Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 29

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

→

Archive 35

Article ignores 'conspiracy theories'

This article provides no discussion of questions to the official story of the September the 11th attacks excepting a simple reference to their existence. It seems unwise to dismiss arguments that are shared by millions of Americans and huge portions of the international population. If wikipedia is to be the free and open forum of the people, it certainly should not engage in suppressing dissenting opinion. It seems reasonable that at least a brief overview of fundamental challenges to the veracity of the 9/11 account should be given in the main article.

Indeed. This article is constantly monitored to ensure that conspiracy theories do not get mentioned. Nothing that even slightly opposes the official point of view makes it into this article. This is despite the fact that a large and growing number of people are demanding a new investigation into the events. As an example, by reading the discussion pages you can see that even the mere suggestion that something be said about the activies of the top US officials during the attacks is deemed to be conspiracy theory and not relevant to this article. That is only a single example of many. Anything even close to hinting a possible conspiracy, whether it directly implies it or not, is relegated to a separate article. Wikipedia's goal is NPOV? Has it succeeded? Not in this article. Wikipedia is a great resource. However, this article is a testiment to its shortcomings. Kevin77v 12:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It makes one wonder, how fragile must your own point of view be if you will not begrudge even the suggestion that there is another point of view? Oneismany 18:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

911 Spoof in new sketch comedy show

I seen an episode of a new show on the FUSE netowkr called The Whitest Kids You Know. In a segment named Trevor talks to kids, there is a 15 second part where the character, 'Trevor', implies to the kids in a classroom that the 911 attacks was a conspiracy and that President Bush worships satan. I am very outraged that this was brought up being 911 is nothing to joke about. There was a news article mentioning about the segment and people upset and angry over it. This sketch comedy group is way over the top. I figured it would be a good addition to this article. Maybe help them get off the air. --gchsbus 13:42, 05 April 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you raise the issue with the producers. Peter Grey 03:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

If there's so much fuss about conspiracies now, imagine what it would be like for your children's generation! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.213.198.142 (talk) 10:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

So? That's an argumentum ad populum "a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it; it alleges that "If many believe so, it is so." Mieciu K 11:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion into info box?

Wondering if at the bottom of the article we include any links or info to David Hicks? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.215.138.170 (talk) 04:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

Off topic. Peter Grey 04:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

uh, no.--Beguiled 21:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The Request for Correction

"NIST's implication that total and complete structural collapse and the destruction of the entire building following "collapse initiation" is unsupported by the laws of physics, logic, history, data, calculations, science of any kind, computer models, or physical models."

The Request for Correction --Lovelight 09:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• So? Do not use this page as a discussion forum. Each time a group of "researchers" publishes it's opinion we have to add that opinion to the September 11, 2001 attacks article? Mieciu K 13:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • What are you mumbling about? Isn't this the place to discuss the improvement of the most biased article in whole wikipedia? Where should one point to current events related to 911 attacks, here? Please, I'd like to discuss implementation of these new facts, I'd also like to discuss that new information made available through FOIA, you know, the one which describes why is the OFFICIAL ACCOUNT OF 9/11 FLIGHT CONTRADICTED BY GOVERNMENT'S OWN DATA. One thing at the time though. So please either provide a decent input, or don't provide anything at all. Oh, and do spare us all of the usual talk from the "usual suspects". No, these references are not better suited in the conspiracy theories article, no there are no other (valid and reputable) sources because mainstream media doesn’t dare to touch these issues. Anyway, we are living in the time when "official conspiracy" is challenged by everyone, time to recognize that fact? Or? Please, do share your opinions. 18:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

You're confusing "researchers" opinions with facts. Opinions are like, well you know...everyones got one. These opinions are better suited in the conspiracy theories article if they belong anywhere (which they don't really). RxS 18:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

So, to put it as vaguely as possible, those obviously misleading and deliberately misconstrued opinions of "researches" (whose work is in doubt) are OK, while the opinions of those who are asking for clarification are not. Have you read through the Request? It deserves a section you know, not to say that it goes along with that other "newly acquired" data, that is, those blueprints which leaked earlier this month. All of this is related, there is a whole wealth of new information. So, why wouldn’t we, for a change, start to improve this article? Anyway, I'm not sure why it needs to be pointed out, but you are confusing the issue here, "facts" are challenged (for a very long time now), so let's recognize that challenge, with regards to the NPOV and all that. Lovelight 18:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

This could find its way into Collapse of WTC article, but I doubt it will reach consensus. If NIST responds to this (hell they should), then it automatically gets there. Anyway, it's amazing how some give infinite belief to "opinions" by NIST researches and give no credence to other scientists who investigated the issue (those would be: [..]This Request for Correction (the “Request”) is being submitted by Bob McIlvaine, Bill Doyle, Dr. Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan, Richard Gage, AIA Architect, and Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice.). Their words are more than "opinions". Appeal to authority fallacy at work. Anyone to point exactly where is something wrong with the discussed document? SalvNaut 19:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Has it been published by a neutral third party source? Didn't Steven Jones get removed from his teaching position due to his unsubstantiated allegations?--MONGO 19:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

First, let's get this clear: Steven Jones did not get removed because of his scientific work. Secondly, this document can be attributed to a group of respectable scientists, some with great scientific account. This document could serve as a representation of the fact that not all scientists agree (a few does) with NIST report on scientific background. I doubt it will on Wikipedia. SalvNaut 19:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess it depends on how you define respectable, in any case this represents a tiny minority of opinion (much of which is held by people working outside their field of expertise) and is not mainstream nor notible enough for inclusion here. The conspiracy theories article is a good spot maybe. RxS 20:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Please, could you point me to a paragraph, where you do not agree with this document? Because if you find one, I can at least be sure that you have looked into it and have think about it. Then, we could discuss why do you call this type of document "opinion". SalvNaut 20:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Woohoo muchacho, some folks should ease down on that Occam, heavy stuff ;)… I'd suggest you use good old Organon instead. Say, RxS, SalvNaut already pointed to expertise, read it… I'm interested, this tiny minority of opinions? You are well aware of public polls, check the history of this talk page if you are uncertain, not to talk about petitions, there are countless petitions out there, would you like to see some? As for your point, we may move this to the controlled demolition article, but it won't end up in conspiracy. Decent folks who are asking serious and disturbing questions are not conspiracy theorists. We are talking about the concerned citizens here. The official take on events is disputed questioned & challenged. It's time for this article to reflect that fact. Lovelight 21:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

This document says two things 1)that only 1% of the steel was examined so conclusions cannot be reached from this and 2)the previous report was incorrect because estimated the temperatures reached to make them fit with the computer models. The logical conclusion to whoever has a respect for the coherence of the reality is that the gathering of steel for test was defective. This document says that 700 degrees would have been enough but that there is not physical evidence of such temperature having been reached. It is clear for everybody who applies the Ockam knife that the temperature was reached and that was the cause of the failure because the probability of the steel reaching 700 degrees is several orders of magnitude bigger than any other explanation. So is the typical document saying that we cannot be sure that the infinitely most probable thing was what happened, and that speculates that if we had had more physical evidence perhaps it would have pointed to near imposible things. Conspirationsim always ask for the benefit of doubt after rejecting tones of logical conclusions that deserve the benefit of evidence.

Whereever this document is placed, it must be as a footnote of the main report to make its conclusions slightly less conclusives but no much, since this one is not stating anything alternative thus the only logical conclusion stands unscathed--Igor21 20:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, we agree that gathering of the evidence was defective. What is exactly the basis for your conclusion that temperature and fire was the main cause for the collapse? "Ockam knife"? You have a random sample from a distribution you have no idea about and you claim that through Ockham razor you are able to identify its peak?? SalvNaut 20:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The fallacy of your reasoning comes from the fact that you attribute infinitely low probability to an event (collapse because of some other factors than plane hit and fire) without any justification (apart from the one in your head, in your beliefs, of course). SalvNaut 21:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I am not going to engage. It was only an statement. --Igor21 21:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The request itself is not encyclopedic (except in the pop culture sense within the context of the conspiracy theories article), although new conclusions from NIST or third parties could be. Peter Grey 22:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

---

Biased Article

Can someone please explain why the article fails to mention that some of the 'terrorists' have turned up in some middle eastern countries alive and well?

Can someone also explain why opinion is stated as fact. Scientific evidence is mounting up which suggests that a form of nuclear device was used to demolish the buildings?

There is also testimony to state that a shadow government had something to do with 9/11 and is infact merely an event used to gain control, in a similar way the Nazis plotted the Reichstag fire and gained control of Germany.

Please watch this video, open your mind and find the real truth for the sake of the people that died: [5].

If an encyclopedia and a propaganda video contradict each other, why do people suggest the encyclopedia is the one that's wrong? Peter Grey 21:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

You're at the wrong article, the one you want is 9/11 conspiracy theories--Mbc³⁶² 21:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Come back when you learn the meaning of the terms "reliable source of information" and "photomontage". Mieciu K 22:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

My point is that the article doesn't represent the fact that there are serious questions about the 9/11 story. No one knows the truth, all we have been told is a carefully crafted story(possibly). It is also wrong to put these doubts under a seperate conspiracy section, when there is more proof to say it was a set up than not.

It doesn't? It has a large conspiracy theory section with a large number of attendant articles. It has more than enough 'representation'. No, there's no proof whatsoever that there's a setup. There might be circumstantial evidence, but so far, the only proof I have is that some planes flew into some buildings and then they fell down. --Golbez 23:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

There are both serious and frivolous questions regarding the September 11 attacks. The serious questions are important, but none of them challenge the fundamentals of the narrative. Peter Grey 00:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

US Goverment Investigations

1. In the "Investigations" section, should not the paragraph about the 9/11 Commission precede the material about NIST and the collapse of the buildings? The latter is a more specific area of interest than the general investigation conducted by the 9/11 Commission, the lead investigative body appointed by the president and Congress. 2. I've added the review conducted by the CIA's IG (see talk page above). 3. There was also a FEMA investigation, which I think should be briefly mentioned and linked to here. --NYCJosh 02:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

TV shows handling of the attacks

How about a section or article on how different TV shows(e.g. The Daily Show) handled the attacks, because I always wondered did they ignore it, did they make fun of the President, what did they say and maybe what changed in the format of the shows, for example did they pause to remember the dead or did different advertisers stop showing ads on shows related to 9/11 because of fear that they would get associated with the negative stuff. I think this could make a good and worthy article. Jeffrey.Kleykamp 13:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

==FBI Web page does not list Usama bin Laden as responsible for the 9/11 Attacks++

Someone mentioned this to me and I didn't believe. However I checked the FBI's web page and they only list him as responisble for attacks against a U.S. Facility in the Middle East in 1998. Is there any particular reason he isn't listed as responsible for the 9/11 attack? Zachariahskylab 20:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Link to new public domain documentary

1.5 hour documentary convincingly arguing that the towers were demolished - worth watching (maybe :) http://educatedearth.net/video.php?id=2834

Well, yes, the towers were demolished. By planes. I just took a quick gander through that and it doesn't provide any evidence whatsoever. A convincing argument? Sure, if you're convinced by nothing. Like the bit at .. 28:10. The plane hit high, but the glass shattered low. Does that mean the controlled demolition was already happening? What? If it was, then why did the tower stand for another hour? Really, people, think. You've seen it, so please tell me the timestamp where it explains who installed explosives in 280 stories of office tower, and when it was performed. --Golbez 12:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok - convincingly is not the right word - anyway here is the critique to that film : http://www.911mysteriesguide.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Ubik (talk • contribs) 16:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

• Don't know where, but I think there is a virus somewhere under those links. Peter Grey 19:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

There is not - plz remove the warning (which is very vague indeed) The Ubik 11:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

No way to argue the logic of a relevant piece of material? Just add some FUD (Fear Uncertainty Doubt) and hope that scares most people away. Honestly Peter, somehow I expected better. I guess I should lower my expectations. Shame on you. (If I'm wrong, please provide a specific link) 65.94.183.246 01:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

9/11: Press for Truth

I'd like to interlink 9/11: Press for Truth to see also section, apparently there are some issues with such contribution. Please, state your concerns. Lovelight 21:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not relevant to the Sept 11 attacks. Just as Flat Earth Society isn't a "See Also" link on Ferdinand Magellan's page. Feel free to add it to a conspiracy theorytruther page. --Tbeatty 21:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

