Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories/Archive 28

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

→

Archive 35

Accepted account vs. 9/11 Commission account subheading

I think "9/11 Commission account" is much more neutral and precise than "Accepted account". Accepted by who? By everyone? Ghostofnemo (talk) 18:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Accepted by the vast majority of reliable sources. The 9/11 Commission Report is just one of thousands all saying the same thing: 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists in Al Qaeda. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The account given goes into much more detail than that, however. Ghostofnemo (talk) 18:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what that means, but Quest is right, the accepted account is accepted by many more than just the commission. To use the word official is to ignore that fact. RxS (talk) 18:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

{EC}Of course. The report is 600 pages and this is a summary. In any case, I don't think that "Accepted account" is neutral as it implies that it might not be accurate. We don't have an "accepted account" of the electron, do we? There is no serious dispute regarding 9/11. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Pleas see this discussion. Accepted is more neutral than, for instance, official and mainstream. While I would agree that dropping the adjective altogether would be nice, we have to acknowledge that Truthers exist. Soxwon (talk) 18:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, the account given in this article talks about al Queda and the hijackers, but then later in that section we have stuff about Popular Mechanics and the NIST. I think the 9/11 Commission is the only body that pulled all this information together. I don't think Popular Mechanics, for example, researched how the hijackers got into the U.S., how many were involved, and who coordinated the attacks. But you're presenting all these various sources as one, unified "accepted account", and also implying that everyone accepts it and that everyone agrees completely on every point. So, one, you are merging various types of accounts (some about the hijackers, some about the building collapse, some about prior knowledge), and two, not everyone accepts this account. Both Rice and Bush said no one could have possibly foreseen terrorists flying jets into buildings, but we know now that this scenario was indeed foreseen by both NORAD and the FBI. Where does this fall in your "accepted account"? Which version do we accept, the Bush administrations or what the journalists have reported? Ghostofnemo (talk) 18:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

No, what we're saying is that, despite what Truthers think, the majority of the world agrees on almost every major point and that most of what you pick at are minor details. Soxwon (talk) 18:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Dude, it's a summary. We don't and can't go into every little detail in this article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying you have to go into every detail, I'm saying "Accepted account" is not a good subheading because it is neither accurate nor neutral. The poll numbers don't indicate that the overwhelming majority of the public accepts it. If you don't like "9/11 Commission account", how about "mainstream account"? Ghostofnemo (talk) 18:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

From the article: "More than a third of the American public suspects that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East." Ghostofnemo (talk) 18:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The accepted account section is a summary which doesn't include most of what you are talking about. It's very short and mentions nothing about any foreknowledge, Rice or Bush, etc. It simply says the terrorists flew the planes into the buildings and the buildings fell down a couple hours later, which is well accepted by almost everyone. People may disagree on other details, but that's for another section. Mystylplx (talk) 19:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that you're cutting the story back to the lowest common denominator, hoping that at some point almost everyone agrees on the most basic elements, and then implying that that consensus extends to very detailed "official" account laid out by the 9/11 Commission which lays the whole event out from start to finish. And further implying that anyone who disagrees is wacky. This could be viewed as intellectually dishonest and it's not neutral point of view. Ghostofnemo (talk) 19:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Not sure where you're coming up with some of that, but perhaps the 911 commission part could be in it's own section. Mystylplx (talk) 19:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

While there will no perfect or maybe even good word, accepted is about as bad as you can get. It manages to be both vague and misleading. Even if one person disagrees the claim is inaccurate. I hope the article could either goes back to mainstream or we can come up with a better word. "Consensus" view or explanation would be my "alternate" to "mainstream". Edkollin (talk) 23:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

We could move the text to the start of the History section, and delete the subheading. It is out of chronological order presented after the history of the conspiracy theories, and it would help provide context for that discussion if moved. Nothing in that section looks like it would really be out of place if moved, and we would of course retain the {{see}} link to the main article on the account. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

You are correct about Chronological Order but I would switch things even more.

Lead

Overview

Overview

Within the context of 9/11 conspiracy theories, the terms 'mainstream account,' 'official account' and 'official conspiracy theory' all refer conclusions reached by:

• Reliable Source

• Reliable Source

They have concluded that

9/11 was a result of Al Queda

US had no warning

Criticism of the above conclusions have fallen into three main areas

MIHOP (This should be first as most of the article and the real world 9/11 CT deals with these)

LIHOP

Incompetence/Non-Conspiratorial

History

Edkollin (talk) 22:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I did the main merge and a little cleanup (combined diff). Go ahead and fix it further and try your change in presentation. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I would like a bit more of a consensus before doing that type of overhaul Edkollin (talk) 20:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Confusing Sentence

