40, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Source this material...

Since this is merely a collection of claims, a source wouldn't need to consist of more than one persons opinion or belief anyway. A claim, however riduculous, is still a claim and should be recorded. I have written that not all claims can be proven in the introduction and I added a section where debunkers can put in false claims.

I've learned that Yamasaki has been dead since 1986 and moved that claim to the false claims section. Initium79 01:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

OK; but there is also the criterion of relevance that applies everywhere in Wikipedia. We should not include claims unless they are fairly widely distributed. Benwing 04:04, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, the rules regarding sourcing should not be suspended just because of the nature of this page. Every claim made here must be sourced as to who is making them; otherwise, the page borders on "original research", which is explicitly prohibited. Benwing 04:08, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

The Twin Towers collapsed straight upwards, at a snail's pace, as is typical in terrorist attacks

I'm not sure I really get this sentence:

The Twin Towers collapsed straight down, at close to free-fall speed, as is typical in a controlled demolition. Free-fall speed is highly dependent upon the shape of the falling object.

My thoughts:

  1. Of course they fell straight down. All buildings do. Only very old buildings made of rock would tip over. Why is this on a page about consipracy theories?
  2. Close to free-fall speed? Um, duh. From wikipedia: "freefall is the condition of acceleration which is due only to gravity and air friction." Does the author mean "terminal velocity?"
  3. As is typical in a controlled demolition? Correct me if I'm wrong, but controlled demolitions of skyscrapers tend to be the *only* demoltions of skyscrapers. This addition is POV and should be removed unless someone can point out why a correlation should be explicitly drawn.

--Quasipalm 20:50, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Reply: The statement means that the towers fell at close to the speed and acceleration that for example, a ball would, if you were to just drop it from your hand. The significance is that there was no impediment to the towers' collapse, i.e. the buckling of steel beams, or one floor falling on the next floor and pausing momentarily before the next floor collapsed. In both cases, the entire tower collapsed just as if the individual pieces fell straight down, at close to the normal acceleration due to gravity. The logical inference made from this observation is that the internal structure of the towers had already been destroyed, leaving no impediments to its fall (e.g. demolitions had destroyed the pressure points within the building, thereby removing obstacles that might have otherwise slowed its collapse). Also, the fact that the towers did not tip over is important. Since the planes hit in what is roughly the upper-middle portions of the buildings, many people believe that the top portions of the towers above the crash level should have broken off, or shown some other sort of evidence of being separated from the rest of the building, by no less structurally traumatic of an event than a plane crash. Instead, the towers collapsed almost as a unit, straight down, with no impediments to their fall. These combined observations point more to a controlled demolition than any other reason for collapse.

--Anonymous 23:23, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

It's clear you're not an architect.
Don't get me wrong; neither am I. That's why I defer to other architects. Virtually all of which say the evidence is clear that these were not controlled demolitions.
And don't ya think that of all these hundreds of people in the US government (or all those jews, or aliens, or whoever you think was behind this) required to pull this off -- don't you think that just one, ONE of them would be a whistle blower? Or have their memories been erased with lasers?
I don't know why I bother responding to people in tin foil hats... I'm sure nothing will convince you.
umm... yeah no talking out your a$$ allowed. cite some sources if you're going to make assertions like that, unsigned. And no personal attack like "tin foil hats" allowed. That is strictly prohibited. ABSOLUTELY NO PERSONAL ATTACKS. Kevin Baastalk: new 04:00, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
There are plenty of sources in the article. [2] [3] Saying people are wearing tin foil hats is hardly an insult compared to your "no talking out your a$$ allowed" comment. And it was I who wrote that comment; I simply forgot to sign my name. You conspiracy theorists sure are easily rallied up, maybe that's why watching this page is so exciting.  :) --Quasipalm 16:43, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Quasipalm, FYI. I will write up an RFC on you if I see such behavior again from you on Wikipedia. Kevin Baastalk: new 18:07, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
Oh please, Kevin, please calm down. This is a talk page, if you don't like hearing people talk, then don't visit talk pages. Personally, I have nothing against people who wear tin foil hats. If you're going to be a conspiracy theorist, you're going to need thicker skin my friend.  :) --Quasipalm 14:09, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

rethinking the purpose of this page

To me the title of this page implies the purpose is to document 911 conspiracy theories, certainly not to prove them, that would be impossible. This says nothing about the feasability of any particular theory or point. As stated in the introduction, this is a summary of beliefs.