"9/11: Press for Truth is a 2006 documentary film about the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, directed by the American filmmaker Ray Nowosielski." There is not a single word about conspiracy there. So why would you won't to construct the conspiracy where there is none? I'm sorry but your allegory is extremely misplaced. Lovelight 22:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The flat earthers "document" the fallacy of the mainstream account of the round earth theory. It's just not relevant. I replaced conspiracy with truther if that's objectionable. --Tbeatty 22:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I've just realized, we are actually experiencing déjà vu… Well, I'd say that movie speaks of 9/11 attacks as well as of "Monitoring and criticising the 9/11 Commission", therefore it belongs here; it definitely doesn’t belong to the article about conspiracies. Decent people who are questioning 911 events are not conspiracy theorists (or truthers). If you would kindly point to this fallacy you've recognized with regards to the documentary? What exactly is wrong with asking questions and demanding factual answers? Not to say that the articles are already interlinked, just not on both sides. Please, elaborate your reasons with focus on this dispute, let's leave these notions about "flat earth" out of this. Lovelight 22:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear that it's a "truther" movie. Entertaining and interesting as a sideshow but not relevant to the 9/11 attacks. --Tbeatty 22:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

"Entertaining and interesting as a sideshow"? Perhaps you meant disturbing and relevant? "Truther"? That one is a bit new, at least to me… do we have an article about these truthers? Perhaps you have a valid point? Would you define a truther? Lovelight 22:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

• 9/11: Press for Truth is not about the attacks themselves, neither is it the usual conspiracy theory nonsense, it's about the obstruction of subsequent investigations. It would be relevant under the 9/11 Commission article. Peter Grey 00:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Its already there, we have a section on commission right here; I'm not certain why would one object to such tiny contribution? Especially so if you take a look at see also section as whole. What would be the reasoning behind the inclusion of Path to 9/11 or Freedom Tower or that Twin Towers stub? The link is applicable here and there, it serves as a descriptor of "mentioned" criticism, and we definitely need some balance here. btw, among other subjects, movie questions NORAD's performance as well as the fall of the towers, and I'm glad that you don’t see these issues as "usual conspiracy nonsense." Lovelight 01:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not certain why would one object[s]: the part about "9/11: Press for Truth is not about the attacks". More clutter will not benefit the article. Peter Grey 04:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, please, do provide some finer arguments, of course that press for truth is closely related to attacks, much closer than half of the links already provided in that section. We won't clutter anything with such itsy bitsy addition, if this is the reason for dispute, how are we to deal with more serious issues? Lovelight 11:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey Golbez, did you ravage through talk page once again? Why are you removing valid edits? Why are you removing edits from new contributors? Get a grip, control yourself. Lovelight 11:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Peter, you should be careful with these allegations of vandalism, you've pointed to archived discussion which validates my contribution. Would you like to add something to our previous debate? There is no room (or need) for misleading sentences (or blatant lies) in our encyclopedia. I've clarified that claim, citing exactly what's been stated in pointed references. I'm sorry if you find these facts disturbing, but facts are facts… Please, share any suggestions to improve that fallacy in some other fashion. Once again, restrain from silly and unfounded accusations. Please, don't revert without valid argument. Lovelight 17:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Little surprise that the frequently-discredited "Lovelight" is still trolling these pages. Wikipedia Admin should be ashamed that they continue to allow such an intellectual eunuch such unfettered ability to control this article. It discredits the Wiki concept. Carthago delenda est 02:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Collapse hypotheses

Golbez, I'm really not sure what's on your mind, but if we are to serve any purpose, any purpose at all; then we have to say it as it is. You know, what bothers me the most is this ridiculous tension? Have I ever contributed with anything but the facts? I'm assuming a good faith Peter (for a long, long time), but this is a bit weird. We're just citing the "reputable source", there is nothing beyond that, and there is nothing wrong with that. I'll revert to one of the yesterday's versions; it will be in plural, since the source speaks in plural (hypothes[e]s). I'd suggest you folks take a breath & relax. Again, there is nothing wrong with citing the source properly (however, it's clearly wrong to construct false statements), Golbez, try to understand, at this moment you are actually acting against consensus. Thanks. Lovelight 11:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't feign ignorance: you are the one knowingly opposing consensus, not to mention the NPOV policy and reality. The remaining hypotheses (because there was no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition) are identical at this level of detail. Peter Grey 11:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

…another thought on that consensus, because it seemed yesterday that Tom, you yourself as well as SalvNaut endorsed and/or improved proposed change… guess that looks can be deceiving and all that… I'm honestly puzzled about your concerns over this? & I'm patiently waiting. Lovelight 12:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Peter, during our somewhat fiery discussions we tend to say things that we don’t really mean… or things we soon regret… it's somewhat natural, but not necessary. There are more than few edits where I've responded inappropriately and I'd like to apologize for those. Now, would you kindly look at the source?

Here:

"Considerable progress has been made since that time, including the review of nearly 80 boxes of new documents related to WTC 7, the development of detailed technical approaches for modeling and analyzing various collapse hypotheses, and the selection of a contractor to assist NIST staff in carrying out the analyses. It is anticipated that a draft report will be released by early 2007."

It also states:

"This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation. NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse."

We are talking about citing of a source (properly), we are talking about building 7. Do say, who exactly is suggesting controlled demolition? As for this consensus, deliberately or not, we cannot have a consensus on lie. You know, NIST is quite clear about all this, more decent and honest than we are. Let me remind you what you already know: "But truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on Building No. 7". Now, what is wrong with stating these facts, these are known facts, already referenced, already cited elsewhere. Misinterpretation? You've said it vaguely there… Lovelight 12:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

First, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Second, what part of The remaining hypotheses... are identical at this level of detail. is confusing you? If you want to say there is more than one hypothesis, you have to indicate range of possibilities under consideration. That level of detail is better suited to the sub-articles. That's why consensus supports the original version, which is much clearer than the partial information you attempted to introduce. Peter Grey 15:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Back to step one, by omitting the word hypothesis, we are clearly implying that the building collapsed: "after being heavily damaged by debris from the Twin Towers when they fell." That is not what the source states, source states that this hypothesis is being examined along with others (blasts, included). So why are you talking about selections and pov? That said, we've already been through this, let me repeat, my only concern is word hypothesis, because we are talking about hypotheses. Do you understand how difficult it is to constantly restrain while you are accusing me of soap boxing, vandalism, ignorance… Do you? Please, recall our previous discussions… Please stick to the topic. Lovelight 15:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

One source not using the exact wording of the article is not proof that the statement is incorrect. You are the one trying to introduce a tangent on hypotheses. The previous discussion revealed that you did understand the meaning of hypothesis in context. Peter Grey 16:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

International charities

I believe we should a section dealing specifically with the charities ,esspecially international ones, should be added, such as Canadad Helps. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.131.241.8 (talk) 14:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

Cause of the collapse of WTC 7

I've looked through archive discussion and found no clear consensus on this topic. Since NIST is indicating that their scenario is only a hypothesis and they're investigating "hypothetical blast scenarios" (those not necessairly being blasts from controlled demolition), and since NIST is the strongest and most recent source on the cause of the collapse of WTC 7, the version proposed by Lovelight seems most appropriate. This version is also in agreement with section of Collapse of the World Trade Center. SalvNaut 20:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

John Kerry about WTC 7: "...they did it in a controlled fashion".

YouTube video:

"I do know that that wall, I remember, was in danger and I think they made the decision based on the danger that it had in destroying other things - that they did it in a controlled fashion."

I don't know how to approach this. It is a very disturbing statement from a known politician. However, he is not an expert. And the statement is secured with "I think" clause. SalvNaut 22:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Plus he was responding to a hypothetical; he did not acknowledge that demolition was actually what happened. Peter Grey 22:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought he meant they handled the evacuation of the building and the area around it in a controlled fashion. But that makes me some kind of crazy person. --Golbez 01:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

He said: "let me find out about it, I don't know enough about it" Lovelight 13:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

So it means nothing at all? Thanks for bringing this to our attention then, SalvNaut! --Golbez 14:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it means whole lot of things… for example; it means that people need to be better informed, especially some senators, it appears there is huge gap in knowledge… imo it’s a bit early to jump on this one, but as that quote suggest there is a high probability that we'll discuss this in future. Fact is, he thinks that building was brought down in "controlled fashion" (clear statement and popular opinion these days); but we need to wait since he says he'll need to find out about it, he doesn't know enough about it"… it's a bit like NIST's progress report, actually;)… Lovelight 15:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

he thinks that building was brought down in "controlled fashion" Wrong. He said that if there had been a deliberate demolition, that it would have been a responsible action since the building was already in danger of collapse. He was asked a hypothetical question, his answer is therefore an opinion without factual basis. He also explicitly repudiated the premise of the question. All it means is that John Kerry responded gracefully and non-commitally to a dishonest question. Peter Grey 16:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, again, he said: "let me find out about it, I don't know enough about it"; please, don't mistake a comment (as imo) for argument. Lovelight 16:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

don't mistake a comment...for argument Obviously this is comment - hence it does not contribute to the article. Peter Grey 16:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

RFC

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Lovelight. I'd like if some people would endorse or respond to this. --Golbez 15:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

To simply say that WTC7 was in danger of collapse must be verifeid by evidence showing a building in a state of near collapse. There is none. There is no evidence at all showing this building was in a state of near collapse. Therefore the statement appears to have been made to deliberately mislead. The building (WTC7) collapsed straight down through the path of maximum resistance at free fall speed. There has never been a plausible explanation to this event other than controlled demolition. Any person knowing that the controlled demolition was about to be initiated would say "the building is in danger of collapsing" knowing full well that demolition would soon follow. 203.97.127.35 22:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC) Kiwi9/11researcher

Wrong. Video shows that a large part of the penthouse of WTC7 collapsed into the building about 20 seconds before the rest of the building collapsed. The building also had fires on several, if not every floor. There was heavy structural damage from the collapse of the North Tower. The reason the article does not mention any of the things you write is because they are not true. Pablo Talk | Contributions 22:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Mainstream

The truth is now mainstream according to Michael Chertoff. --Striver - talk 21:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The truth that "we" are at war with al-Qaeda? I see nothing "conspiratorist" in that article. There's an implication that Brzezinski stated that the US government used the attacks to promote totalitarianism, but there is no implication that the government was aware of the attacks beforehand. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It's great Chertoff has clued in. It's been mainstream for everyone else since 11 September 2001. Peter Grey 23:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like nothing more than Chertoff trying to smear Brzezinski by attempting to link him to conspiracy theorists. Nothing that Brzezinski has ever said has ever been remotely close to such conspiracies. "There's an implication that Brzezinski stated that the US government used the attacks to promote totalitarianism, but there is no implication that the government was aware of the attacks beforehand" yep.--Jersey Devil 04:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theories Easily Refuted

I want to thank my friend Lovelight for one very important thing -- he is an excellent source for citations to refute the 9/11 conspiracy theorists. I say, give credit where credit is due -- thanks for this NIST site which easily dispels some of the common CT theories. Cheers.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 01:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Where?

Where is the article about President Bush and other adminstrations actions on 9/11? (like President Bush sitting in the schoolroom and flying around, and VP Cheney) There must be 100 links in this article, and I couldn't see one. Why is this info so hard to find? Thank you kindly. Babalooo 04:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

See 9/11 conspiracy theories for pet goats and more.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 05:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Morton is expressing a consensus view. A number of interesting facts about the day of 9/11 (such as the response of GWB and his flights around the country) have come to be associated with "conspiracy theories" and relegated to articles that deal with "myths". It's too bad, and some of us are working on it. You can always try to include a section on the movements of Airforce One or the role of Dick Cheney on that day and see what happens. I'm afraid it will be difficult. Some of us are trying to change that, but we have not been very successful so far.--Thomas Basboll 06:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The actions of President Bush and VP Cheney on 9/11 were part of a bad conspiracy Mr. Devonshire? Is that what you say? You and others must think so since you are trying to hide what they did and not did on 9/11 and 9/12 by without having an article. I think they were only incompetent, not part of a plot so I am a better American and supporter than you and I'm not even American! The truth will set you free Mr. Devonshire. Don't hide what they did and not did on 9/11 and 9/12 under the rug. Babalooo 06:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Have you seen this Mr. Devonshire? It's all documented. [6] What about President Bush saying he watches the plane hit the tower on TV? What about him sitting in the chair for so long while America was being attacked? Mr. Baseball, could I start an article about 'Actions of top US officials on 9/11 and the next few days'? Babalooo 07:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