One sentence in the World Trade Center collapse section reads "The collapse of Tower 7 home at the time to branch offices of the Central Intelligence Agency, the Secret Service and the Mayor Giuliani administration’s emergency operations center…" I have no idea what this means. Was the sentence written incorrectly? If someone knows what the author intended to say, then please correct it, or if I'm just misreading it, then please inform me. Jlampkins (talk) 03:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I reworded it and added the exact quote from the NY Times article to the citation. What is being said is that because the building had these high profile offices numerous 9/11 conspiracy theorists are saying it was an inviting location for a false flag operation. If one does not grasp this "connection" made by 9/11 CT's then one does not grasp the mind set of the 9/11 truth movement. Edkollin (talk) 01:46, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I can find no mention of the Ventura,Silverstein,FOX NEWS,Shapiro incident not to long ago. According to this story Silverstein called his insurance company to see if it was okay to pull the building ( as in cause it to collapse). FOX (Shapiro)supposedly had this on - easy to check I hope. Ventura's role in this I didn't totally catch - but it seemed that it was inadvertently mentioned to him. Interesting info - on lots of websites - if true they must havs had the explosive guys on 24 hour call. Even then that would be really fast work - 30 minutes or so. This conspiracy theory isn't on any of your 26 archives. Of course most of the theories don't get on the article some say.159.105.80.220 (talk) 16:15, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The "pull' quote is covered in the World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories article although it doesn't go into much detail, such as how conspiracy theorists have misinterpretted this quote or how "pull" is not a term used in real controlled demolitions. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The IP editor is referring to this article, in which Shapiro makes the following statement: "Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall." Wildbear (talk) 19:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - the exact quote I saw. Since Silverstein couldn't possibly have a building emploded in such a short time there must be more to this story ( preset explosives, Silverstein didn't know what others may have been up to, another vertical collapse from a low energy fire, ...). However, thanks to the Patriot Act there is a tape of his conversation somewhere in the CIA - all we need is an interested Senator/s or Assange.159.105.80.220 (talk) 16:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't think you are going to get any satisfaction from Assange. He had this to say "I'm constantly annoyed that people are distracted by false conspiracies such as 9/11, when all around we provide evidence of real conspiracies, for war or mass financial fraud."[1] Edkollin (talk) 22:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Separation of Israeli and Jewish Motives

Currently the section on Israeli involvement in the attacks seems to be tied in with a section of Jewish involvement of the attacks. These two suggestions very much need to be separated. Personally, as a Jewish person I find this very offensive. The evidence that exists in respect of Mossad agents being detained by the FBI should be documented in context of an Israeli Nationalist agenda, and not become confused with a very different, and historically inflammatory Jewish conspiracy. Nobody in their right mind would claim that the bombing of the USS Liberty was part of a Jewish conspiracy, accidental, or intentional, even though the State of Israel was the responsible party. Jewishness and the State of Israel are two very different entities, and it greatly undermines Wikipedia to tie them into the same, or broadly related body. For the purposes of this article there needs to be a section that speaks of conspiracies concerning Israeli involvement, and a separate section that talks of conspiracies that relate to the 'Jewish Conspiracy'. Until then, this article will be considered offensive to the wider Jewish community. That is of course not a POV implication that Israel was involved in 9/11, but using the concept of Jews and Israel interchangeably is one of the most offensive mistakes a 21st Century intellectual resource can make. 81.141.105.74 (talk) 17:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

You have an interesting point. Maybe we can rectify this by subdiving that section? What headings should we use? -- Brangifer (talk) 00:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Theory: Did 3000 people really die? [VicSims]

This another theory that is beginning to kick off. Basically suggests that a great number of the victims and their families, especially the flight passengers were actors or fakes, just like the plane cell phone calls. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9VnZ-BMR3s . We can't link to YouTube, but still there's alot of Alternative Researchers aggreing with it. Jim Fetzer, one of the biggest proponents of 911 truth, states that many of the passengers were CEOs/Millionaires and is suspicious as result. Blogtalk radio link at the top: http://letsrollforums.com/mystery-flights-11-77-f21.html . Also this article suggests the use of micro nukes http://www.rense.com/general76/wtc.htm Kruger1191 (talk) 20:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Same issue as the discussion above. Can't mention it until "reliable sources" pick it up. Kruger1191 (talk 22:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh ok, I understand. Kruger1191 (talk 23:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

See also

The article Rumours and conspiracy theories about the July 2005 London bombings does not exist anymore. Instead, the link leads to the main article. Could we either link directly to the portion of that article discussing conspiracy theories or remove the link altogether, as it's relevance seems to be limited now. 92.77.156.128 (talk) 18:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Rumours and conspiracy theories about the July 2005 London bombings seems now to lead to 7 July 2005 London bombings#Conspiracy theories. I don't see a significant reason either to keep the redirect or to follow it, defaulting to "keep". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:11, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Photos of Pentagon plane in flight before crash

There are at least three photos of the plane shortly before it hit the Pentagon. Why aren't they mentioned (or even shown) in the article? Here are the links: 1 | 2 | 3 —91.64.51.196 (talk) 23:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Did you see the little notice underneath each picture saying, "No public display, reproduction, printed or electronic, is permitted without the prior written permission of the photographer."? That's why. Mystylplx (talk) 15:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow… did you read my post or did you not? Apparently not, because I did not say that the images must be included in the article. I wrote "mentioned (or even shown)", so it would be sufficient to add one line to the Pentagon-paragraph that at least three independent photos exist from the plane over Washington immediately before impact. Add a footnote with links to hereisnewyork.org. Furthermore, the inclusion of (at least) one of the three images meets WP's guidelines on fair use of images—cf. §8: Images with iconic status or historical importance: As subjects of commentary. These photos probably meet both criteria, but definitely "historical importance", given the fact that no videos or other images of the aircraft in flight are known. —91.64.51.196 (talk) 17:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs a reliable source documenting that the photos are of the plane which hit the Pentagon. I haven't seen a source provided for that assertion. The usage terms seem pretty explicit, though. I don't think that it would be proper for Wikipedia to use these photos without the photographer's permission. Wildbear (talk) 19:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it should be determined that these photos are in fact of Flight 77. The best sources would probably be the photographers. However, you do not need a photographer's permission to use the photo as a lower resolution fair use image. You can even use it if he says no. Fair use is fair use. The whole point about fair use is to have the right to citation/quotation without clearance/permission/licenses, as long as it's warranted! (And as long as you name the source.) —91.64.51.196 (talk) 09:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Very clearly in photo 2, and possibly in photos 1 and 3 as well, I can see that the landing gear on the aircraft are down. Did the hijacker lower the landing gear in preparation for hitting the Pentagon? (I don't think so.) Also, the red top and red tail colors on the plane in photo 2 don't look like an American Airlines plane, as far as I am aware. See this for a typical AA 757 livery. Wildbear (talk) 21:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not even the same plane between #2 and #3...RxS (talk) 23:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