That being said, our own POV can only remain neutral if these beliefs are accurately reflected. An article on christianity would not be neutral if the author felt it necessary to follup up every mention of Jesus with: "but it has never been proven that Jesus was the son of God."

I took your above quote from David Ray Griffin, a prominant figure in the 9/11 truth movement. Should we distort his words? I want to work with you on this but we have to have some general agreement on the purpose of the page first. Initium79 22:39, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

New dedicated conspiracy WIKI just started

I've just added it to the links at the bottom of the page, if thats okay with everyone. I'm one of the two moderators behind the project. There is now an overflow for anyone who wants to write about 9/11 in a collaborative project, and try to get at the truth of the attacks. So far 85% of the 9/11 content is my work, but its always interesting to get good quality feedback. Hopefully over time we can establish a core of logic and framework of analysis, that becomes so widely accepted, eventually it will migrate into the main WIKI project.

"However"

This word seems to be used regularly and almost exclusively to discount a previous point. This just further proves that people keeping track of this page (on both sides of the issue) need to reach a concensus on its purpose.

If it is decided that extensive counterpoints belong on this page, dedicated to documenting the alternative view, a less confused format will be needed! As is, practically every statement in the WTC section is "neutral" to the point of incoherence.

One possibility is to divide the page into two secions; the first documenting the alternative POV and the second, the official POV. This format would have its own annoyances so I am open to suggestions, so lets hear them because I'm sick of having my NPOV replaced by others' NPOV.

I believe the burdon of finding a solution is with those holding the official POV as the title of the page clearly states "9/11 conspiracy theories" and not "unwarrented and ridiculous 9/11 conspiracy theories"

Initium79 00:35, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree 100%. It has been obvious for some time that WIKI articles seek an unattainable and unrealistic point of impartiality, that just leads to nonsensical broken prose. This realisation, and the inherent silliness of it, was what spawned the WIKINFO project, where all articles are expected to be written from a point of view. If you disagree with the main article, you simply write another based upon a different viewpoint. If a subject is controversial, the main page might end up as a navigation point for several points of view on the topic. Although obviously, green aliens abducted Nixon and replaced him with a clone, would probably get deleted, etc.

Actually, I got expelled from WIKINFO, for editing the 9/11 page, to suggest the Twin Towers had a strong central service core, and that the collapse was anomalous in this context. That was it. I was kicked out. I said, look at the photos of WTC being built. You can see it with your eyes. Its a fact devoid of personal opinion.

There is clearly something not quite right about 9/11, and I think more and more people are catching onto it. How can 19 Arabs have carried out he attack, if at least 7 of them are alive and well in Saudi? I’ve written a lot of original content for conwiki.com, there is plenty of stuff that can be ported into the main WIKI, anytime a consensus on how to do it can be derived.

The point of view that 9/11 was a black opp carried out by Dick Cheney et al, should be represented in WIKI, because there is a vast amount of clear evidence that supports it. The facts behind the black opp thesis, actually stack up much better than the official 19 hijackers fairy tale.

“When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains – however improbable – must be the truth.” Sherlock Holmes

Timharwoodx 09:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I disagree 100%. NPOV doesn't mean that the article can't make sense, at points yes, it'll be a little messy, but in the long run things settle down and wikipedia ends up with the best work anywhere.
NPOV is the rule at Wikipedia, and this page isn't above that rule. You seem to be arguing that this page should simply be a place to recite conspiracy theories already better documented elsewhere. This isn't the place for that. This page should be about 9/11 conspiracy theories, not a recital of them.
--Quasipalm 15:53, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I fail to see the difference in this case. Theories are a POV, the POV must be recited if the page is to be about the theory. Perhaps in situations where an idea is highly contested, it should be reiterated that it is only one POV.