There is an article on the car that Atta rentaled but not on the actions of top US officials on 9/11! [7] That is funny. Babalooo 07:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the article you propose is in order. Like I say, be prepared for some rather tough (to my mind excessive) opposition. I think the title better read "Defense operations on 9/11" or something of that order. If that gets to be too big, we can always spin articles out later. You may want to start something in your sandbox (drop me a link and I'll gladly have a look at it). The facts you mention can, as far as I know, easily be documented in accordance with WP policy. Because of the tone here, I'm staying out of article space these days. BTW, it's Basboll but, yes, I get that all the time. Happy editing.--Thomas Basboll 07:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Not defense operations, but actions of top USA officials on 9/11 and the difference between what happened and what they say that happened. Do you know Mr. Andy Card and others said that President Bush left the room as soon as they told him about the attack? He said this too many times. The teacher said that too. Why would they lie like that? They must not have knew that there was the videotape of President Bush sitting in the chair for ever and longer while his country was being attacked. It's like Pat Tillman. Too many lies. Babalooo 07:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how this can be related to conspiracy theories; if Bush wasn't ready, then he clearly wasn't part of any conspiracy. And certainly there's no ignoring Bush's wholesale inability to cope with the single most fundamental responsibility of his job. Peter Grey 12:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

You're right, the government response to 9/11 (including Bush's first moments) doesn't belong in a "conspiracy theory" article, that just makes no sense. However, don't we have a timeline article with this information in detail? --Golbez 14:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Some of the relevant facts are mentioned in the time line in passing. But that doesn't mean we can't write a bit of prose to explain the issue to a reader that doesn't have time to read through the whole thing.--Thomas Basboll 16:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I would just like to request that User:Babalooo stop inserting this material into the leads of articles related to this topic. Not only is it disruptive, and violates WP:NPOV to insert such material into the lead, but virtually all of your mainspace edits have consisted of this. We understand you have an opinion, but this is not the place to be pushing it. --Haemo 04:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I will start an article as soon, but these things are too important to not be in the article on 9/11 attacks, like President Bush reading and talking and making pictures for 12 to 18 minutes while people were dying and jumping 100 floors and burning to death. And then the lies by top administrations one year later lying that he left the room right away as soon as they told him. These are lies. Proved lies. He sat and talked and made pictures for 12 to 18 minutes. These lies are a conspiracy to make him seem better. Calling this proofs "nonsense" and I think you are a conspiracy theorist for President Bush and his partners. Where should these proofs go until I make the article? Thank you to not insult me again. Babalooo 05:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

There seem to be two extreme viewpoints which both strike me as excessive. The introduction is clearly not appropriate for this item, and editorial comment is really not necessary. However, the major actions taken (or inacation in this case), which are mostly spelled out at September 11, 2001 timeline for the day of the attacks, are maybe a little too understated in this article. Little George's deer-in-the-headlights moment (I know 7 minutes is confirmed, there may be sources supporting a longer duration) certainly qualifies as notable reaction. Peter Grey 06:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

He didn't insult you in the first place, and what article will you be making? As for where it goes, I don't know, find a place, but certainly not the intro. --Golbez 08:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

You claim that it took Bush took 12-18 minutes to leave the room. That's wrong, it took seven minutes. If the people who claim Bush left the room right away are liars, what does that make you? Pablo Talk | Contributions 21:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong too. Look here. It has all the proofs. [8] President Bush after the reading about the goats talked to many children also the teacher and the headmistress and reporters more before going to the room with the other top officials. I will make my own article. You may not worry about this one. Babalooo 22:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

If you make an article containing the information on that page to which you linked I will just edit the page so that it contains none of that garbage. Remember, we should be providing facts. Pablo Talk | Contributions 01:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is super - first of all, it's good that you're going to start an article about this, and put this material there; perhaps some of the other, already existing, articles might welcome it. However, that still doesn't excuse adding this material to the lead of other articles - that violates WP:NPOV, and is disruptive. Furthermore, I would ask that you restrain yourself and cease the name-calling. First of all, I never called what you said "nonsense", nor did I insult you. I have been entirely civil here, and I don't appreciate being accused of things I didn't do. On the other hand, you have leveled baseless charges of being uncivil at me, and proceeded to call me a "conspiracy theorist for President Bush", despite having no evidence of that. That's not civil, nor it is it in good faith, and so, I would like you to cease this name-calling entirely. If you're not willing to discuss this reasonably, I don't think we can work together on this topic. --Haemo 21:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I will make my own article on 'actions and lies of top USA officials on 9/11 and later'. You may not worry from me with this on this attack article for now. I am sorry if you were not the person who called me nonsense. It was maybe one of the others who called me it. I am sorry if you are not a conspiracy theorist and coverup for President Bush like the others. Babalooo 22:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your apology - I would be happy to help you with your article, when you make it. Just post here to tell us about it. --Haemo 00:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Supressed information Alert

How do we as a wiki-comunity deal with the fact that groups and/or individuals systematically are:

• Trying to supress and delete information about alternativ point of views (APOV)
  
• Trying to promote one point of view as the only and real truth
  

Just look at the September 11, 2001 attacks-article in the light of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and this becomes clear. I know there's a 9/11 conspiracy theories-article, but as a main page the September 11, 2001 attacks-article is not meeting the standard at any point.

• It would help to state (briefly) what alternative points of view you're referring to. There are several. Peter Grey 16:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  

Briefly: From serious questions about the US defences handling of the attacks, to a belife that the attacks were an US inside job promoting an hidden agenda. --Geir 16:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Explanation of the neutral point of view

The neutral point of view

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.

As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. It is a point of view that is neutral – that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject.

Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from stating which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate. When bias towards one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed.

Extract from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view--Geir 07:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Implications of NPOV for the article

9/11 conspiracies have no basis in fact, which is why they are largely excluded from articles such as this one. The only fact associated with the "Truth" Movement is the fact that it exists. Any extensive inclusion into this article is giving undue weight to the CTers. Pablo Talk | Contributions 08:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, basically I could say the same about the official story, but that's not my point. My point is that the 911-article totally lacks a neutral point of view and the information necessary for the readers to form their own opinion.--Geir 10:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

If you want to have this stuff inserted into the article, find me well-respected structural engineers and well-respected demolitions experts that support the "Truth Movement." That will be quite a task, as those people don't exist. Pablo Talk | Contributions 10:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it won't fit in your pre-securing definition of "well-respected", but you may want to have a look at these: [9] [10] SalvNaut 07:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

This article is about historical facts, not viewpoints. NPOV does not mean balancing reality with fantasy. Now, many people are very emotional about the topic (a reflection of people, not the subject matter), and there are viewpoints that are hard to separate from the historical narrative, and of course the article, like every article in Wikipedia, could probably be better. But some people holding a view does not make it encyclopedic - some people are simply (and demonstrably) wrong. Peter Grey 16:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

"NPOV does not mean balancing reality with fantasy." Well said. --Haemo 21:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Terrible (lack of) response by Air Force, completely irrational behavior of the president and special forces protecting him, confusion of traffic controllers somehow causing the sophisticated scrambling system to fail, surveillance of the terrorists that failed to stop them ("Able Danger"), very poorly explained (if at all) collapse of WTC1&2, to this day not explained collapse of WTC 7 - this is not fantasy. SalvNaut 07:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

And your evidence is...? Physical, please. Show me who and when 280 stories of office tower were wired for controlled demolition. As for the lack of response, do you think they keep fighter jets at combat-ready status 24/7? Failure to stop does not mean they were involved, so that's out. Traffic controllers got confused? So? What does that have to do with the price of tea in china? It is very much fantasy, because for all your words, you can't back a single one up with a concrete fact. --Golbez 10:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't speaking about conspiracy theories but these facts exactly - a major defence failure, and a failure in investigating the case properly. This could be documented in this article.

Then why did you bring up the "poorly explained" collapses? C'mon, don't change your story halfway through. --Golbez 22:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't. They are poorly explained and few non-conspiracy theories exist as well as conspiracy ones.[11][12] [13] NIST report is based on circular reasoning and disproves itself with few real-world experiments that were made. Most important computer simulations were not released to public domain.[14] If you are aware of any good explanation of the WTC 7 collapse, preferably a one that does not include phrases "low probability of occurrence" or "working hypothesis", please give me a link. SalvNaut 22:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Before supplying a set of links as source, consider the fact that someone is probably going to check them. Cherepanov's article is about the progress of the collapse after it had started - it's only concerned with how, not why, a level of detail not addressed in this article, and basically only makes the unremarkable observation that the speed of sound in steel is faster than free fall acceleration over the distances in question. Results of the (identical) Google searches support the conventional storyline or consider the fires in isolation from the structural damage of the aircraft impacts, and the request for correction only states opinions on administrative procedures. Peter Grey 00:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

This is great that you've checked them. I don't know why are you attacking my position. My point was clearly to show that although there are few theories those are contesting theories (Cherepanov vs Bazant, Torero vs NIST, and petition to NIST) and WTC exact collapse cause and mechanism is far from scientific consensus. Cherepanov makes the observation: The collapse in the regime of progressive failure is shown to occur at an acceleration, which is several times less than the gravitational acceleration and, hence, this theory contradicts to the observed free fall. and he proposes different theory to explain it than Bazant. One of them has to be wrong. There was a discussion about this under Talk:Collapse of WTC and I think you've taken part in it. There were attempts to add this information about engineers dissent once to Collapse of WTC article but this sparkled latest argument between Mongo and Thomas Basboll.

Petition to NIST questions scientific soundness of the NIST report. I can't see how could you interpret that as "opinions in administrative procedures". Bad science is no science. SalvNaut 09:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Then, since you've begun an argument: the "preparation" because neither me, nor you (i suppose) have prepared something like this. The technology to remotely detonate is there. There was "unprecedented" major power outage during the weekend before 9/11 (witness interview), and strange constructions occurring in the towers before.[15] Yes, they do keep some fighter jets ready 24/7. There were standard FAA intercept procedures for hijacked aircraft before 9/11. Between September 2000 and June 2001 the US military launched fighter aircraft on 67 occasions to chase suspicious aircraft (AP, August 13 2002).[16] Strange coincidence that "war games" were conducted on 9/11 that involved planes being flown away, radar blips inserted. Controllers got confused - exactly: so what? NORAD has their own ability to track planes even with their transponders turned off (coast track). Amazingly, controllers' confusion was enough to disturb the whole air security chain and allow a plane to fly for 40min and struck Pentagon. This itself might not prove a conspiracy, but it shows very incompetence, and this could be documented. Then, there is more to it. I wonder if you can back up every of your beliefs regarding that day. SalvNaut 12:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, traffic controllers were confused. Fighters were scrambled to intecept Flight 11 about a half-hour after it had already crashed. Pablo Talk | Contributions 20:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The technology to do a lot of things exists, that doesn't say they were used. And by the way - to scramble an aircraft, based on what I know (I could be wrong) takes an hour. How long did it take in this situation? You're right, none of this is either proof nor evidence of a conspiracy, and I have no problem with you mentioning it - but you keep wanting to bundle it with conspiracy stuff. The burden of proof is on you, not me. The facts of that day have never been proven or even shown false; the conspiracy theories of that day have never been proven or even shown true. All you have is vague circumstantial evidence, complete non-sequitors (the 'existence of the technology' must mean it was used, right?), and eyewitness similes. --Golbez 22:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

".right?" No. I do not want to bundle conspiracy stuff here. Only facts, like those gathered in Paul Thompson's 9/11 Complete Timeline. However, for some reason, unknown to me, this common effort of many journalists was decided to be an "unreliable" source. Anyway, further discussion is pointless, without an edit proposed. SalvNaut 23:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Question: How are we as a community to handle:
Topics where one persons facts is another persons fictions, and the other persons facts are the first persons fictions?
As I see it, this is the case here.. --Geir 19:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)09:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Facts versus conspiracy theories

It's important to distinguish actual facts from disinformation and conclusions. Clearly there was a defence failure, at least one official (Condoleeza Rice) is known to have been at least negligent, and Bush and Cheney did obstruct subsequent investigations. The problem is the leap to implicating Little George and/or others in spectacular crimes defying logic, common sense, the evidence, physics, and the alleged motives. Facts may or may not be suitable in the article, hysterical superstition definitely is not. Peter Grey 18:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It's important to distinguish facts from their interpretations. In my post I felt entitled to defend my stance, when attacked. I feel uncomfortable with my post serving here as an example, so I'll move it back on it's place. SalvNaut 21:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for a (slightly) longer paragraph on conspiracy theories

Hi. A discussion elsewhere has raised the possibility that this article could and should have a slightly better summary of the conspiracy theories surrounding the event. I am interested in the possibility of drafting such. Of course, I know how controversial this will be, and so I am putting it up here so we can discuss it. Depending on the reaction I may work on a suggested draft in the section below. Meantime if anyone else feels they can come up with a form of words that will satisfy policy and consensus, please feel free to suggest. --Guinnog 22:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Draft

So, here's my suggested draft, combining what we have with the lead of the CT article:

Main article: 9/11 conspiracy theories

Various conspiracy theories have emerged, as a reaction to the attacks, that question the mainstream account.