@ Wildbear/RxS: right; it doesn't seem to be the same plane, which is why you're right about source documenting. One or two (or even all) of these planes could be other planes being grounded after the attacks. As for the landing gear: why would they not lower the landing gear? —91.64.51.196 (talk) 09:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

While it's not really relevant to the article at this point, I would like to pass along some information to help preclude the possible spread of misinformation (whoever suggested that these photos are of flight 77 should be advised). The NTSB has published the flight recorder data for flight 77 here. On page 11-8, you can see the trace ALL GEAR DOWN & LOCK in black, together with other landing gear data. The signal goes low about 2 minutes after the start of the recording, and never returns high (meaning that the gear were raised and never lowered again). There is another problem with these images, and that is location. In image 1, the bridge pictured is George Mason Memorial bridge, which is just a short distance North of Reagan airport (see the Google satellite view. The airplane in image 1 appears likely to be making a landing approach to Reagan airport. Compare this with the NTSB's flight 77 path map. According to the NTSB, flight 77 didn't go near that bridge in its flight path. Similar path conditions are evident in the other two photos. Wildbear (talk) 02:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Flight 93

It should probably be noted that David Ray Griffin is a retired professor of philosophy of religion/theology and Alex Jones is a shock Jock radio host, both of which have no expertise or knowledge of the physics of a plane crash or the effectiveness of air to air ordinance. At the least it should be noted that they are in no way 'scholars' or 'knowledgeable' beyond their own opinions. J.Rly (talk) 01:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, it probably should. Soxwon (talk) 05:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Same goes for Jesse Ventura and Flight 77. (Don't know about the people he interviewed, though.) —91.64.51.196 (talk) 09:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Cossiga

The information in the article is not correct. Cossiga was poking fun at his opponents, not supporting 911 conspiracy theories. Maybe someone could fix that. More info on that can obviously be found at Francesco Cossiga. 92.76.149.96 (talk) 11:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done —UncleDouggie (talk) 17:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

No mention of provocation to increase U.S. support of Israel?

I seem to recall that in the year after the attack, there was a conspiracy theory floating around that went something like: "Israel's supporters organized the attack in order to generate U.S. support for Israel by (1) provoking US into attacking enemies of Israel; (2) generating sympathy for Israel, and (3) increasing hostility towards Muslims/Arabs; etc."

But I dont see any mention of this in the article. There are two indirect mentions of it: (1) This article does have a section "Anti-Semitism in conspiracy theories" that touches on the above conspiracy theory, but it responds to the conspiracy theory, without describing it first. And (2) there are a couple of mentions of individual Israeli's filming or avoiding the attack, but nothing about the essence of the conspiracy theory, which was: the motivation of generating support for Israel.

So, my questions are:

1. Was this theory discussed in the Talk page at some point? Was it in the article and removed for some reason?
2. Should that specific conspiracy theory be added into the article, if for no other reason to server as a precursor to the "Anti-Semitism in conspiracy theories" section which rebuts it?

Disclaimer: I have not researched the Talk page archives to find answers, so just point me to the archives if these questions were raised before. --Noleander (talk) 21:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't recall any such discussion. Feel free to propose the text you would like to add to the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'll try to come up with some proposed text. It looks like the "Anti-Semitism in conspiracy theories" section already has decent sources in the footnotes, its just that that section is missing a detailed explanation (from the sources) of what the conspiracy theory is before it comments upon the theory. --Noleander (talk) 14:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

A draft of proposed text below. It is sketchy at the moment, but if it looks okay, we can add a few sentences giving more details from the sources. Which section should it go in? Perhaps "Other Theories", maybe a subsection under "Foreign governments". Although the "Motives" section would also be appropriate, but not as good as "Other Theories". Or perhaps "Main theories", but that would require some asseessment of its relative prominence. --Noleander (talk) 17:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure where this fits into the article either, I'll have to take a look at it later. But your proposed either looks fine. I would spell out "Anti-Defamation League" the first time you use it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed text

A conspiracy theory documented by the ADL Anti-Defamation League, Thom Burnett and others, is that the state of Israel planned the attacks. A variety of motives are suggested, including: to cause the United States to attack enemies of Israel; to divert public attention away from Israel's treatment of Palestinians; to help Zionists take control of world affairs; and to persuade Americans to support Israel. Variants of the theory contend that the attack was organized by Ariel Sharon, Mossad, or the government of Israel. Analysts often associate this conspiracy theory with the related theory that agents of Israel knew of the impending attack, but did not stop it.

Streamline Jewish conspiracy theories

We currently cover Jewish conspiracy theories in no less than 4 sections:

1. Israeli agents (Israel knew about it)
2. Alleged absence of Jewish employees (Israel knew about it or did it)
3. Planned by Israel (Israel did it)
4. Foreign governments (Israel knew about it or did it))

This is rather out of control. I don't propose the removal of any unique material, just a reorganization to permit better focus and figure out where we have duplication. I propose we move material as follows:

1. Israeli agents: Keep
2. Alleged absence of Jewish employees: Move to #3
3. Planned by Israel: Keep
4. Foreign governments: Move claims that Mossad knew about it to #1. Move Francesco Cossiga allegations to #3.