Now Quasipalm, I have a problem with the following bit from the WTC section: "The Twin Towers collapsed straight down, at close to free-fall speed, as is typical in a controlled demolition. Free-fall speed is highly dependent upon the shape of the falling object."

The second sentence is true, and I personally understand its meaning in context, but it may not be clear to some. I think freefall here is meant to indicate that the buildings were met with little resistance in collapsing. I would like to communicate the POV that this is charateristic of demolition. I think Quasi would like to say that it does not necessarily imply demoltion.

Can we rephrase this to read: "The Twin Towers collapsed straight down, at close to free-fall speed. This is characteristic of, but not necessarily indicative of, a controlled demolition."

Let me know. I would like to hear any specific gripes you have as well. Initium79 05:31, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I like that rewording. Yes, I see your point, we don't want this to sound like some legal contract where ever single exception and caveat is spelled out to a point where nothing makes sense. Perhaps instead of trying to balance every contention, we could break them out into sections. This reminds me of another page I've kept an eye on: Intact dilation and extraction and Partial birth abortion. The two groups editing these pages could not even agree on the most basic facts, so in places they provided two opposing views and left it at that. (Of course edit wars seem to break out all the time anyway. :P ) --Quasipalm 14:11, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Nice, I think that sounds much more fluid. I'll probably be adding some more stuff after I read this book I've been meaning to get to. When I do, I'll add only a bit at a time to make things more managable. If it gets too messy or just isn't working out, I'll take care of the reformatting unless someone else beats me to it.

Initium79 04:05, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Guild

Feel free to join, together we are not ridiculed and dismissed as easy.

--Striver 21:03, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Being ridiculed is one step closer to acceptance than being ignored; it wasn't too long ago that I found this stuff humorous ;) I'll make sure to check out those projects. Initium79

New Stuff

I added a couple things about Ashcroft not flying commercially before 911 and some of the hijackers turning up alive. I was careful to phrase them neutrally but since there are invariably disagreements over new content, I want them to be discussed and resolved here. So if you have a problem with either of these new things, don't freak out, we'll figure out a way to make them mutually acceptable, just state your problem. Initium79

I think it sounds fine and is NPOV. However, I wonder about the source on the Ashcroft line -- if you added that, it'd probably be more solid. --Quasipalm 03:25, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Conspiracy

I have been reading about September 11th attacks and conspiracies for a while now. For the past three years I noticed one thing in all of the videos on September 11th, the towers seem to have fallen very quickly. Most cases it takes time for the metal to get soft, normally around 2,000 to 3,500 degrees depending on the kind of metal being used. The twin towers had a steel frame and structure, as to which the steel heats or gets soften up at around 2,200 degrees. When the plane hits the building it explodes, mainly burning off the gasoline. The reports I've seen stated that the tempature never reached beyond 1,800 degrees, yet both towers somehow collasped in a matter of minutes. To prove that the towers should have never fallen so quickly, there are towers and buildings taller than the trade centers in other countries, mainly in Japan. A few of which caught fire, and burned for over 24 hours.. yet it didn't fall. Another issue is that watching the towers fall in slow motion clearly shows that there is some kind of outward explosion as the tower is falling. It's been dully noted that it could be the fact that the floors are falling down at increasing speed and with tons of pressure, therefore creating an outward explosion, it's a good answer but there's no proof that was the case. Watching it over and over again in slow motion, I began to notice and wonder why there was an explosion.. then it came to me.. bomb. The same kind of bombs that are used in construction to demolish buildings, they too also have an outward explosion. Even though they do have a delay on the fuse it can still be triggered within a matter of seconds. All in all, I think it's a cover up for the fact that our government wanted more natural resources from other forgein countries, even though they wouldn't surrender. The only possible way to gain or to take their resources is to start a war with them.. remember what happened when we nuked Japan?... we eneded up repairing everything, and giving up our electronics rights to them.

Drbovice (talk) 23:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)DrboviceDrbovice (talk) 23:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:9/11_conspiracy_theories/Archive_1&oldid=1039402619"