The theories typically include suggestions that individuals in (or associated with) the government of the United States knew of the impending attacks and refused to act on that knowledge.

Some conspiracy theorists have claimed that the collapse of the World Trade Center was the result of a controlled demolition. Published reports by structural engineers do not support the controlled demolition hypothesis. U.S. officials, mainstream journalists, and mainstream researchers have concluded that responsibility for the attacks and the resulting destruction rests solely with Al Qaeda.

Comments - draft conspiracy theories paragraph

Comments? --Guinnog 23:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

1. Looks good to me. I thought that section was too short. --Haemo 23:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
2. Disagree. The article is about a broad, complex subject matter, and from time to time substantially more important topics are suggested as deserving of greater treatment. The treatment of conspiracy folklore is adequate for the level of detail of the main article. Peter Grey 23:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
3. Works for me. Covers the conspiracy theories but hints that they are total crap. I might also add that controlled demolitions experts don't agree with the Contolled Demolition Hypothesis. Pablo Talk | Contributions 00:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
4. Change :"The theories typically include suggestions that individuals in (or associated with) the government of the United States knew of the impending attacks and refused to act on that knowledge. Some conspiracy theorists have claimed that the collapse of the World Trade Center was the result of a controlled demolition. Published reports by structural engineers do not support the controlled demolition hypothesis.[2] U.S. officials, mainstream journalists, and mainstream researchers have concluded that responsibility for the attacks and the resulting destruction rests solely with Al Qaeda.[3]" to "Conspiracy theories surrounding the events suggest that the U.S. Government was involved in some way and that controlled demolition destroyed all or some of the buildings. However, the evidence clearly indicates that the responsibility for the attacks and the resulting destruction rests solely with Al Qaeda[3], and that civil engineers have found no evidence of a controlled demolition.[2]"--MONGO 05:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
5. I like MONGO's version better. It correctly stresses that these conspiracy theories are baseless. Pablo Talk | Contributions 06:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Pablo and Mongo, that is a good idea if you want to stress that your point of view (POV) is the correct one. If you want to attain a neutral point of view (NPOV), I would have choosen other words. --Geir 08:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no objective analysis of facts that leads to anything other than the official version. Pablo Talk | Contributions 08:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I checked your userpage Pablo -it looks like you hava an agenda against alternativ points of view (APOV) on this subjeckt. Right? Geir 10:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

My userpage doesn't say anything about conspiracy theories. The only "agenda" I have is that I like to keep people from inserting cruft into articles. Pablo Talk | Contributions 18:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I miss these links in the conspiracy theories section: The wiki-pages 9/11 Truth Movement and Scholars for 9/11 Truth. Could we have: "Se also.."? Geir 10:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

1. no rewirte that includes details of the various conspiracy theories should be in the article. It is the camels nose in the tent. The paragraph should be about the phenomonenon of conspiracy theories surrounding the event, not the theories themselves. Something like 'A few people continue to believe that the attacks were not carried out by the 19 terrorist murderers hijacking 4 jetliners. Those people are wrong.' only with more references and flowery language. --Tbeatty 09:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much my sentiments overall...I figure once they have an inch, they'll want a mile. If it is mentioned in more detail, it needs to be made pretty clear that the issues have zero basis in facts.--MONGO 09:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand your "camels nose in the tent"-consern. But until the editors here comprehend that the people questioning the mainstream-version are not few, this articel will fail to provide balanced information for the readers. Geir 10:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Then let us hope after reading this article, they'll become better educated.--MONGO 10:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Revised draft

I take Guinnog's citations of his sources as true, though I will verify them later.

Main article: 9/11 conspiracy theories

Various conspiracy theories have emerged, as a reaction to the attacks, that question the mainstream account, which typically include suggestions that individuals in (or associated with) the government of the United States knew of or planned the impending attacks. These theories are not accepted as credible by the military, scientific and political communities, who have determined that responsibility for the attacks and the resulting destruction rests solely with Al Qaeda.

Some conspiracy theorists have claimed that the collapse of the World Trade Center was the result of a controlled demolition. Published reports by structural engineers reject this hypothesis.

Thoughts? Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The only thing about this version is it is alluding to the LIHOP (Let it happen theory)...but some conspiracy theorists believe in that the MIHOP (Make it happen) theory...so I tried to eliminate both and just say that the government was involved according to CTer's. I didn't mention shawdoy figures in association with the government since we are still talking about the governement having foreknowledge or involvement in some way or another as a central believe of the majority of the CTer's...few if any CTer's believe that there wasn't government involvement at some level. I prefer to see no more than what we have since I think once we start adding more about this, then that won't be enough...in time the article will have more and more CT stuff. The daughter articles is the best place to put all but a short intro about that stuff.--MONGO 18:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Review my most recent change, which presents the fact that conspiracy theorists believe in both Let and Made it happen, but actually shortens the paragraph. I would oppose any addition past this "see also" section. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yup...better...maybe simply..."that the government of the United States knew of or planned the attacks."--MONGO 18:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

So far, I think this is the best suggestion, though I'd want to tweak it a little. May I suggest this?

Main article: 9/11 conspiracy theories

Various conspiracy theories have emerged as a reaction to the attacks, typically suggesting that individuals within the government of the United States knew of or planned the impending attacks. Additionally, some conspiracy theorists have claimed that the collapse of the World Trade Center was the result of a controlled demolition. These theories are not accepted as credible by the military, scientific and political communities, who have determined that responsibility for the attacks and the resulting destruction rests solely with Al Qaeda.
--Mbc³⁶² 18:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It's fine, aside from the link to the 9/11 Truth Movement...I see no reason to give THAT group more publicity over other CTer's.--MONGO 19:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize it was a specific group, I thought it was the movement as a whole - I've removed it from my draft.--Mbc³⁶² 19:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The Truth-movment is not a specific group [17] Geir 19:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Too long in my view, but more importantly, solely is a very strong statement that is probably excessive. A lot of conspiracy theory 'logic' is based on the leap from 'someone could have done better' to 'US government 100% responsible'. Plus it seems the meaning is carried out by Al Qaeda operatives, a little different from responsibility. Peter Grey 19:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I think your moving in a good direction for attaing a more NPOV here. Geir 20:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

That is good Mr. Mongo. Qué Chévere! 20:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer my suggested "concluded" in place of "determined", as I think it sounds more scientific, rather than the legalistic sound of "determined", which makes me think of the health warning on tobacco products in the U.S. Overall though, I am very pleased with the progress here, and I thank Hipocrite, both for suggesting this improvement and for implementing a reasonably NPOV and consensus version of it. The article is incrementally improved by the work done. Thanks to all who contributed. --Guinnog 19:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, nice improvements. Though I still miss the link to the 9/11 Truth Movement-article, which is a broad aproach to this phenomenon. And I agree with the "concluded" choice above. Geir 21:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Are journalists part of the political community? Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe. Would you and Tbeatty be able to discuss your changes here, as I think a consensus was reached on the wording of that paragraph? Thanks. --Guinnog 14:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Did that above. Got consensus to change it. --Tbeatty 15:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Really? Where? --Guinnog 19:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I can see the removal of "Additionally, some conspiracy theorists have claimed that the collapse of the World Trade Center was the result of a controlled demolition.", but I am struggling to see the consensus for the removal. --Guinnog 15:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I think my edit reflects the consensus above, which is heavily qualified. I think too that my comment about journalists was not addressed before the change was made to the article. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I've got no problem with Tom's edit, but Tbeatty's is unacceptable in my opinion.--Mbc³⁶² 16:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The only difference was Tom's addition of the U.S. government knowledge. This doesn't take into account conspiracy theories that accuse Israel of carrying out the attacks. Here's the diff [18] --Tbeatty 16:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, but I am well aware of the differences. Your version introduced the section with "Various conspiracy theories have emerged in the aftermath of the attacks. Typically they suggest that various individuals or groups knew of or planned the attacks," which is basically stating the obvious - of course various individuals or groups knew of or planned the attacks, 9/11 didn't happen by accident. That's the problem I have with your edit; you made it so broad that even Al Qaida would fit in the definition.--Mbc³⁶² 17:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

My concern was limiting to U.S. government as there are conspiracy theories involving most western coutries as well as Israel. --Tbeatty 19:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

You have (again) made the opening sentence so broad that not only is it useless, but its logically incorrect. If the official story is that Al Qaida planned and carried out the attacks, every theory that someone else was behind it or allowed it to happen would be a conspiracy theory. Therefore, its pointless to say "various conspiracy theories have emerged as a reaction to the attacks, typically suggesting that individuals outside of the terrorist organization Al Qaeda knew of or planned the attacks." The word "typically" was included originally so that the reader would know that not all CTs involved the US gov. Its illogical to say that the CTs typically involve other groups than Al Qaida, as every CT must involve other groups than Al Qaida. The CT that the US gov. was being the attack was included because it is by far the most prevalent theory; CTs about Israel are far less common, and CTs about other governments are practically nonexistent.--Mbc³⁶² 19:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

In the ME, most of the conspiracy theories center on Israel. There is certainly one of those that was popular here when it was circulated that a numer of jewish people called in sick. No conspiracy theory is any more valid than any other so discounting some or favoring others shouln't happen in this article. Put it in the conspiracy article. --Tbeatty 22:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

You know very little about these particular conspiracy theories, and you speak with such confidence about them - it is not polite, nor it is wise. The story you mention is soo old and was since then debunked mostly by people from the Truth Movemnt. Maybe you should do some research on the topic before? Here, please read this article published in a Jewish magazine - it might give you some introduction. Also take a look at this Muslim-Jewish-Christian organization. And your statement is quite nutty: no conspiracy theory is any more valid than any other - well in very definition the official story is a conspiracy theory. SalvNaut 23:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

We are not going to be a messageboard for the 9/11 Truth Movement. The fact that there are numerous conspiracy theories regarding these events is well established.--MONGO 04:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

All of the theories have been debunked. Heck, half of the theorists accuse the other theorists of being involved in the conspiracy asa false flag operation. If we are only going to list the non-debunked Conspiracy Theories, we would have no section at all. But the reality is that if you ask the people of the world whose primary source of news is Al Jazeera, they will implicate Israel in the attacks. That conspiracy theory belief is probably held by more total persons than any of the U.S. centric theories. --Tbeatty 06:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not discounting any theory, I'm simply saying what theory seems to be the most prevalent. You have (yet again) changed the opening sentence to one that says basically nothing. You might as well just write "Various conspiracy theories have emerged as a reaction to the attacks." since the rest of the sentence gives no useful information beyond stating the obvious. As far as "Put it in the conspiracy article" goes, I'm not even sure what you mean. Put what in the conspiracy article?--Mbc³⁶² 23:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It was a poor edit, a really silly thing to say, and I still don't see the consensus you said you established for it. --Guinnog 04:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Most prevalent in what sense? There are no experts that hold the views of any conspiracy theories so "most prevalent" is without meaning. There is a whole article that explores the various conspiracy theories. There is no reason to single any of them out. Controlled Demolition isn't any more likely or scientific than energy weapons or alien attack. The theories implicating the U.S. government aren't any more credible than the theories that implicate France or Israel. Therefore the statement in this article should be short and without prejudice. You can explore the U.S. Government theories as well as the controlled demolition theories in the 9/11 conspiracy theories article. That is the appropriate place to explore who holds what beliefs and why. --Tbeatty 06:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Tbeatty, please do not edit the comments of other users. Where was that consensus you said you had established? --Guinnog 16:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks. If you cannot see the consensus, then no answer I provide can help you. --Tbeatty 16:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Tbeatty, you have been asked not to edit the comments of other users, please heed this request. Furthermore, as the comment was directed solely at your edit, not at you personally, it does not constitute a personal attack. If you refuse to show us where the consensus is for your edit, I see no reason why I should let it stand.--Mbc³⁶² 18:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Tbeatty I think, there are lot's of different theories, there's no reason to imply that there is only one group that CT'ers single out...RxS 19:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

A new section

1. What you say they think is true. Proof is the secret paper President Bush read in Texas. The USA Government knew some attacks were on the way soon with airplanes maybe. Is there an article on that paper? It was on Aug 6? Is that paper told about in this article? Qué Chévere! 00:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Dude, this isn't the place for this. We're talking about this section - how does your comment have any relevance to this, at all? --Haemo 01:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