—UncleDouggie (talk) 07:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Just a short note: we should not misrepresent Cossiga's sarcasm as endorsement of conspiracy theories. 92.76.155.67 (talk) 07:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't read Italian and Google Translate does a rather horrible job on the source. If it is sarcasm, we should pull it out because it's most certainly presented in a serious manner currently. —UncleDouggie (talk) 08:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The article on Cossiga has links, one is to an article by the Guardian stating he was poking fun at his opponents (as was his style) [2] and there is a link to an Italian text making Cossiga's position on conspiracy theories clear [3]. We do not need to go into the same detail here, but we can use this information as the background for editorial decisions. In this case, I'd say we'd better pull it. 92.76.155.67 (talk) 11:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I reduced its prominence and added the debunking because it was a statement made by a high profile person. —UncleDouggie (talk) 16:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like a good improvement, provided that no (sourced) material is eliminated in the process. --Noleander (talk) 08:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

More about Operation Northwoods

Operation Northwoods is cited as a historical precedent because it involved CIA plans for state-sponsored terrorism in the US, to be subsequently blamed on Cuba. But the fact is that regarding Cuba, there are many more historical precedents for the US backing terroristic activities -- and not all of them taking place in Cuban land/waters, some of the most notorious bombings and assassinations carried out by Cuban exiles were carried out with a wink and a nod from the CIA, often with CIA cooperation as so many of the exiles have informed us. Once I get an account with permissions, I'll edit this into the page. 173.3.41.6 (talk) 21:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there are very many reliable sources connecting Operation Northwoods with 9/11 conspiracy theories. I know it's a popular theme in 9/11 conspiracy literature, but not in secondary sources. You're free to propose your changes here (along with your sources), and we can discuss your proposed text. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Even the one cited secondary reliable source[4] only contains a single sentence about it. I tried finding some other sources, but the best I've been able to come up with so far is this[5] and it only contains 2 and a half sentences about it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Well I wasn't implying that there is a "connection" between Operation Northwoods and 9/11 other than the fact that Operation Northwoods, by virtue of its very existence, proves that there is a precedent for the US to plan large-scale terrorism against its people. Now I personally don't believe any 9/11 "conspiracy theories" but every time I hear someone refute those theories, they usually give the argument "oh, the US would never do that to so many of its citizens for a political gain, that's way too far-fetched and sinister" -- which of course, I find to be BS given the precedent of Operation Northwoods. That's all I'm geting at, that Northwoods is a precedent, that reveals the argument that "the govt. US would never do that do so many innocent citizens" to be a truly naive and uninformed argument. 173.3.41.6 (talk) 22:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Not implying a connection? No RS? So we can delete this section, then? Seeing it has nothing to do with and nothing to add to this article. 92.77.136.1 (talk) 06:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Dead link: Open Chemical Physics Journal

Since I can't edit and put in the "dead link" sign myself, could someone please do that for Ref. #77 ("Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe". The Open Chemical Physics Journal (volume 2). February 13, 2009. http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.pdf. Retrieved October 11, 2010.)

That link doesn't work anymore, apparently Bentham has discontinued the journal. 92.77.134.92 (talk) 18:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Archive link added. —UncleDouggie (talk) 18:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Should it even be in the article? We discussed this multiple times and rejected Bentham as unreliable. The journal's editor-in-chief ended up resigning as a result of this paper.[6] Bentham also published a computer-generated nonsense paper.[7] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

It probably shouldn't. We have enough sources as it is, and now that Bentham has dropped it, maybe we should remove the paper. Should it be noted in the article, though, that the journal has been discontinued and the paper is no longer available? I guess, we probably need sources for that. One more thing: it was not the Open Chemical Physics Journal that excepted a nonsense paper, Bentham's peer-review generally seems lacking, but it apparently only was the Open Chemistry Physics Journal that has been discontinued (after being basically dead since the release of the Harrit/Jones paper). Is there a link? Or: are there sources for a link? My basic question probably is: do we note the discontinuation in the article at all? 92.77.134.92 (talk) 21:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The discontinuation isn't notable. However, we could rework it into a debunked theory if there is secondary coverage of the article itself. It seems that there might be with AQFK's links, but I don't have time to dig into it myself right now. —UncleDouggie (talk) 22:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The journal has not been discontinued. It has been renamed, see Open Physical Chemistry Journal. Screwloosechange is not a RS, it is just another tin hat website. That Bentham recieved a computer-generated paper is irrelevant as it was not actually published. The journal's editor-in-chief resigning over Harritts paper is not relevant either as she resigned over not being told it had been published, not because there was anything wrong with the paper. Wayne (talk) 12:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Screwloosechange is a valid source when dealing with fringe theories. See WP:PARITY. I stand corrected about the publication of the nonsense paper. But still two editors resigned as a result of the fiasco. But in any case, let's get back to the heart of the issue, the publication of the first paper. We have two questions to address: Do we cite Bentham knowing that it's an unreliable source? Do we explain how the editor-in-chief resigned as a result of its publication? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure the journal has just been renamed? Does it have the same papers in them? The nanothermite paper at least is not to be found there. 92.77.134.92 (talk) 14:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe Bentham does not archive articles. Authors are required to pay extra if they want them permanently archived. WP:PARITY still requires a fringe theory critique website to be a reliable source which excludes the Screwloosechange blog, particularly as there are a large number of RS that can be used instead. The editors resigning had nothing to do with the papers reliability. The closest Pileni got was saying that the paper was not in her area of expertise. Knowing Bentham is an unreliable source is WP:OR. Whatever problems they had when first setting up, Bentham journals are now listed in Lund Universities Directory of Open Access Journals. You confuse peer review with infallibility, there is no requirement that peer reviewed articles represent a mainstream view and it always remains possible for them to be debunked. Wayne (talk) 14:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you don't like Screwloosechange, we can cite this article. It's not in English, but here's a Google translatation.[8] Judging whether a source is reliable has nothing to do with WP:OR. In fact, we do that all the time on Wikipedia. So we still have two questions to address: Do we cite Bentham knowing that it's an unreliable source? Do we explain how the editor-in-chief resigned as a result of its publication? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll address your second question first. The editor-in-chief resigning had nothing to do with the papers reliability so while it would be very relevant in an article on Bentham it is irrelevant here and inclusion is little more than an attempt to discredit the Harritt paper by implication. The Google link you provided actually supports this. As for reliability, I will throw at you the policy often misused with this subject, WP:SOURCES. As Bentham claims to be a peer reviewed academic source and is included in lists of academic journals, blogs and personal opinions by reliable sources are OR. What are needed are academic viewpoints on reliability. I can find no academic review that says Bentham is "unreliable", the most scathing say Bentham is "questionable" for publishing theories that are not accepted by the mainstream. One academic review that specifically mentions the Harritt paper compared it's reliability to the Dark Fluid theory giving both as examples of questionable low quality theories unacceptable to, and unlikely to be published by mainstream sources. I'll see if I can track down the review for you, but the most that can said of the paper or Bentham is "questionable" not "unreliable". Wayne (talk) 05:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Bentham has fixed the links now. The journals have been reorganized, and the papers are still present. 92.77.136.1 (talk) 08:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Architects & Engineers petition

