Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories/Archive 41

Archive 35

←

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

False flag

Some of the conspiracy theories mention false flag.

Added the related link to "see also" section.

Was reverted: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories&oldid=prev&diff=887095377

Subject of a discussion. Do some of the conspiracy theories mention false flag and is it worth mentioning? (your call)

Stefek99 (talk) 22:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Don't abuse the article for conspiracy theory speculation. This is longstanding consensus, Wikipedia isn't a linkfarm for speculative nonsense. Acroterion (talk) 22:46, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

False flag is already linked to in the article body text.[1] There's no need to repeat it in the links section. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:16, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2019

"Most of the civil engineering community?" 79.67.59.92 (talk) 16:21, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

It does sound a bit WP:WEASEL-y, but in a technical sense if one civil engineer disagrees then "most" is accurate. Since the rest of the sentence points out the existence of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, I think it's okay as written. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 19:57, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Citizen grand jury

There is a short, three sentence section in Citizen grand jury that touches on 9/11 conspiracy theorists; however, I do not see discussion of this in reliable sources. I'm wondering if someone more familiar with this subject matter could take a look. (@Acroterion:?) Thanks! - Location (talk) 23:14, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Neither cite is to a reliable source. Unless some more serious reference can be found the section should be removed. Acroterion (talk) 23:40, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

some synthesis implied with citations 16/17

cite 16 1 studies the speed of collapse, concluding the towers fell slower than free fall.

cite 17 2 studies momentum of collapse required to bring the tower fully down, concluding only a single floor would need to collapse to bring the building fully down.

While I have no reason to disagree with the information provided, no source I've seen yet rationalizes why or how even a single floor collapsed due to the popular axiom "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" nor why the side of the building physically damaged by the plane hadn't collapsed first.

"Most engineers believe x" tempts the reader into a similar fallacy as "most climatologists believe y", which is that those same engineers or climatologists have studied the issue personally to the point of fact or beyond a reasonable doubt. One would not become a climatologist because they have no fear anthropogenic global warming might end the world. If one believes in an "end of the world" scenario, one has much more reason to study climatology than if one doesn't. To a lesser extent, engineering journals (like mainstream news) suffer existentially if research suggest likelihoods which undermine public trust, so one has more reason to study the towers falling if believing the conclusions will reinforce public trust than otherwise (unless one supposes the gain of justice preventing a once in 300 years occurrence through the discovery of truth beyond a reasonable doubt outweighs potential costs).

Since the academic community emphasizes an approach aiming to be "less wrong" as opposed to more correct, I ask morally and ethically should citations extrapolate opinions not explicitly made a conclusion from academic essays?

Anonymouse 04:39, 28 February 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.255.182.69 (talk)

This isn't a forum for speculation or analysis. As for the silly meme, fire seriously weakens steel long before it approaches any kind of melting point, regardless of the fuel. That's the problem with taking memes seriously. Acroterion (talk) 04:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

One would not become a climatologist because they have no fear anthropogenic global warming might end the world.

This is a rather silly assumption to make, and is a good example of why you're approaching these topics from the wrong direction. There were plenty of climatologists before global climate change was a recognized phenomenon. People study topics because they are interested in them, not because of fear or a need to prove "the end of the world." It has nothing to do with "the public trust" and everything to do with curiosity. The fact that climate change and the collapse of the Trade Center towers have been studied for years & the conclusions still hold up should be telling you the science is sound, rather than leading you to believe there's a conspiracy to drive fear among the masses. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:08, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Section: "The Pentagon"

Thierry Meyssan's 2002 book "9/11: The Big Lie" is mentioned a few times in the article, but there is no mention of another 2002 book, published by Carnot, for which he acted as the co-ordinator, "Pentagate".     ←   ZScarpia   03:22, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Section: "Israeli agents"

A source not cited in the article is "The Terror Enigma: 9/11 and the Israeli Connection" (2003) by Justin Raimondo.     ←   ZScarpia   03:34, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2020

After "Support for the movement is negligible from professionals in relevant fields, such as civil and aerospace engineering," it should be added, "although support has been found in the field of International Relations." This should be followed by a reference to https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0304375419898334#abstract Motbad (talk) 23:51, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. One IR professor's 9/11 truth rant in an extremely limited-impact journal does not indicate that it has found acceptance in his field. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:18, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

No mention of Barry Jennings

The article is ridiculous and written in biased perspective. No mention of Barry Jennings, a survivor from the WTC 7 building who died "prematurely" & his whole family "disappeared".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9e6rYzcAjog

He clearly says there were explosions beneath the building. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.230.172.78 (talk) 10:28, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

He also thought the North Tower fell first, and he actually criticized Dylan Avery and his film crew for making him look like a gullible member of the so-called "9/11 truth movement."

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tK9MmoVaO5U&list=PLa2jaugRORQ1PrqM7L10P69UMQ-GaaoUw&index=14&t=11s). ----User:DanTD (talk) 05:05, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Eliminated Bibliography

The original article reference style did not use SFNs. Sometime later about a dozen were added. Most did not reference specific page(s). I did not find any record of more being added later. I do not know when the SFN errors were created. I know they were only recently detected. Eliminating the Bibliography eliminated the errors. Personally I do not mind the use of SFN templates (with specific pages.) to reference cites within <ref></ref> referencing. User-duck (talk) 18:12, 25 July 2020 (UTC)