"The theories typically include suggestions that individuals in (or associated with) the government of the United States knew of the impending attacks" [19] "Bin Laden determined to strike in US" They did know. That is why. Qué Chévere! 01:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Please stop making disruptive edits in this section. Pablo Talk | Contributions 01:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Nothing I write is disruptive. You just change one word and the proof is true. The words are bad. " individuals in (or associated with) the government of the United States knew of the impending attacks and forgot to act on that knowledge." He should change that part. Qué Chévere! 02:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to let people know, Que Chevere is Babalooo. --Golbez 01:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I said so. Qué Chévere! 01:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you kindly not do this? It's very disruptive, and doesn't help at all. --Haemo 01:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

What are you writing of? The words are not so good to me Qué Chévere! 02:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay. We are talking about writing a new paragraph for this section. You are talking about unrelated matters, which don't have to do with the paragraph, or how it is written. This is disruptive, since it doesn't add anything to the discussion. Now, do you have anything to say about the paragraph? --Haemo 02:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Some people had some information - that much has been known for a long time independently of conspiracy theory speculation. It takes more than isolated bits of truth slipping out to validate the whole conspiracy theory phenomenon. Note "forgot" is really hard to prove but is included under negligence. Peter Grey 02:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but we're not discussing this, nor are we trying to "discredit" anyone. We're talking about adding a short paragraph to flesh out this section. However, some people appear to have taken this as an invitation to air whatever views they think even remotely relate to this topic. It's not helping, and it's not productive. Please stop, or get back on topic. This isn't an "aside" since we're not arguing about this. I'm not arguing about this, and no one else is - only some people have decided to bring this up. This isn't relevant, and I'm not going to be drawn into this. I also object to refactoring this talk page discussion in this way. --Haemo 02:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is what I think is better. "individuals in (or associated with) the government of the United States knew exactly all the plans of the impending attacks and refused to act on that knowledge in a plot". I write this for "individuals in (or associated with) the government of the United States knew of the impending attacks" is perfectly all true not a conspiracy theory so it should not be written into the conspiracy theory. When it is others can think this "individuals in (or associated with) the government of the United States knew nothing at all of the impending attacks" Qué Chévere! 03:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, this is more relevant - but you're pushing a particular point of view, which should be argued on the linked article, not here. We're just trying to give a brief summary of the other article's lead here - we leave the serious content discussion for the other article's talk page. --Haemo 04:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Please keep this in it's own special section. Thanks. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why you move what I write. They were about Guinnogs words. Qué Chévere! 20:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't understand this either. This is a discussion about the new section - it's not a new section, and we've been able to get back on track here, after a short disagreement. It's just confusing to move it like this. --Haemo 21:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

molten metal

im sure someone somewhere has explained this, it may even be in the article, but im a busy man and dont have time to read it 18 times (every time its changed). what was the explanation for the pools of molten metal that stayed super-hot for days or weeks after the attacks underground? i thought that the steel wouldnt melt in the fires, due to the fact that the burning temperature of the jet fuel/ paper was not hot enough to melt steel, let alone keep it melted and very hot for weeks afterwards...one more thing - the largest support beams, according to some people should not have been wasted all the way to the ground...they should have been still standing, at least partially, from what i understand. 10 bucks says this ends in bloodshed 17:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

If you have questions like this, they probably belong at the reference desk WP:RD. RxS 05:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, we're not really all that good at fielding questions, because that would be really, really time consuming and take away from our editing. But there are resources for it, if you want to ask. --Haemo 06:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

proof

its useless to try and get anything that is not "official" on to wikipedia. if it is not produced by the government, it isnt "official". if we can only get "official" information from the government, how can we ever show an alternative view? one that does not coincide with the governments or directly implicates the government? i dont know how to express this without being blasted with hate mails.....10 bucks says this ends in bloodshed 04:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Because that's why we have a dozen conspiracy pages - because they aren't approved by the government. --Golbez 04:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

We have lots of stuff that isn't official. For instance, 9/11 conspiracy theories is pretty much entirely about non-official theories. Using only official theories kind of defeats the purpose of this encyclopedia. --Haemo 06:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

That was my point. I don't know if you were responding to the original statement, or if you missed my sarcasm. --Golbez 06:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, yes I was replying to the original. --Haemo 07:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Why are you trying to convince us? Find notable scientists and engineers that have published these alternative theories in peer reviewed journals. --Tbeatty 06:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me add on to Tbeatty's comments. Find a structural engineer. There are plenty of misguided electrical engineers and such that attempt to pass themselves off as experts who believe in conspiracy theories. Pablo Talk | Contributions 07:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

There are at least a few structural engineers that have doubts [20]. Yes there are many "misguided" PhD's, like Swiss structural engineer, who concluded that the building WTC 7 was with great probability demolished. Here is interesting few words about structural engineers involved in the collapse analysis. That's not to say that a publication by a structural engineer wouldn't be a breakthrough. SalvNaut 12:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I should have been more clear. I meant find a structural engineer who has provided a reliable source, such as a peer-reviewed journal article. Pablo Talk | Contributions 20:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

ok, guys.. i dont understand...your giving me references to this stuff (thanks), but none of it is in the article. if you found it, why is it up to me to put it on there? or you dont consider this good enough or what? i dunnah, man this place is pretty f*cked up 10 bucks says this ends in bloodshed 16:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

None of those are reliable sources, and the scientists have all failed to publish in peer-reviewed journals because their beliefs don't hold up against scientific rigor. These types of theories that are largely discredited by experts are detailed in 9/11 conspiracy theories and Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center--Dcooper 16:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

They aren't in this article because they don't belong to it. They're in the many other articles specifically on the conspiracy theories. --Golbez 19:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

when you say that these theories are largely discredited by experts....which experts? government experts? how long will this circle-jerk go on for? your becoming redundant; popular mechanics etc. are a part of almost every theory, tools of the government...i quit 10 bucks says this ends in bloodshed 01:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess if you consider all experts you disagree with to me tools of the government, then you'll never be happy with this, or probably any other, article on this topic. --Haemo 05:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's see, in this section alone you have said it's "useless to try", you expect us to "blast you with mails", you call this place "pretty f*cked up", and you now call it a "circle-jerk". It seems you're just in this to insult Wikipedia and its editors; is that all? --Golbez 20:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh don't be so harsh. This place is to be seen by many as pretty f****d up, still it is one of the best places on the Internet. If I understand, 10 bucks is making a point, in his language (which happens not to be used on Wikipedia, and that's good), that many before him were making. That this article does not reflect true feelings of quite significant amount of people, and not only common people but also journalists, scholars, some politicians. There are many journalist sources from which balancing phrases could be taken. There is a book by Bob Woodward "State of Denial" in which there is clearly shown that Bush administration ignored (at least) many highest level warnings about 9/11 coming, there is a Complete 9/11 Timeline by Paul Thompson, there are many articles in smaller newspapers.

I would actually propose an edit but I am quite busy recently, and I see what is happening when a cosmetic change to Conspiracy Theories section is proposed, I just don't feel it's worth the time.

By the way, how about using this article as a source to the conspiracy theories section: 22% Believe Bush Knew About 9/11 Attacks in Advance. SalvNaut 23:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you mean [....and not only (a minority of) common people but also (a tiny minority of) journalists, (a tiny minority of) scholars, some (a tiny minority of) politicians]. RxS 05:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Article still an embarrasment to wikipedia

Contrary to all wikipedia precdents, wikipedia rules and basic logic, the word 'terrorist' still appears in the lead-in. Given that the term has no universally agreed upon definition, its nothing more than an insult. You may as well be calling al qaeda "pooh pooh heads".

Furthermore, the official story is given almost universal coverage whilst alternative theories are deliberately sidelined. It doesn't matter who is right or wrong from the perspective of wikipedia - in fact determining such would be original research. The fact is that very significant minority (and in some countries, a majority) consider the official explaination to be wrong. Despite the opinions of the US conservatives camping on this article, these views deserve more than a paragraphs recognition.

Drop your opinions. Look at other articles related to 'terrorism' and I think you will understand how horrificly slanted this article is. Damburger 13:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

They don't just have a paragraph (and are not deliberately sidelined), they have whole articles devoted to them. And re: US conservatives, you couldn't be any more wrong. I for one am quite liberal and view the Bush administration with comtempt. But unlike other POV pushers that want to push crap into these articles, I (and others) resist attempts by those with thinly veiled political agendas that try to dilute articles with nonsense. And the word terrorist is used by media outlets all over the world...RxS 15:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

To the original statement, please read WP:SOAP. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 16:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many media outlets call it a terrorist attack - the word is simply too ill-defined to be used in the lead-in. How is removing contentious language from the lead-in, using wikipedia as a soapbox? I am simply arguing for removing the opinionated language and letting the facts speak for themselves. You are the one advocating a position by labelling the attacks 'terrorist'.

Regarding the 'conspiracy theories' - the term is meaningless in the context because the official story is also a conspiracy theory, as are all the explainations for this event. So the only meaning of that label is to try and dismiss such theories.

Damburger 17:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I actually quite agree with the removal of "terrorist" into just "attacks" however the problem is that you are here to promote a viewpoint not to try and make the article more encyclopedic. If you want to promote a view, please consider doing so on other websites. Again, please read WP:SOAP. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 17:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not here to promote a political agenda. I'm here to promote a little objectivity and sanity that is sadly lacking in most of the people editing this article. Damburger 17:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It is clear from your original statement that you want to promote an "inside job" theory. That is all fine and good, however Wikipedia talk pages are to discuss content with regards to their respective articles not to promote views. Please refrain from doing so if you wish for your opinions to be taken seriously with regards to the article. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 17:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you did not assume things about my intentions. Your reaction is typical of the problem around here - anybody asking for an objective treatment of the incident is seen as pushing an alternative theory, or supporting terrorism somehow. Damburger 17:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad we agree that the hijackers were enagaged in acts of terrorism.--MONGO 19:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Damburger's claim that we objectively analyze the "incident." However, an objective analysis of the facts leads to only one conclusion--the so-called "official version." Pablo Talk | Contributions 10:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Please don't engage in personal attacks on other editors. --Haemo 02:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Sadly Amusing

This must be some form of black humor, as I can't believe so many people are so convinced that 9/11 was anything except for what is presented in this article. If it wasn't so horibly morbid, it could pass as halarious. I'm going to assume this will be deleted, but I just HAD to mention something after spending so much of my time reading these theories. Hate makes the heart grow fonder... Tarage 08:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, you'll find that the official Wikipedia position is four-square on the side of the nuttier conspiracy theorists: when I tried to revert CT'er vandalism to this page, the Admins sided with the CT'ers and banned me from editing for a good deal of time. It is apparently OFFICIAL Wikipedia doctrine and policy that the conspiracy theorists are correct no matter what claims they make, period. Sad indeed. Carthago delenda est 02:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, you revert-warred to get a valid (in terms of 'about improving the article', not in terms of 'correct') entry on a talk page. It had nothing to do with the validity of the theory. --Golbez 02:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how this is so amusing and ludicrous. Perhaps if there was evidence that was clear and could 100% tell anyone in the world that it wasn't an inside job then yes it would be. But there are "conspiracy theories" out there because the "facts" published by this government are the biggest joke that I have ever seen. They claim that the towers fell due to extreme fires and structural damage, yet never before in this history of the world has a STEEL BUILDING been collapsed by way of fire. Never. The 9/11 report say the same thing about WTC7, when in fact that building only had minimal damge from fire and debris and was taken down by controlled demolitions in the same manor as the towers. Furthermore, if the government isn't lying, then why was anyone important to the WTC called and told not to go to work that day?

minor format edit reqd.

i noticed that the box "Attacks by al-Qaeda" is on the right hand side (near top of the page). Can someone move to the bottom of the page, as is the usual norm. Else, i can also do the same unless some has an objection for the same. Kalyan 14:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Can we talk about bias, again?

We should talk about bias at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias open tasks#September 11, 2001 attacks. I read through NPOV and bias in Wikipedia and I really think the article of "September 11, 2001 attacks" violates the rule or guideline of Wikipedia.--Shoons 05:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

How, exactly, do you feel it does that? --Haemo 05:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

He says that because we don't mention the falsehood that the hijackers are still alive, it's a biased article. In which case, he's correct - we're biased against incorrect statements. But I don't think the CSB project really considers that a problem. --Golbez 05:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the systemic bias against lies is really hurting Wikipedia. Pablo Talk | Contributions 05:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

When we discuss about bias here, many people do not seem to understand NPOV of Wikipedia. We should straight this thing up at different place to hear different opinions instead of discussing among the same regular people.Not only about hijacker. There are many of them. --Shoons 05:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Just because you have an opinion that the hijackers are alive doesn't make it true. No, we do not have to report on your different opinion. If you have specific complaints, please say them; but saying "this article is biased" with a woefully poor example really isn't going to help anything. --Golbez 05:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, the link was broken when I first replied. The first line: It is not about the conspiracy theory is not systematically biased. Why? Because we have 9/11 conspiracy theories, which also specifically addresses the (false) example he makes there. --Haemo

"Theory" part can go to 9/11 conspiracy theories but facts should be described here.--Shoons 05:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Right, and the fact is, they died. So ... again, please explain your complaint. The theory article handles this quite expertly because it is a theory that they lived, and the facts are they did not - therefore, it belongs in the theory article. This article is about facts; that one is about dealing with the hypotheses and theories that are not factual. --Golbez 05:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and the facts all point to the conclusion that all the hijackers died rather unpleasantly on 9/11. --Haemo 05:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

"The hijackers were supposed to die. However 7 hijackers were found and are still alive according to Hijack 'suspects' alive and wellBBC News and Father insists alleged leader is still alive."