This topic is still posted at the NPOV noticeboard here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#9.2F11_conspiracy_theories_-_deletion_of_referenced.2C_neutral_material

Note: NPOV Noticeboard topic has now been archived to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_19#9.2F11_conspiracy_theories_-_deletion_of_referenced.2C_neutral_material Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

and the archived discussion is here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:9/11_conspiracy_theories/Archive_27#Architects_for_9.2F11_Truth_Again Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

This issue is still unresolved. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

It has been resolved. You failed to gain consensus. If you can't gain consensus for inclusion, the default position is exclusion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, it's still posted at the NPOV noticeboard (see above). There is no consensus one way or the other yet on this discussion page either. Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

No consensus for inclusion, it just hasn't been dusted off the NPOV boards. Please stop reopening dead discussions. Soxwon (talk) 06:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

No consensus for exclusion either. See discussion archive and NPOV notice board. You can't "reopen" a discussion that was never concluded. Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

No, a topic that is a over a month old with no fresh input is most definitely dead and concluded. Please stop wasting everyone's time. Soxwon (talk) 07:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with you, Soxwon. In any case I have now weighed in there as well, where I have called for fresh eyes. And I think your tone here is uncivil, and designed to generate heat, not light. Jusdafax 08:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I apologize if my tone seems rather curt, but frankly, you can get to be that way after having to deal with attempt after attempt to make this read like PrisonPlanet. Soxwon (talk) 09:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Given the absence of any new viewpoints, I don't see any reason to include it. Consensus was very clearly against inclusion. --Terrillja _talk 15:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Please see ongoing discussion at NPOV noticeboard here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#9.2F11_conspiracy_theories_-_deletion_of_referenced.2C_neutral_material Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

A poll on inclusion or exclusion of this material is being held on the NPOV Noticeboard discussion page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#9.2F11_conspiracy_theories.2C_Architects_and_Engineers_for_911_Truth_petition Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

History Section has a date order problem: Is redividing it the solution?

It starts out listing what happened on 9/11. Goes through the mainstream sources from 2002-2009, then jumps back to the week after the attacks. It seems to me it the basic problem is it is two different sections. 1. The conclusions reached by the sources listed 2. History of conspiracy theories. The first section should be named "9/11 Attacks". It should list the sources and their conclusions then state that 9/11 conspiracy theorists call these conclusions 'mainstream account,' 'official account' and 'official conspiracy theory'. In perfect world in my view that is how it should be written, but because how the vast majority of editors feel about how Wikipedia guidelines prescribe writing about fringe theories the consensus probably proscribes just forgetting the sources and just say that Al Queda did it etc, etc and then note that 9/11 CT theorists contest the account above and refer to it as 'mainstream account','official account' and 'official conspiracy theory'. My guess is that the editor(s) that eliminated the "Mainstream Section" were trying to eliminate what was felt to be Wikipedia guideline violating caveats and unintentionally created the another issue. My last outline still removes these "caveats" while splitting the section. Also a summery of the "official" version of why the towers collapsed should be added now that RS say this is central to the theories. Edkollin (talk) 21:05, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Total deletion of Building 7 section

The "Building 7" section of the "World Trade Center collapse" section was entirely deleted by another editor. Here is the diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories&diff=405338255&oldid=405322366 There is no way you can justify COMPLETELY DELETING an entire section, with supporting references, about the Building 7 collapse. This is a KEY element of many 9/11 conspiracy theories. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Many reports about 9/11 conspiracy theories are focusing to a significant degree on theories concerning WTC 7. This aspect of the article's topic therefore needs to be presented in a separate section. Not having such a section would very likely fail to give this issue due weight, while giving undue weight to other sections.  Cs32en Talk to me  18:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Building 7 is in the article. It's in the preceding section. The section in question is supposed to be a summary of the World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories article. This other article does go into more detail, and explains it better, IMO. Also, additions need to follow NPOV. If we add more text to the article explaining the fringe POV, we also need to add more text to the article explaining the mainstream POV. The added text was almost entirely explaining the fringe POV. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I have added an editorial note to put an end to this nonsense. Hopefully future editors with an ounce of common sense will stop when they read the note. For those without such common sense, here's the link to the right place:

• 7 World Trade Center

If you've got an agenda, take it somewhere else than Wikipedia, and if you've got constructive ideas that harmonize with our policies, then take it to the right place. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