NPOV should allow discribing these facts.--Shoons 06:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The theory article includes the fact that BBC reported this - and the fact that the BBC was wrong in its assertion. Are you actually reading what we write? Have you looked at the arguments against any of the hijackers being alive? (like the fact that they flew planes into things) As for Atta's father, that's dealt with on the Mohamed Atta article rather well - was he telling the truth? who knows. But the evidence shows Mohamed Atta walked on to a plane in Boston on that Tuesday morning, and that's more evidence than Papa Atta is supplying. --Golbez 06:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Did you check the date on that BBC article? Guess what? A lot of things have been learned since 9-23-01. Those people have the same names as the hijackers, but they are not the same people. Atta's father presents no evidence to conclude that his son is still alive. Pablo Talk | Contributions 06:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias open tasks#September 11, 2001 attacks--Shoons 14:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

WTC7 Collapse?

This article hangs on every word from government sources regarding 9/11 and fails to mention any information that contradicts those sources, no matter how reliable. For example, the case that WTC7 was brought down in a controlled demolition is supported by video evidence that is widely available on the internet and comes from major news sources. Now, why should the mere suggestion that one building was brought down by a deliberate act be threatening to the integrity of the article? How is the uncertainty regarding the collapse of WTC7 not relevant to this article? Oneismany 18:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

There are no reliable sources that refute the known facts.--MONGO 19:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The articles belong to conspiracy theory are branched out to individual articles such as 7 World Trade Center. We should fix those articles first. To fix this problem properly, we should approach it from NPOV. That's why I'm trying to discuss at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias open tasks#September 11, 2001 attacks. Otherwise they would not listen to you. I think we should approach from the central authority.--Shoons 20:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I see a "problem" that needs to be fixed. Pablo Talk | Contributions 21:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is stoned to death. SalvNaut 21:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you have anything serious to add, because that's not a very civil comment. --Haemo 22:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

If the one-eyed man was trying to insert garbage into encyclopedia articles, then he probably deserved it. Pablo Talk | Contributions 23:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

"There are no reliable sources that refute the known facts." Ahh, very illuminating. And what are the known facts? Wikipedia policy is bases on verifiability, not truth. There is widespread video evidence (see http://www.wtc7.net) that WTC7 was brought down in a controlled demolition. The official sources are not more or less verifiable than other sources. The hypothesis that WTC7 was brought down in a fire is disputable and the building's collapse can be accounted for by more than one hypothesis. Therefore it garners mention in this article. Dismissing it as "conspiracy theory" is no argument at all and only calls into question the intentions of those who do so. Oneismany 23:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but these sources are minor, disputed, and not popular. Including them on this page would constitute undue weight. We do, however, give them an entire page at Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center. --Haemo 23:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Define "minor." The official story is also disputed. Since when is popularity a criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia? Anyway at last count 36% of US citizens believe the US government is partly to blame for the attacks and 85% doubt the official story, which makes it pretty popular. Oneismany 00:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Minor - as in, not supported by very many credible experts; widely disputed by credible experts; a fringe theory, not widely supported, and in a great deal of dispute. Furthermore, 85% of people doubting a given theory does not automatically give credence to any given alternative. Some people believe that Hitler escaped from Germany, to live in Argentina. However, this is a minor, or fringe theory - it is not widely supported, and should probably not be mentioned on Hitler, but maybe of Death of Hitler. --Haemo

"For example, the case that WTC7 was brought down in a controlled demolition is supported by video evidence that is widely available on the internet and comes from major news sources." So is the case that it was brought down because a tower fell on it. The difference is, my version is backed up by other facts - namely, a tower fell on it. Your version requires that 70 to 280 floors of office tower were somehow covertly wired for professional destruction. Why do you people keep trying? Can't you go troll another encyclopedia or something? The fact that Wikipedia is editable doesn't give you people the right to constantly attempt to shove this drivel down our throats. Sometimes, a cigar is nineteen Arabs in airplanes. Nothing more, nothing less. --Golbez 01:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

WTC7 was across the street from the towers and there was no known significant damage to it besides random fires. The official story is that fires burned it down, not that a tower fell on it. Video shows it falling vertically into its footprint. It fell six hours after the twin towers and the official story is that the towers pancaked vertically, so which tower are you referring to that fell on WTC7? Oneismany 01:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

That's simply untrue. Anyone who does more than 10 seconds of research (this does not include conspiracy theorists, evidently) knows that there were huge gouges in the side of WTC7. The collapse of the Twin Towers did a ton of damage to WTC7. Pablo Talk | Contributions 01:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

NIST reports there were huge gouges from the fall of the twin towers, but the FEMA contends that diesel in the basement contributed to fires that brought WTC7 down. Either way, the building falls vertically in 6.5 seconds in every video of the collapse and it happened 6 hours after the twin towers imploded. No building "fell on it," as described above, and even if that is a reference to the structural damage, the building held together after that damage. Then it descended vertically rather than toppling over as might be expected if a huge chunk of it was gouged out. In any case the cause is unknown and the fact that the cause is unknown deserves mention in this article because it is relevant to the subject. Oneismany 01:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually there's also video and photographs of large gouges. Like how you cite video and photographic evidence to say there weren't any. It doesn't deserve any more mention in this article as it already has. --Golbez 01:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The gouges do not show up in the videos. In any case whether there were huge gouges or not that does not begin to explain why the building would fall 6 hours after the damage or why it would collapse vertically, without crashing into nearby buildings. I do not know why the building collapsed and I am not positing any theory. I am only pointing out that the observation has been made by more than one verifiable source that the manner of the collapse resembles a controlled demolition, and the lack of an adequate explanation is relevant to the subject of this article. Oneismany 02:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at this video. The collapse starts at :05 and ends at :19. So that's about 14 seconds. I agree that saying the building fell on it might be a bit misleading though. Pablo Talk | Contributions 01:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The video shows part of the rooftop descending at 00:05 which is probably the penthouse. Then the rest of the building collapses from 00:12 to 00:19. Whether you count 14 seconds or 6.5 seconds the collapse does not resemble a building toppling over due to gouges at its base or pancaking due to fire damage. I am not positing any theory as to why this happened. I am just saying that the vertical descent of the building 6 hours after any alleged damage that might have contributed to its collapse requires more than cursory scrutiny and it might support more than one hypothesis for its fall. Controlled demolition is one hypothesis that might account for its fall and multiple verifiable sources have offered this hypothesis. The strange manner of its destruction and lack of adequate explanation are relevant to this article and deserve to be mentioned. Oneismany 02:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you're verging on WP:SOAP now. RxS 02:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. I invite you to study the evidence for yourself and come to your own conclusions. If this article were NPOV, it would do the same. Oneismany 03:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

If editors were to study evidence (primary sources) and write their conclusions, Wikipedia would be a secondary source, such as a journal or commentary. As Wikipedia is a tertiary source—an encyclopedia—we can only look at secondary sources, and other tertiary sources, to decide what goes into an article. And the policy on Wikipedia is to only use reputable sources, such as peer-reviewed academic journals or other publications at a comparable level of reputation. It is not appropriate to discuss studying evidence on this talk page; please try to restrict the discussion to citation of reputable secondary and tertiary sources. --dreish~talk 18:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

How is the story that 19 hijackers crashed planes into some of the the buildings destroyed on September 11 more or less verifiable than the video recordings of the event that are widely available on the internet and elsewhere, or witness testimony that explosions were going on inside the buildings? Nowhere does this article make any mention of suggestions that there may be more than one point of view about nature of the destruction on that day, which makes it ridiculously POV. Not even a simple "According to official reports" will be tolerated on this page, which calls into question the intention of those who revert such a simple attempt at NPOV. I do not want to hear that alternative hypotheses of the event are "conspiracy theories," because the story of the 19 hijackers is also a conspiracy theory. Who besides government and government-sponsored sources sticks so closely to the official record of events? Wikipedia is not a mouthpiece for the US government, therefore alternate sources of information that are also verifiable should also be included. Oneismany 00:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the 19 hijackers conspired to hijack those airliners and crash them into buildings does not mean that a belief in that version is a conspiracy theory. Pablo Talk | Contributions 00:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Huh? It's a theory about a conspiracy, which makes it a conspiracy theory. Oneismany 00:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

A conspiracy theory implies some sort of secretive, behind-the-scenes plot. Al-Qaeda hasn't been secretive in claiming that they hijacked those planes. Pablo Talk | Contributions 00:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-US media sources such as Al-Jazeera have reported that Osama bin Laden denied he was involved in the attacks. Anyway however it was done it was secretive and behind the scenes even if it were the 19 hijackers because nobody else knew about it before it happened, which makes it a conspiracy. Hence it is a theory about a conspiracy, no less a conspiracy theory than the theory that the government was involved somehow, or that space aliens or garden gnomes were involved somehow. There is no evidence that I am aware of that space aliens or garden gnomes were involved. However, there is evidence that the US government was involved, or at least incompetent, such as the NORAD defense failure. Furthermore the evidence that 19 hijackers were responsible comes primarily from a single source, the US government. Oneismany 00:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

That's because, as has been repeatedly discussed on this talk page, the controlled demolition hypothesis is a fringe theory. It is not supported by very many credible sources, and is in fact roundly contradicted by many other credible sources. In the narrative of the event, it constitutes a very minor hypothesis, and to give it any significant mention on this page would constitute undue weight. There is already an entire article on this subject at Controlled demolition hypothesis, and a section is 9/11 conspiracy theories - which is where consensus has determined it belongs. Adding a {{neutrality}} tag to this article is totally unwarranted, given that consensus has repeatedly supported the current articles revision about conspiracy theories. --Haemo 00:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Referring to one conspiracy theory as preferred and not mentioning other conspiracy theories is POV. What about being a theory about a conspiracy or not being a theory about a conspiracy makes a theory more or less verifiable? Oneismany 00:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

This is not the case. This is not a verifiability issue, and if you seriously believe that the whole and heart of neutral point of view is whether or not you can verify a viewpoint exists, you have a serious misunderstanding. The controlled demolition hypothesis is not widely supported by credible experts. It constitutes a fringe conspiracy theory, and you have not advanced any evidence that it is anything but that. --Haemo 00:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

How are experts more or less credible than video evidence from major news sources? Oneismany 00:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

You mean, how are experts on demolition, video analysis, and structural engineering less credible than interpretation of video recording? Let me put it this way - you look at a video recording of the collapse, and see a demolition. Experts look at the footage and see something different. Video footage is not prima facie evidence for anything - it has to be analyszed and interpreted. Experts have reviewed this footage, and come to conclusions which do not support controlled demolition. --Haemo 00:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Experts who are not editors on Wikipedia are not part of consensus on Wikipedia. It is up to Wikipedia editors to reach a consensus among themselves about the available verifiable sources. Some third-party published analyses agree with the official theory and some do not. Some of these sources are only very recently published. Multiple witnesses testify that there were explosions inside the buildings. Multiple news sources reported on the day of the event that the collapse of WTC7 resembled a controlled demolition. The NIST is considering controlled demolition as one hypothesis of the collapse of WTC7. None of this is significant enough or relevant enough to garner a brief mention in this article? Oneismany 01:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they reported that it resembled a controlled demolition. That does not mean it was a controlled demolition. But that's besides the point. Are news reporters experts? Did they publish anything? No, they're not experts and they haven't published anything. Also, explosions and bombs are not the same thing. There were huge fuel tanks in WTC7, and numerous sources have reported those as the cause of many of the explosions. There is a consensus of Wikipedia editors who don't want conspiracy kookiness in the articles. Just because you don't like that doesn't mean that there is no consensus, and it also doesn't mean that you can just slap a neutrality tag on the article. Wikipedia is not the place to insert baseless conspiracy theory propaganda. Pablo Talk | Contributions 01:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that Wikipedia is not the place to insert baseless conspiracy theory propaganda, which is why we should carefully qualify all of the information from official sources. The available verifiable information about the destruction on that day supports more than one hypothesis, and one conspiracy theory is not more or less neutral than another conspiracy theory. A neutral point of view would carefully consider every possibility that is supported by evidence. Some of the official theory is not supported by any evidence besides the word of the US government. So, to be neutral this article should identify the source of the information and not prefer the official theory. Oneismany 01:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