So if I'm counting correctly here, we have three editors who think the WTC 7 subsection should be undeleted, and one who thinks it shouldn't be. Anyone else want to weigh in on this? Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Whoops, I misunderstood. I thought it was the DELETION of the well sourced, notable and neutrally worded information that was being referred to as "having an agenda". My mistake. It's two for inclusion, and two against. Why is including information about WTC 7 in this article evidence of "an agenda"? And how is omitting it neutral as in WP:NPOV? Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I've got to side with AQFK here, the section is fine the way it is. Soxwon (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Add another editor for re inclusion. If we are going to by by reliable sources and one of the most reliable sources says that Building 7 is central to 9/11 CT's that is something that needs to be included in summary form. The larger issue is that times have changed since the decision was made to farm out the details to a sub section. At the time it really was only the fringe sources that were discussing controlled demolition theories in any length. So a short mention of the Controlled demolition theories in the article was correct in that it reflected mainstream coverage. The article has had to change based on mainstream coverage many times. 9/11 Ct's differing from other CT theories in fundamental ways, The 9/11 truth groups (particularly one groups) petitioning efforts, the finding about thermite in the debris are the ones I can think of right off the bat. In this case if we need to violate a fundamental Wikipedia guideline by giving "not enough due" to follow another guideline saying summarize because there is a sub article, there just might be something wrong with having a controlled demolition theory's a topic discussed by nearly every article about 9/11 conspiracy theories as a sub article. Edkollin (talk) 22:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

There are two issues here that need to be looked at separately: One issue is the question of how much text should be used to describe theories related to 7 WTC. The other issue is whether this text should be presented as a separate section or sub-section. Because there is a sub-article, there is no need for a lot of text in this article here. However, as theories related to 7 WTC have received more coverage in reliable sources than theories about Flight 93, or about suspected insider trading (both are presented in larger separate sub-sections), the content related to 7 WTC needs to be presented in a sub-section. Sub-articles are created to cover the most relevant aspects of a topic, if this aspect is notable enough to have it's own article. Yet, precisely because the aspect is notable (otherwise the sub-article would need to be deleted), and because text is (rightly) being transferred to the sub-article, the relevance of the aspect needs to be indicated by the structure of the more general article.  Cs32en Talk to me  23:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

With regard to the amount of text that should be used to cover aspects related to 7 WTC, it should be noted that about a quarter of the sub-article is covering 7 WTC, while the current summary of the sub-article does only refer to 7 WTC briefly in the introductory sentence. So, both with regard to other aspects of 9/11 conspiracy theories, as well as in relation to aspects described in the sub-article, which the section is supposed to summarize, aspects related to 7 WTC currently do not receive due weight.  Cs32en Talk to me  23:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that this is a bit of a non-issue. Building 7 is just one of three of the buildings conspiracy theorists claim was destroyed via controlled demolition. No one was in the building and no one died in it. While conspiracy theorists might consider Building 7 their trump card, the bulk of media coverage has been on the twin towers themselves. That said, I don't have a problem with trimming the insider trading section. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Much of the media coverage on 9/11 conspiracy theories, however, was on Building 7. Some mainstream media content, such as an episode of a BBC documentary series, even specifically focused on theories about Building 7.  Cs32en Talk to me  18:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

That's not my recollection of the sources. But I'll look at the first 10 third-party reliable sources on 9/11 conspiracy theories as determined by Google and re-evaluate my opinion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, here are 10 third-party reliable sources selected at random by Google:

• Popular Mechanics - Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report This one is hard to gauge because this is actually series of 22 articles one of which is about WTC7. But it also has articles on Intact Windows and Indian Lake and we don't have separate subsections for these sub-topics either.
• Time Magazine Why the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Won't Go Away - WTC7 not mentioned
• 9/11 conspiracy theories: The truth is out there...just not on the internet Brief mention as part of controlled demolition as a whole
• Ahmadinejad tells U.N. most blame U.S. government for 9/11 - WTC7 not mentioned
• Fox News - 'Rescue Me' From 9/11 Conspiracy Theories - WTC7 not mentioned
• Popular Mechanics - Rosie O'Donnell 9/11 Conspiracy Comments: Popular Mechanics Responds - About WTC7
• Federal report refutes 9/11 conspiracy theory - About WTC7
• 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Persist, Thrive - WTC7 not mentioned
• Twin towers research refutes 9/11 conspiracy theories - WTC7 not mentioned
• Telegraph - Marion Cotillard's 9/11 conspiracy theory - WTC7 not mentioned

I'm not sure it's a slam dunk either way. However, if we avoid the WP:RECENTISM-like articles about a recent event (Ahmadinejad, Rescue Me, Rosie O'Donnell, new federal report, Cotillard), there's very limited weight given to WTC7. Out of the sources about 9/11 CT as a whole and not a specific event (Time, Times Online, MSNBC, Washington post) little to no attention is given to WTC7. To examine this further, I looked at a few more sources which are about 9/11 as a whole, and found similar results:

• The 9/11 conspiracy: Rubbish or reality? - WTC7 not mentioned
• 9/11 conspiracy theories rife in Muslim world - WTC7 not mentioned
• Viewing 9/11 From a Grassy Knoll - WTC7 not mentioned

Please feel free to double check my findings. I didn't read them all again, I just did simple text searches on key phrases.

Based on this, my initial thoughts are that I don't see a reason for any major changes to the article such as adding an entire subsection about a minor point. That said, I wouldn't be opposed to some minor tweaks or even a sentence or two about WTC7. But any changes need to follow WP:NPOV. If we add more content to the fringe viewpoint, we also need to balance that out with more content to the majority viewpoint. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Check out some of these references to Building 7 by the media and NON-CONSPIRACY groups. The U.S. government link lists this as one of "The Top September 11 Conspiracy Theories":

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26331842/ns/us_news-security/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7485331.stm

http://www.america.gov/st/webchat-english/2009/May/20060828133846esnamfuaK0.2676355.html