This is totally not true - the overwhelming majority of credible experts have judged that the evidence supports the so-called "official" account of the events. A small minority of people, very few (if any) of whom are credible, endorse a different account. Neutral point of view does not enjoin us to treat these two accounts as having equal merit - in fact, it specifically tells us not to. The controlled demolition hypothesis is mentioned on 9/11 conspiracy theories and controlled demolition hypothesis - which is where it should be. To include it on this page in fact violates neutrality, and give it undue weight. --Haemo 03:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Truth is not the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia, verifiability is. The official account contains much that is not verifiable, for example, the identities of the hijackers and their activities prior to the attacks. For some of this information, the only source we have to rely on is the word of the US government or affiliated parties. To be neutral, the information presented in this page should carefully identify the source of the information. On the other hand there is also verifiable information that is not included in the official account or only mentioned briefly, such as the collapse of World Trade Center 7. Imagine if Wikipedia presented the Reichstag fire with only the information that the Nazis gave the German people in order to manipulate them. If Wikipedia existed in 1933 then unfortunately I imagine the Reichstag Fire article would look very much like this article on the September 11 attacks, at least until the Nazis were out of power. But we have the benefit of history and so we should know better than to take our government at its word. Oneismany 04:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) Of course truth is not - otherwise we wouldn't have pages about 9/11 conspiracy theories or controlled demolition hypothesis. Again, you misunderstand the arguement - you think, that because it's verifiable that some people believe in the controlled demolition hypothesis, and that they base this belief on video footage, that it should be included in the article. This violates neutral point of view. As I will explained, again, that the overwhelming view of experts, both inside, and outside the US government is that the evidence does not support a controlled demolition. A fringe minority believe that it does. As neutral point of view enjoins us, we should not give these two claims equal merit - to do so constitutes undue weight.

You seem to hold the opinion that any view which can be verified to exist, should be included in order to meet neutral point of view. This is definitively not the case. Furthermore, you seem to believe that anyone who agrees with the general interpretation of the "official" account is somehow "government-related" or sponsored. This is also not the case. Your assertions have no merit - and if you would simply just read the archived talk pages, you would see that they have been dealt with again, and again. This is exceedinly tiresome to retread once again. --Haemo 04:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Let it be noted that the NPOV tag is removed prior to a consensus being reached. I will not turn this dispute into a revert war. Oneismany 00:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The NPOV tag is not to be added without some serious understanding of the concensus reached on this page. It's apparent from your comments, that you do not understand what neutral point of view means, not have you read the archives of this page to understand that this has been discussed, and concensus reached. Literally all of your comments have been previously addressed. --Haemo 00:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Which part of "representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources)" means sticking to government sources or government-sponsored sources that are challenged by video evidence from major news sources? Oneismany 00:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

No one has done this. Experts, both inside and outside the government have examined the evidence - including the footage in question - and come to the conclusion that the controlled demolition hypothesis is not supported by evidence. --Haemo 00:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

While there may be many points of view, not all are meanigful or carry the same weight (or any for that matter). Most experts in their field give credence to roughly the official version and most are not government and government-sponsored sources. RxS 00:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Know what I love about all this? The second someone dissagrees with these theories, they are automatically labled government or government-suponcored. It can't be just some sane person saying "Uh... that theory is stupid. We have so many bits of evidence backing up one idea(I use the term lightly), that it is as close to fact as we are going to get. Stop whining.".--Tarage 11:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

You started the edit war. Pablo Talk | Contributions 00:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Jumper estimates

• This article says that "An estimated 200 people jumped to their deaths from the burning towers" while The Falling Man claims over 250. --Cravendekere 21:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but 200 is an estimate of 250?--Tarage 11:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The number on this page is sourced; the number on The Falling Man is unsourced. I'd stay with 200 people. Pablo Talk | Contributions 04:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

--Tarage 16:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The title of this artcle

I'm sure this article has gone through many naming discussions, but wouldn't WP:COMMONNAME suggest this article be titled "September 11 attacks." I've never seen it referred to with the year, or at least very rarely, and I don't think any of the references do either. This article uses it only once in the article (in the intro). September 11 attacks appears a bit more often and is most likely the more common name. ~ UBeR 03:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I reckon, that specifying 2001 precludes any other attack on September 11. --Haemo 04:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any others. ~ UBeR 20:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia is a hybrid of many styles and naming conventions. There doesn't seem to be a perfect name that suits everyone. Peter Grey 03:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

After all it is not even "attacks", we should change it to "crimes" or "accidents" at least.--Shoons 04:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

uhm... accidents? Those poor folks didn't mean to fly their airliners into the towers? What? --Golbez 06:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry I was wrong. It should be "Case", "Occurrence" or "event" at least, shouldn’t it? At least, "attacks" is not appropriate for the event or because the title of this article states "attacks", this article can be like this and can have bias. Then it would make sence. --Shoons 14:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

How is it not an attack? A recognized militant group used weapons to cause dammage to, at the very least, buildings and people. That sounds like very definition as defined by Wikipedia: "Attack is a word meaning to strike out at an opponent, among other definitions." Unless this is a backdoor way of trying to premote yet another conspiricy theory, which I'm betting it is...--Tarage 16:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You are right! From POV of so called "conspiricy theory", they were not attacks. "Attack"="to strike out at an opponent...". If it was internal job, it was not "attack"(, though "heart attack" does not have any opponet). Anyway what I am saying is this article can be with bias because the title tells so. It concludes that my arguments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias open tasks#September 11, 2001 attacks does not make sense because of this title, thus it can have bias, first of all.--Shoons 16:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this article has a strong bias towards the consensus amongst relevant and reputable sources, while giving fair room to far fetched theories to be known thus giving them the chance of being investigated and substantiated to become at some point in the future the new consensus. If you wish these theories to have the main room here, take them and work on until they reach consensus amongst relevant and reputable sources. Then come back and you will be welcome (and in the process you will probably earn a Pulitzer prize).--Igor21 17:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Anyway we should make another article with title of "September 11, 2001 crimes". I just want to have articles dedicated to facts, not to fiction or to theories.--Shoons 18:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Which is exactly what you would be doing by renaming it to crimes. Regardless of you who believe was behind it, they're still attacks. ~ UBeR 05:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! "they're still attacks" made me clear. This page should not have bias, then. This article shows only one side and it is against Wikipedia guideline.--Shoons 13:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it shows any side. To not show any side, the article would just have to present the facts as they're stated by reliable sources in a neutral manner. We obviously shouldn't give the attacking any sympathy. Likewise, we should not give the attacked side any sympathy. Value judgments should be made by the reader, not the writer. ~ UBeR 21:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

UBeR, I did not mean to disturb your initial question. Now I am making a comment regarding "I'm not aware of any others. " There is 1973 Chilean coup d'état. I heard that, in Latin America, it is know as 9/11 attacks by CIA of USA. It was even worse terrorism.

Conspiracy theories

"...the mainstream theory technically _is_ a conspiracy theory because it implicates multiple individuals..." That's not what a conspiracy theory is. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

A sourced statement on Conspiracy theory: "The term 'conspiracy theory' may be a neutral descriptor for any conspiracy claim. To conspire means 'to join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act,'" which is exactly what is alleged of al-Qaeda. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I would use our article on Conspiracy theory as an authoritative source for this discussion. That article appears to have a bit of a split personality. It can't seem decide if it should be about conspiracies or conspiracy theories. These are two different things. I raised this issue on the article's talk page and so far, no one has responded. [21]

In any case, the referenced cite is a 1976 version of the Merriam-Webster dictionary. The current version of this source says that conspiracy theory is "a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators" [22]. It defines a conspiracy as "the act of conspiring together" and "an agreement among conspirators". [23]. AFAIK, the so-called 'official' account is a conspiracy, but not a conspiracy theory. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what AFAIK means, but you just gave a dictionary definition and then directly opposed what your definition said. The official account is precisely a theory and it involves a secret plot by a poorly defined group of conspirators. Were there nineteen Arab Oswalds involved? We don't know. There were nineteen passport photographs involved. Were some of these individuals conspicuously present in airports on the morning of 9/11? Apparently so, although most of the evidence seems to be from videos whose location cannot be ascertained. Did some of them get on airplanes? Maybe, although there are no photographs, and their names don't appear on passenger lists. Did some of them pilot hijacked aircraft that morning? Maybe. One of them could have been taken over by the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Is the Flying Spaghetti Monster that evil? Adherents would say no, although there is a mystery involved here. How did hijackers take over four airplanes without being stopped by the crews? Coincidence? The ways of the Flying Spaghetti Monster are not always clear to finite human minds. Why did eyewitnesses claim that aircraft approached the Pentagon from two different directions? Were their eyes blinded by His Divine Noodles? This article would be a lot more honest if it contained more language like "according to representatives of the FBI (preferably with names)," or "President Bush stated...." All of the secondary sources do that, but someone decided to go with a tertiary source to get the lede sentence without attribution. Wowest (talk) 15:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, "AFAIK" is an abbreviation for "as far as I know". [24] In any case, the identities of the 19 hijackers have been identified and confirmed. If you would like a good resource to find out what really happened, the 9/11 Commission Report provides a detailed and accurate account of Al Qaeda's terrorist attacks. I bought a copy myself because I prefer hardcopy, but it's also available for free on the Internet. [25] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

[Note: In case the first couple sentences of this comment seem out-of-context, it's because I wrote them in response to a comment that was accidentally placed in this section, misinterpreted by me, and later moved by the original poster to the intended section.] When there is a notable challenge to the status quo, omitting mention of it could contravene the spirit of WP:NOTCENSORED. Now, when a notable and reliable source points out that a third of the population adheres to this challenge, and then refers to it as "mainstream", I can't think of any reason to exclude it. As for "conspiracy" versus "conspiracy theory," the latter certainly has some negative connotations (e.g., their adherents are supposedly "conspiracy nuts"). But by referring to the alternative theories as, well, alternative, then we can suggest in one sense of the word that these are theories about alternative (i.e., other) conspiracies, and in another sense that alternative (i.e., various) conspiracy theories exist. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I doubt if it has anything to do with WP:NOTCENSORED. Rather it has to do with attributing undue weight to fringe theories. There are few (if any) reliable sources that claim that 9/11 was a conspiracy by the US government. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

My invocation of WP:NOTCENSORED came in response to this post, which was admittedly misplaced, leading me to misinterpret it as a claim that the entire "Conspiracy theories" section didn't belong, when in fact it was aimed only at the "dancing Israeli" idea. However, the Time source raises a serious challenge to the belief that U.S. government involvement is a "fringe theory," when it explicitly states that such a theory "is not a fringe phenomenon" ([26]). But this is all beside the point, which is that even the official theory is a conspiracy theory because it indicates a conspiracy among al-Qeada. "Conspiracy" means something like "covert teamwork" (cf. Gunpowder Plot, aka Gunpowder Conspiracy), not "inside job." Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's definition of the term 'fringe theory' and Time Magazine's definition of the single word 'fringe' isn't necessarily the same thing. Wikipedia's policy regarding 'fringe theories' is explained here: WP:FRINGE. The quote from the Time Magazine article is about the relative popularity of 9/11 conspiracy theories, not about the legitimacy of conspiracy theories. The only thing it lends credence to is whether 9/11 conspiracy theories are notable. As to whether 9/11 conspiracy theories carry any weight, there are few (if any) reliable sources that say that the U.S. government was behind the 9/11 terrorist attacks. In fact, if you read the entire Time Magazine article to its conclusion, it clearly dismisses 9/11 conspiracy theories as "unreasonable" and then goes on to explore psychological reasons why conspiracy theorists believe in the things that they do. [27] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Well yes, Time documents the notability, not the veracity, of these theories; and accordingly, the WP article reflects their notability rather than veracity, and does so in a relatively small amount of space--perfectly consistent with WP:DUE, which states that viewpoints should be presented in proportion to their prominence. Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE states weight should be roughly proportional to the preponderance of reliable sources backing that perspective. So far, you have not provided a single reliable source that backs the perspective that 9/11 was a conspiracy by the US government. Not one. Even if you could, weight should be roughly proportional and there are thousands and thousands of reliable sources that say 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Al Qaeda. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

That is EXACTLY what a conspiracy theory is, Tom. It's a theory that a crime was committed by a group of people in cooperation with each other. I'm going to try to add something to the conspiracy theory topic, since the people who generally use the term do so with some obvious DOUBLETHINK. However, the most senior philosopher who has pronounced on this philosophical distinction is Dr. David Ray Griffin, and he even put the term "Official Conspiracy Theory" in a book title. Wowest (talk) 16:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I have changed the wording slightly. The phrase alternative theory has a stigma attached to it. Could we possibly use a word other than alternative? I would be far more receptive if it didn't use that word. Also the mainstream 'theory' is still mainstream if more than 1/2 of Americans still believe it, as the poll suggests. --Tarage (talk) 19:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

"Numerous" works for me, so I'm fine with the new wording. Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

What does not work, however, is the reduction of the section to a single sentence. Let's not confuse WP:UNDUE with WP:UNWANTED. Because WP:UNDUE states that information is to be presented in proportion to its prominence (which, if we read that pedantically, might suggest that the beliefs of 1/3 of the population merit 1/3 of the article's space), the elimination of context is problematic, because it removes information regarding the prominence of these theories. The fuller version, however, indicates prominence 1) by pointing out that 1/3 of the population has subscribed to the theories, and 2) ironically, by pointing to notable entities (the NIST and "the community of civil engineers") that have aimed to refute the theories, because this indicates that these entities have taken the theories seriously enough to address in the first place, regardless of the conclusions they've reached. Cosmic Latte (talk) 22:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE states weight should be roughly proportional to the preponderance of reliable sources backing that perspective. I doubt if there are many (if any) reliable sources that claim 9/11 was a conspiracy by the US government. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

No, it says absolutely nothing about perspectives being "backed"; it talks about perspectives being held and prominent: "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." A third of the population is prominent. Time magazine is prominent. The NIST and "the community of civil engineers" are prominent entities to have addressed the issue, even if they have disagreed with it. And the view is held by a "significant minority" of the population, whereas WP:UNDUE states that only "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia." A third of the population is not "extremely small or vastly limited." All that matters is that the population holds this view. Whether or not it is correct is entirely irrelevant: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Cosmic Latte (talk) 22:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE also states, "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents." While a third of the population is not an individual adherent, it is most certainly a prominent collective adherent. Therefore, to eliminate mention of who--i.e., the significant minority--adheres to these theories is to contravene what the policy is suggesting here. By including the Time reference, we are clarifying who prominently adheres to these alternative theories, and are therefore being perfectly consistent with WP:UNDUE. Cosmic Latte (talk) 23:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

What does WP:3RR say? And how about Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories? Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

3RR says, "Contributors must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period," which is pretty much what I recall it saying when I first read it back in the stone age. I have not made more than three reverts on any page within a day. I don't know what you mean to point to on the ArbCom page, so I'll have to let you be more specific. In any case, this isn't a very substantive refutation of the argument that the conspiracy-theory approach, being held by a third of the population, is therefore held by a significant minority and therefore deserves reasonable mention as per "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents." The conspiracy theory section has been there for quite a while, and it has included more than just a single sentence. I'm not really advocating anything new here, but seem to have encountered new resistance to the section now that its content has been attributed to such a large segment of the population. Cosmic Latte (talk) 23:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Should we just open a NPOV dispute on the appropriate noticeboard? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Or just explain why the statement, "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents" (emphasis mine, wording straight from policy) should not apply in this case, and there'll be no dispute. Cosmic Latte (talk) 23:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

FYI, WP:DR is the place to go if there is a genuine content dispute, but I really don't see why there needs to be a dispute at all. The version I am advocating simply identifies the significant minority that holds a particular view, which is precisely what WP:UNDUE calls for. I am not claiming that the view is true, or that reliable sources claim this; I am simply promoting the inclusion of what is verifiable, which happens to be in accord with WP:UNDUE's direction that proportional mention be given to significant minorities. Cosmic Latte (talk) 23:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Rather than doing something drastic and potentially alienating, I have requested comment at every single WikiProject in which this article is categorized (e.g., [28]). Please forgive me for slanting the request in favour of my position (being only human, it would have been difficult not to do so), but bear in mind that it is ultimately a request for uninvolved parties to review this section of the talk page and therefore to reach their own conclusions and build consensus in whatever manner it might be built. I will minimize my own involvement with the disputed section of the article for now, as I feel I have satisfactorily put forth and defended a policy-based position, which I will now leave to the larger community to evaluate. Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Even still, it's a violation of WP:NPOV. The Time Magazine article does not conclude that 9/11 conspiracy theories are "'not a fringe phenomenon' but rather "'a mainstream political reality'". It concludes by calling them "unreasonable" and exploring psychological reasons why conspiracy theorists believe in unreasonable things. Other reliable sources have said similar things. Popular Mechanics, for example, calls 9/11 conspiracy theories "wild" and "outlandish". [29] I can cite numerous reliable sources that debunk 9/11 conspiracy theories. Unless this key information is included and given proper weight, it is in violation of WP:NPOV. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps "conclude" isn't the best choice of words, because the Time article does indeed "conclude" with the suggestion (by one writer) that the views held by a third of the population are problematic. Granted, two-thirds of the population would agree with this writer. And probably the vast majority of people can agree that the specific theory he cites as "unreasonable"--the theory that it was a missile rather than an airplane that crashed into the Pentagon--is implausible. But the passage in the WP article was never meant to suggest that Time endorses any of these theories. I specifically worded it to say that "Time magazine cited a poll," which, well, it did. The point is not that Time endorses anything so outlandish; the point is not that I do (in fact, I don't); the point is that a significant minority of the population endorses the view that there is some likelihood that U.S. government officials are culpable to some degree. It just so happens that this fact comes from a poll that comes from a magazine that questions the sanity behind this fact, but the fact itself remains, and it remains embedded in a reliable source, even if it its implications are incongruous with those of the source as a whole. What I have yet to hear is an explanation of how 36% of the American population is not a significant minority that holds a particular viewpoint, and of how this significant minority does not therefore deserve mention in accord with both WP:V, which is apathetic about the truth of a belief, so long as the belief can be located in a reliable source, and WP:DUE (indeed, a section of WP:NPOV), which grants that the views held by a significant minority should be attributable to that minority. Cosmic Latte (talk) 03:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

However, if people disagree with my position that the alternative theories need to be put in context, I request that they present precise arguments for doing so--just as I quoted WP:DUE, "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents," in support of attributing the view of a significant minority to its adherents--rather than simply reverting or just pointing to something like WP:FRINGE without making an incisive case for why it should apply here. Cosmic Latte (talk) 02:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Quoted from WP:UNDUE: Keep in mind that in determining proper weight we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources. If there are any reliable sources supporting the conspiracy theory viewpoint then the number is very, very small, whereas lots of sources support the mainstream viewpoint, so we should give very little weight to the conspiracy theories. The fact that a significant percentage of the American public happen to support the viewpoint does mean we should mention it somewhere and possibly cover it in sub-articles (we do), but it does not mean we should give it anything other than minimal weight in the main article. Hut 8.5 07:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for being precise. I think that's a reasonable argument. Still, because the rest of that quoted sentence is, "not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors," it would seem to get at the heart of the matter if things were reversed a bit--i.e., most of us adhered to conspiracy theories, but most sources advocated the mainsteam account. In that case, one "prevalence" would be up against another, and that sentence would dictate which prevalence guides the allocation of weight in the article. To reformulate what I suppose has been my main point all along, even if the conspiracy theories are given minimal weight, they should probably be attributed to their source (in this case, 36% of the American public); in other words, attribution should be part of what is reasonably considered "minimal weight"--it's a conceptual feather, so to speak: functionally important, but physically lightweight. Anything else is weasel-wordy and, while it might not contradict the letter of WP:RS, it arguably contradicts the spirit, because it implies that it's sufficient to know that a perspective exists without knowing its reasonably knowable source. A previous wording stated that "conspiracy theories have emerged," without indicating from whence they "emerged." And what does "emerged" mean in this context anyway? Did they emerge, in a technical sense, like consciousness emerges from a sentient organism? Or did they emerge, in a colloquial sense, like swamp creatures emerge from the deep? Pretty spooky stuff either way. So if we're looking to be succinct, then perhaps we could say something like the following: "Proponents of various conspiracy theories, who were estimated in 2006 to include more than one-third of the American population, have suggested individuals inside the United States knew the attacks were coming and deliberately chose not to prevent them, or that individuals outside of al-Qaeda planned, carried out, or assisted in the attacks." This adds a simple relative clause and keeps things short and sweet, but steers clear of the weasels and swamp creatures. Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

That's still not accurate. The word "propenent" means "one who argues in favor of something : advocate" [30]. Just because you agree with a statement doesn't mean you go around arguing in favor of something. Second, the Time Magazine article states (in reference to the poll) US "government officials...carried out the attacks themselves". That's not the same thing as "individuals outside of al-Qaeda planned, carried out, or assisted". In fact, the latter I would agree with since we know that the Taliban (who are individuals outside of Al-Qaeda) at the very least gave aid and comfort to Al Qaeda. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The first problem should be easy to fix: "Proponents of" --> "Adherents to." As for the second, I'm not sure that anything really needs to be changed at all. The key word in "who were estimated in 2006 to include more than one-third of the American population" is include. "Individuals outside of al-Qaeda" is a much larger group of people than US "government officials," but it does include them. So the group of people who believe that non-al-Qaeda members in general were involved does include the 36% of the American population that believes government officials in particular were involved. So that leaves us with, "Adherents to various conspiracy theories, who were estimated in 2006 to include more than one-third of the American population, have suggested individuals inside the United States knew the attacks were coming and deliberately chose not to prevent them, or that individuals outside of al-Qaeda planned, carried out, or assisted in the attacks." If you can think of an even better way to attribute the opinions to their adherents, that'd be great--but to state them without attributing them at all is the very definition of weasel-wording. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Even 'adherents' seems too strong. But in any case, I think you completely missed my second point. By altering the wording of the Time Magazine article, you've completely changed the meaning of what it said. There is a huge difference between saying that the US government carried out the attacks themselves and saying that people outside of Al Qaeda helped carry out the attacks. See my previous example of the Taliban who gave aid and comfort to Al Qaeda but are not part of the US government. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The view stated in the WP article is "that individuals outside of al-Qaeda planned, carried out, or assisted in the attacks." This is considerably broader than what the Time article says, but it includes the Time-cited view that U.S. government officials (who are, indeed, among the set of "individuals outside of al-Qaeda") carried out the attacks (which is, indeed, among the conceptual set of allegedly having "planned, carried out, or assisted in the attacks"). To say that conspiracy theory adherents "include [the] more than one-third of the American population" that implicates the U.S. government in carrying out the attacks themselves is not to say that conspiracy theory adherents are limited to this segment of the population, and therefore it is fully accurate to say that those who broadly believe "that individuals outside of al-Qaeda planned, carried out, or assisted in the attacks" are inclusive of the population that more precisely thinks that U.S. government officials carried out the attacks. It isn't perfect, but it's considerably less weasel-wordy than just saying that the theories happen to "exist" or that they mysteriously "emerged." If you can think of an even better way to word this in a non-weasel fashion, that'd be great, but as far as I can tell, the key word "include" accurately places the relatively specific beliefs cited in Time within the relatively inclusive group of beliefs mentioned on the WP article. Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

As for the Taliban giving aid and comfort to al-Qaeda, I don't think that is what's being meant in this sense of "conspiracy theory." Perhaps the WP article is wording things too broadly (maybe "individuals outside of al-Qaeda" should be replaced with something like "individuals outside of al-Qaeda and even the Taliban," "individuals not typically associated with al-Qaeda," "individuals outside of al-Qaeda, potentially including U.S. government officials," or something else along those lines). But in any case, the broad group of alleged suspects and crimes mentioned on WP is inclusive of the narrower group cited in Time, so I'm quite sure that the word "include" makes the clause factually correct. Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

So I guess the ultimate question is this: How can the section be phrased so that it's neither so long as to seem undue, nor so short as to be weasel-wordy? I feel that my explanation of the function of the word "include," in my past few entries here, justifies the phrasing I've suggested, or at least some variant of it, but perhaps someone else could say it even better. Cosmic Latte (talk) 10:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure where the phrase "individuals outside of al-Qaeda planned, carried out, or assisted in the attacks" comes from. As best as I can tell, neither the Time Magazine nor the San Francisco Chronicle articles say this. The Time Magazine article says that 9/11 conspiracy theories are the belief that "the entire catastrophe was planned and executed by federal officials" [31]. The cited reference (the San Francisco Chronicle) defines 9/11 conspiracy theories as the belief that "the perpetrators included members of their own government - that somehow the Bush administration, with the collusion of the Pentagon, was either behind the attacks or simply allowed them to happen" [32]. Why don't we simply use one of these definitions? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)