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-911-conspiracy-theories.php Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The US gov't list also makes it number 4, what of the the first three? Toptenz isn't a good source and the debunking site seems to just be one subsection along with many others. That leaves you with two stories covering what appears to be responses to the same report, albeit a month apart. Soxwon (talk) 02:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The point is, WTC 7 is clearly a major conspiracy theory topic. It is listed as a major theory and has received international news coverage. Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Or it's one of several facets of a the 9/11 conspiracy that gets brought up with the rest (usually good thing to mention a whole building collapsing). Soxwon (talk) 05:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm certainly no "truther" but it does seem to me that WTC7 deserves a sub-section in an article on 911 conspiracy theories. My impression is it plays a bigger role in the CT's than things like insider trading, Israeli agents, etc. Mystylplx (talk) 17:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The WTC towers and the Pentagon are probably more prominent in reports about 9/11 conspiracy theories found in reliable sources. Yet WTC 7 is certainly more prominent in those reports than, for example, the incident that involved Israeli agents (which is covered in a separate sub-section), or some of the other theories that have separate sub-sections. For the creation of a separate sub-section, it is not necessary to show that WTC 7 would be as important in news reports as the collapse of the WTC towers.  Cs32en Talk to me  17:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone still oppose restoring this section? Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Removal of the section from this article is censorship, as I see it. I am amazed by this. Here again, fresh eyes are needed. Jusdafax 08:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

AQFK didn't delete an established section out of the blue here. Ghostofnemo had added a significant amount of material from World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories that threw the summary out of balance. AQFK probably overreacted a bit in removing everything, including what was previously there. This section should be a NPOV summary of World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories. The sub-article has a large section on the main towers and another on WTC 7, so this section should have one paragraph summarizing each. No subheadings are needed. The erroneous BBC report shouldn't be mentioned at all because the sub-article has sources explaining it. The report is fine to cover in the sub-article for completeness, but covering it here would imply that it's somehow central to a conspiracy. The MSM gets big stuff wrong all the time, including the US presidential election and erroneously reporting the death of representative Giffords. The summary should focus on the meat of the conspiracy allegations. —UncleDouggie (talk) 17:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The British Blogger Richard Seymore has pointed out that Building 7 was far more extensively weakened and damaged than most people realise. He points out that there is early News footage showing smoke comming out of practically every floor of the stricken Building. While this does not entirely explain the collapse of Building 7, it does weaken conspiracy Theories that say the building could not have fallen without explosives being placed.Johnwrd (talk) 23:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

'Fake' Video of Bin Laden?

A former Royal Air Force (U.K. RAF), Photographics expert was asked to examine 'The Pentagon Video' found of Bin Laden. He concluded that the man called Bin Laden in the Pentagon Video, was the same Bin Laden in confirmed videos of Bin Laden. The RAF Expert expanded his conlusion by saying; 'can these Videos be faked? yes, but the technology to fake these videos to such a convincing quallity is not in the possession of the Pentagon. (The experts and equipment to fake such a vdeo are in Hollywood and a few other places). This is a small and highly specialised field of expertise, people talk, and no one has ever suggested they were involved in such a fraud'. The Videos of Bin Laden were discussed in a BBC Documentary on 911.Johnwrd (talk) 00:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I seriously doubt the Pentagon doesn't have the technologyand the bin Laden video was not exactly "quality". I remember reading about a similar fake video (not related to 911) that the Pentagon made to show not only that terrorists could do it but that the deception was undetectable. I think this was around 10 years ago. The "people talk" claim depends on how many were involved. Whether the bin Laden video was faked or not will probably never be proven either way. Wayne (talk) 15:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Had a bit of a search for the article but no luck yet. I did however find articles about the CIA having the technology and also mention of the Los Alamos National Laboratory having video/audio technology that can alter a direct telecast in near real time. I'm assuming they would share with the Pentagon if asked. I'll look again later but the point is that exaggerated statements by experts only gives conspiracy theorists "evidence" of a cover up. Wayne (talk) 15:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

adding Image

Not applicable. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I think to add this image Microsoft Wingdings is necessery for this articel. It is wery fameous.PowerAustin (talk) 13:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 它是我, 25 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

Please change the sentence
:

"........ Jones has presented the hypothesis that thermite or nanothermite was used to demolish the buildings and says he has found evidence of such explosives in the WTC dust."

to (already in code):

"........ Jones and other scientist have published a study proving the presence of thermite in the WTC dust.<ref name="Harrit">{{en}}Harrit NH, Farrer J, Jones SE, et al. [http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/1874412500902010007 Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe ] (2009) The Open Chemical Physics Journal 2:7-31. [http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.htm?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM download full article for free].</ref> Jones poses the hypothesis that thermite or nanothermite was used to demolish the buildings."

I think this addition adds quality to the article, since this is a scientific publication of the study in which thermite was found in dust from the 911 WTC collapse. With kind regards, 它是我 (talk) 01:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

它是我 (talk) 01:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. Actually, I added an additional line about the journal article. Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

This has previously been rejected, and I see no evidence that the consensus has changed. It's not "scientific" (IMHO), and it's not in a peer-reviewed journal, according to generally reliable commentary. I'll see what can rationally be recovered.

(followup) Not only is it undue weight as written, but the claim and reference appear earlier in the section. I added the phrase, "published in the Open Chemical Physics Journal" to the previous statement, and removed the new sentence entirely. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Neutral point of view

WP:DNFTT / WP:DENY — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi, I read this article and I think its legitimacy is seriously in doubt. The article clearly takes the viewpoint of the official position of the US government, whereas Dylan Avery is not once cited as a credible expert on the issue of controlled demolition. This is a problem. I read Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view, and while I stuggled comprehending it (it's boring and uses big words, lol), I'm pretty sure that neutrality requires that we give both sides of the issue equal time. Iknowthetruthandyoudont (talk) 22:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC) Dylan is not a credible expert on the issue of controlled demolition; why should he be treated as one. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC) No, Iknowthetruthandyoudont, you are quite mistaken. Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view most certainly does NOT require that we give both sides of the issue equal time. I would recommend re-reading the policy carefully (it's really not that long and there aren't many big words) paying particular attention to the section titled "Due_and_undue_weight". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.49.174 (talk) 18:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC) Oh, so just because only a minority of people know the truth (heroes like me and Alex Jones), then it's not good enough for Wikipedia. This is a grave injustice! Do you work for the US government or perhaps the Mossad? Iknowthetruthandyoudont (talk) 23:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC) Why should Dylan Avery be cited as an expert on controlled demolition? He's not. He's a film writer and director/editor. As for WP:NPOV, I'm not sure which words used on that page are "big", but NPOV does not require equal time for any two given views. Of particular importance to this discussion is WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE. The former makes it clear that "each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." (Emphasis mine.) The latter makes it clear that "an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea, and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner." Nightscream (talk) 03:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC) "I know the truth and you don't"? "Dylan Avery a demolition expert"? "Heroes like me and Alex Jones"? Come on, he's just messing with you. DNFTT. Sören Koopmann (talk) 06:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC) Sir, this is a weak attempt to discredit me. You need to take me seriously. Like Christ, I am being crucified simply for speaking the truth. Can we please get back to the issue at hand, which is that the article relies too heavily on the testimony of so-called "experts"? I don't see why these "expert" opinions are given more coverage than opinion of well-reasoned skeptics like Charlie Sheen. Iknowthetruthandyoudont (talk) 16:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC) Soren, please do not refer to editors you disagree with as "trolls". As I explained in the message I just left you on your talk page, this is a violation of WP:Civility, WP:Assume Good Faith and WP:No Personal Attacks. I agree with IKTTAYD in one respect, that we should focus on the content that is in dispute, and not engage in personal comments. IKTTAYD, if you want to self-declare as a "hero" or whatever, that's your choice, but you are not being "crucified". As I and others explained above, Wikipedia does not give undue weight to fringe theories, as explained by WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE. Dylan Avery and Charlie Sheen are not reliable experts in any field relevant to 9/11 conspiracy theories, nor are they "skeptics", at least in the scientific sense. True scientific skepticism adheres to the scientific method, and does not refer to cultural, ideological or idiosyncratic denial of a given idea. The ideas of the so-called 9/11 Truth Movement do not adhere to actual scientific skepticism, as they are not scientific in nature. Because of this, their ideas are fringe views, which is covered by the aforementioned policies I have linked to. I believe if you try to read them thoroughly, it will explain this quite easily. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 18:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for renaming

Shouldn't the article be entitled 9/11 Inconsistencies? --Solde9 (talk) 14:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

No. The major "inconsistencies" are only in the minds of the conspiracy theorists. Any event shows minor inconsistencies when thoroughly analyzed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

But what about these Architects and Engineers http://ae911truth.org/, and these pilots http://pilotsfor911truth.org/? Aren't they reliable sources? --Solde9 (talk) 15:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

This is a conspiracy theories article so it's named properly. And no they aren't reliable sources. RxS (talk) 15:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm still not understand. They aren't professionals? It's not their opinions valid? --Solde9 (talk) 16:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

See my reply to your question on my talkpage. Both are advocacy organizations devoted to promotion of a fringe viewpoint. and are neither neutral nor scholarly, as they are specifically organized to present views that are emphatically rejected by most of their respective professions and by mainstream sources and researchers. Wikipedia does not give undue emphasis to fringe views, and neither is considered a reliable source. Acroterion (talk) 16:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok I understand now why they are not neutral and why they are fringe, but I still don't understand why they aren't scholar either. --Solde9 (talk) 16:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

It's because they don't follow the Scholarly method. Nightscream (talk) 03:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Many scholars would not publish their thoughts exclusively in scholarly journals. That does not make them non-scholars. There is a difference between a peer-reviewed paper and a press release, of course. However, working papers, for example, are also scholarly texts, yet they are essentially self-published and should be treated as such.  Cs32en Talk to me  13:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Not if they don't follow the Scholarly Method. Nightscream (talk) 14:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

While this may not be of much relevance to this article, there are many cases in which editors have legitimately used information and opinions from scholarly experts that has been published in newspaper interviews, op-ed pieces etc., i.e. that was not published according to the Scholarly Method.  Cs32en Talk to me  15:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

If it's not of relevance to this article, then what's the point of mentioning this? Of course sources are cited all over Wikipedia that are not written according to the SM. But here, we're talking about a fringe view, which is why WP:FRINGE applies, hence my answer to Solde9's question. Nightscream (talk) 18:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, it may become relevant to this article, for example, if some editor would decide that scholars would no longer be scholars just because they support a fringe viewpoint with regard to a particular question. This is an article about a WP:FRINGE viewpoint, so the guideline applies in a somewhat different way than for an article about a generally accepted theory in which a viewpoint held by a (small) minority may or may not be described.  Cs32en Talk to me  20:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The label "scholarly" is not withheld from a view or idea because it's a fringe viewpoint, let alone a minority one. Rather, it is not scholarly if it does not follow the Scholarly Method. No one editor has the ability to change this, and if one tries to edit in accordance with this notion, their edits will be reversed. Many ideas were held by a minority, and could even be called "fringe" views, but were indeed scholarly, because they followed the right methodologies, and were eventually confirmed as true. Nightscream (talk) 21:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

So if we follow this 99% of the article needs to be deleted because the vast majority of 9/11 "conspiracy theory" sourcing and sourcing for debunking the theories used in this article are not from scholarly method only publications. While the the sources are not "scholarly method" sourced they are reliably sourced that is all that is necessary. Edkollin (talk) 22:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I assume that Nightscream says that opinions expressed in a non-scholarly way should not be presented as scholarly opinions, even if they are expressed by scholars. I tend to agree with this, although there are opinions that are restatements of opinions that have been expressed in a scholarly way before, and these may well be presented as scholarly opinions. Apart from that, I'd say that the discussion in this section seem to have generated a fair share of misunderstandings already.  Cs32en Talk to me  22:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC)