Jump to content

Talk:September 11 attacks advance-knowledge conspiracy theories/Archive 1

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

Page name issue

Should the name of this page be 9/11 advance-knowledge debate instead of 9/11 advanced-knowledge debate, because we have an article entitled "Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge debate". Noah¢s (Talk) 03:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I created the page without the d, for precisely that reason, but it was quickly changed. Thinking about it, perhaps its better with the d, so maybe the Pearl Harbor article should be changed to match this one for consistency? Corleonebrother (talk) 18:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I disagree - in conversational American English, "advance" is used to indicate one event preceding another in time: "advance warning," "cash in advance," etc. are standard, whereas "advanced-knowledge" appears to be a new coinage. It is also potentially confusing (to speakers of American English, anyway) as "advanced" is used to indicate an object's position in space or the progress of some process: "one car advanced ahead of another," "advanced colon cancer." I would suggest that the two articles should be called "Debate over advance knowledge of Pearl Harbor Attack" and "Debate over advance knowledge of 9/11 attacks." Or use the word 'foreknowledge.' Or actually add some content about the outlines of the debate, hopefully noting how quickly it devolves to juvenile mudslinging. Why aren't the Bushite trolls crawling all over this article, by the way? Maybe you guys tired them out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.161.122.104 (talk) 05:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I was the editor that added the d to the name of the article, and now I'm thinking that was a mistake; the article should be renamed to 9/11 advance-knowledge debate. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 17:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Sibel Edmonds??

The article has nothing about Sibel Edmonds and what she discovered! --Espoo (talk) 11:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added it to the article. Qworty (talk) 20:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Urban Moving Systems

Maybe they were in contract with U.S. government in 2001.

http://www.fedspending.org/faads/faads.php?fiscal_year=2001&recip_id=903577&sortby=f&datype=T&reptype=r&database=faads&detail=4&submit=GO —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.78.224.246 (talk) 15:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

No such debate

Two months ago I requested a citation for "The 9/11 advance-knowledge debate is a debate about whether anyone outside of al Qaeda had foreknowledge that the September 11, 2001 attacks were going to take place." No citation has been provided, and there is no such debate, so I'm removing the inaccurate statement. Tom Harrison Talk 19:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

In discussing evidence for or against the assertion that government officials should have anticipated the use of aircraft as missiles, is there a place in this article for appearances of such in popular culture? Of course one of the most infamous is the pilot episode of The Lone Gunmen, which premiered in March 2001. If millions of Americans had been exposed to such scenarios (however unrealistically), it seems like that lends some credence to the argument that officials should have at least seriously considered such possibilities. I know that after the initial waves of shock and grief, one of the first things I thought of was, "didn't I just see this on TV a few months ago?" (I also thought, "ah, so that's why they killed Massoud over the weekend," but that's a fairly different discussion.) 74.74.65.213 (talk) 03:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Susan Lindauer

I'm surprised there is no mention of Susan Lindauer. Her testimony in a U.S. District Court hearing along with supporting testimony from reliable sources indicates she contacted the DOJ Office of Counterterrorism in August of 2001 telling them that "an attack is imminent and would occur in the southern part of Manhattan, involving airplanes and possibly a nuclear weapon with the WTC as the likely target". Relevance is supported by ..."The prosecution did not challenge Godfrey's testimony that Lindauer made the predictions in the time period given by the witness". She claims Richard Carl Fuisz gave her the information in his capacity as a CIA agent (this is not mentioned in his bio). The case is a bit confusing as the case against her claim put to the court is that "her willingness to produce witnesses to verify those claims were signs of delusion". Wayne (talk) 14:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

I'm undoing the change from Logicman1966 because the referenced cite is to a CounterPunch article. CounterPunch is not a reliable source. See the following archived discussion. [1] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

No, in the discussion you linked to, there was NOT a consensus of opinion that CounterPunch is not a reliable source. I disagree with that statement. Regardless, I have unsuccessfully tried finding an alternative source for the quote. Unfortunately it appears that a lot of material relating to this incident has been removed/deleted from the public record. That in itself is noteworthy. Logicman1966 (talk) 05:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I've gone back and reread the discussion and the overwhelming majority of editors (i.e. all but one) did not feel CounterPunch is a reliable source. Several reasons were given including it had "a strong political agenda and bias", prides itself on "giving space to marginal views" and lacked "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". The only real disagreement was in situations where an individual author was particularly well know and notable in his own right (such as Noam Chomsky).
As for statement, "a lot of material relating to this incident has been removed/deleted from the public record. That in itself is noteworthy", that sounds like original research and no, it is not noteworthy unless reliable sources say such a thing.
BTW, there's one more important point that I'd like to make. Al Qaeda's terrorist attacks on 9/11 have been extremely well-covered by numerous reliable sources. If you're having trouble finding reliable sources that same something, that's a good indication that it should NOT be in Wikipedia. This should be relatively easy. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Should illustrations depicting the WTC as a target be included such as...

  • Page 49 of the Air Force Manual "10-100: Airman's Manual" from Aug 1999.
    Page 49 of the Air Force Manual "10-100: Airman's Manual" from Aug 1999.
  • The cover of a US Dept of Justice manual entitled "Managing Weapons of Mass Destruction Incidents: An Executive Level Program for Sheriffs" from June 2000.
    The cover of a US Dept of Justice manual entitled "Managing Weapons of Mass Destruction Incidents: An Executive Level Program for Sheriffs" from June 2000.

I'm curious to know=P.Smallman12q (talk) 13:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

No. It's your original research - no reliable source discusses these images. Hipocrite (talk) 13:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm...well in that regard...that there aren't any reliable sources that discuss the images...thats true(unless someone can find such a source). While WP:OR states that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." It then states "This policy and the verifiability policy reinforce each other by requiring that only assertions, theories, opinions, and arguments that have already been published in a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia"... Are pictures considered assertions? This is a losing argument, but the pictures come from a reliable source... Well I was hoping to get the two pics included...but I can see that until an expert comes along and writes about it...I'm simply not qualified enough to discern what it is I see...Smallman12q (talk) 00:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
It's your OR connecting the pictures with the September 11 Attacks unless you find a RS that state that they are a significant part of the advance-knowledge debate. WP does not aim at introducing new elements into ongoing debates, but at accurately depicting them. That is, whether you are or are not qualified enough to discern what's on them is not the issue, the threshold for inclusion is not individual perception and analysis, but verifyability. 92.76.129.224 (talk) 13:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I've concluded that it is indeed OR as I can't find any reliable sources pointing these pictures out...my apologies...Smallman12q (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC).

Bias

Whoever had the flippancy to write this:

"However, certain questions of 9/11 foreknowledge are distinct from conspiracy theories because they propose incompetence and failures on the parts of many people and entities, not a deliberate allowance of the attacks to occur."

Thank you for this elegant disclaimer. The Orwellian brutality of this sentence in and by itself is a damning indictment of consensus truth. I propose no change. No wording could more succinctly express the climate of self-censorship we subject ourselves to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.72.202.138 (talk) 13:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

reliable source

Is http://www.justiceblind.com/airplanes.html a reliable source? Do we have other sources for Senator Bob Graham's statements cited on that page? --Espoo (talk) 17:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


Removed paragraph due to missing citation

I remove the last paragraph in the Able Danger section due to a missing citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.231.25.98 (talk) 22:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

WTC7 and the BBC

What about the reporting of the collapse of the Salomon Brothers building prior to the event?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNK1V6S2cbo&feature=related

Even the BBC explanation of it is dodgy: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.15.40.144 (talk) 10:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

There explanation lies around the fact that they "longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy)"...er...right.Smallman12q (talk) 14:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
The collapse was imminent, firefighters expected it to happen. It's no surprise that the BBC already had a line prepared for the event beforehand, as to be up-to-date at that point. Furthermore, you'd have to find RS discussing the BBC as part of the advance-knowledge debate. 92.76.129.224 (talk) 13:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the firefighters based this expectation predominantly on the documented fact that they were told that the skyscraper would collapse.
http://rememberbuilding7.org/foreknowledge/
CNN and the BBC did not merely report that the building was damaged or that it might collapse; they prematurely announced its actual collapse.
CNN's Aaron Brown, one hour and ten minutes in advance of the collapse: "We are getting information now that one of the other buildings, Building 7, in the World Trade Center complex, is on fire and has either collapsed or is collapsing." CNN then revised its captions accordingly, from "may collapse" to "poised to collapse" (approximately 15 minutes before the actual collapse) and then to "on verge of collapse" (approximately 1.5 minutes before actual destruction). High precision!
Of course, NIST's final explanation 7 years later -- not based on any physical research material, as "no steel was recovered from WTC 7" -- was that a totally unpredictable chain of events -- "thermal expansion" causing the failure of an inner column, column number 79, followed by the failure of the other 80 columns within a couple of seconds (NIST doesn't go into details here) -- led to an "unprecedented event": the total destruction of a skyscraper. Without the failure of column 79, about which no one could have had foreknowledge, the skyscaper would, according to NIST, not have collapsed. History teaches (talk) 13:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate referencing

I noticed that at least one reference, the Globe and Mail article by Doug Saunders, is a link to whatreallyhappened.com which is not a reliable source, even if it does offer a reprint of a Globe and Mail article -- which I can't yet confirm, since the link is now broken. Andrevan@ 09:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Xinoehpoel

There's nothing in the article about Xinoehpoel who predicted the attacks on usenet. See http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D07E6DD173BF934A2575AC0A9679C8B63 Arnold1 (talk) 01:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

See also the original usenet thread that the article above is referring to : http://groups.google.com/group/alt.prophecies.nostradamus/browse_thread/thread/cbaaf7d794e0061f?hl=en&tvc=2 Arnold1 (talk) 01:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


I was a regular reader of alt.prophecies.nostradamus at the time, and I can vouch for the authenticity of Xinoehpoel (as much as an anonymous user can vouch for anything). Funny thing was he predicted Sept 1, 2001 first (9-1-1) and when that failed to occur he predicted Sept 11 (9-11). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.235.97.218 (talk) 13:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia makes contradictory claims

It is quite pathetic to state in the same paragraph that 5 Israelis were filming the burning skyline 4 HOURS after the event, and then to repeat a baseless claim from Ketchum of Counterpunch that this happened 16 minutes after the event. I deleted the remarks made by that defamatory hate site, as they are not even reputable in the realm of conspiracy theories. ---JD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 18:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

They were ARRESTED 4 hours after the event. They were most certainly celebrating 16 minutes after the first attack occurred because they have it on video and took photographs before the 2nd tower was hit. It was even reported that they were setup before the attacks had occurred. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryal-oh (talk • contribs) 15:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Um, yeah, kinda sounds like that would need to be in there. Specifically: "The New York Times reported Thursday that a group of five men had set up video cameras aimed at the Twin Towers prior to the attack on Tuesday, and were seen congratulating one another afterwards." In that report you linked to published 9/14/2001. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.37.144 (talk) 03:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposed split

False flag and other conspiracy theories should be separated from the advance-knowledge debate, which is, while integral to the former, still fundamentally distinct in many ways.   — C M B J   20:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Senator Hart on his warnings to Rice

I spotted this interview with senator Hart. My edit [2] was reverted from the 9/11 main article. Possibly, some information from the source fits this article, what do you think?, which section: Intelligence Warnings? lessismore (talk) 22:05, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

blp

The quote attributed to Rice isn't cited; since it's contentious and likely to be challenged I've removed it[3] per WP:BLP. Tom Harrison Talk 11:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Discussing possible fork

I've started a discussion at Talk:September 11 intelligence prior to the attacks. Superm401 - Talk 00:31, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Is this a real topic?

Is this a real topic? I'm not aware of any September 11 attacks advance-knowledge debate outside the 9/11 conspiracy theorist community (and we already have an article dedicated to 9/11 conspiracy theories). I doubt if the advance-knowledge conspiracy theory is notable on its own. This article seems like the result of WP:OR-y and WP:SYN-y research by Wikipedia editors to create a topic. Thoughts? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:03, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

This is probably a daughter article of 9/11 conspiracy theories...MONGO 20:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
OK, I just looked into the history and based on the edit summaries, it looks like it was created as a subarticle of 9/11 conspiracy theories.[4] If so, "September 11 attacks advance-knowledge debate" is a misleading name. It should be "September 11 attacks advance-knowledge conspiracy theories". Maybe fixing the article is as simple as renaming it? But I don't think that 9/11 advance-knowledge conspiracy theories is notable on its own. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
I think it's a spectrum from conspiracy theory to mainstream debate (how much intelligence was there?, how actionable was it?). Some people hold outlandish conspiracy theories in this area. The spectrum then moves from there all the way to reliable discussion of the issue such as the Commission quote given, "During the spring and summer of 2001, U.S. intelligence agencies received a stream of warnings about an attack al Qaeda planned, as one report puts it "something very, very, very big."", and mainstream discussion of Massoud's warning. I've started a discussion at Talk:September 11 intelligence prior to the attacks about how merging these two articles may help resolve an undue weight issue. Superm401 - Talk 00:38, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Is there a debate? Who are the parties to this debate? There were hearings, and they have an article, and there were investigations, and they have articles; and then there are conspiracy theories, and this is a pov fork - a conspiracist synthesis of material from articles about the hearings and investigations, from primary sources, and from ct sites. It looks like the subject of this article doesn't really exist. Tom Harrison Talk 02:41, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The question of advanced knowledge is hardly fringe and does get mainstream attention. Just the question of whether they could have predicted the use of planes as missiles has been covered extensively in major reliable sources. See a small sampling of those sources: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]. Several of those cover the general issue of advanced knowledge in significant detail. This is not considering all the claims about al-Hazmi and al-Midhar.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
OK, I'm going to move the article to "September 11 attacks advance-knowledge conspiracy theories" but I still have to wonder whether this topic is notable on its own. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:29, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Did you even read what I wrote above? It is not a fringe issue as it gets mainstream attention, meaning it is discussed as a legitimate issue in mainstream sources. That means it is not limited to conspiracy theories and should not be labeled as such, especially since most sources don't discuss it as a conspiracy theory.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:35, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I did; did you read what I wrote? The article started off as a spin off of 9/11 CT but given a bad title. I've fixed the title. If there's content in the article not about CTs, it needs to be deleted. For mainstream issues, we have September 11 intelligence prior to the attacks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:01, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Who cares where it spun off from? It is, in fact, a legitimate mainstream issue and not a conspiracy theory. Therefore it should not be labeled a conspiracy theory. Like I have said several times, if you have any issue with the wording in this article you should fix those issues.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:16, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Just because conspiracists mention some of the points doesn't make them conspiracy theories. I can't even see any conspiracy websites among the references. The page looks to be largely legitmate discussion regarding the significance of factual information. If the tinfoil hat brigade is going to claim these are conspiracy theories then they better provide some good sources to support that no mainstream source has asked any of these questions. Wayne (talk) 18:26, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
@TDA: I just told you, we already have an article for that: September 11 intelligence prior to the attacks. That's where majority and significant minority viewpoints are covered. Fringe viewpoints don't belong there. That's what this article is for. Please stop trying to lump them together. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Jumping in late my proposal is to change the name of the article to "September 11 advanced knowledge claims". Simply that accurately describes all the material in the article. Edkollin (talk) 21:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

"9/11 advance-knowledge hypotheses"?

This article doesn't cover the debate as much as the questions raised. A lot of the statements seem removed from any context and left completely open-ended. Some of the statements are also using dated sources (as early as Sept 12, 2001), which can be problematic since they tend to carry more speculation than research.-Wafulz (talk) 19:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Hallo, I recently found an Israeli website www.debka.co.il, which writes under "mi anachnu" or "about us" that they had very precise foreknowledge about the attacks already in May/June 2000. Already at that time they wrote, hijackers would use civilian airplanes to attack the twin towers in New York and further targets in Washington. I am new to editing wikipedia, so I ask if this information can be translated and then added in some way. Peaceinchrist (talk) 17:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
DEBKAfile is an Israeli intelligence website that is not considered a reliable source per WP:RSN. __meco (talk) 23:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I see Odigo and San Fransisco warning as linked.

Brown never stated why he called the airport security staff and Odigo is a subsidiary of a much larger service(1). For this article it may be worth mentioning: 1.Odigo is owned by Comverse Infosys(2) And a debate exists about Comverse Infosys being an shell for Israeli surveillance.(3) ArchthMikehlInfervras (talk) 02:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)ArchthMikehlInfervras — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArchthMikehlInfervras (talk • contribs) 02:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC) (1) http://www.theinsider.org/news/article.asp?id=520 (3) http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6480.htm

Questionable deletion of FBI prior knowledge info

This information was deleted from the article: FBI Director Robert Mueller admitted to a Senate panel that the Bureau had been warned by an agent in the summer of 2001 that Moussaoui "could fly something into the World Trade Center." [[14]] At first, I thought it was deleted for being "conspiracy theory" related (as in not being reliable information). But now I think it was deleted for NOT being "conspiracy theory" related! This is referenced with a CNN article, it's relevant and it's NPOV. It points out that the FBI was warned in advance that the WTC was a possible target of the 9/11 attacks BEFORE the attacks occurred. I don't understand why factual, relevant, reliably sourced information should be deleted from the article just because it doesn't have the words "conspiracy theory" in the text. I've restored the information. Here is a diff of the deletion: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=September_11_attacks_advance-knowledge_conspiracy_theories&diff=529672499&oldid=529654789 Ghostofnemo (talk) 15:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

This Wikipedia article is about 9/11 conspiracy theories. The CNN article cited is not. Tom Harrison Talk 16:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
@Ghostofnemo: The problem with your edit is that the source doesn't say anything about advance knowledge conspiracy theories. You're basically performing original research on a primary source drawing your own conclusion that this is related. Maybe it; maybe it isn't. But reliable sources have to explictly draw that conclusion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
The CNN article is about the 9/11 attacks. It says that the director of the FBI admitted he was warned by an FBI agent that Moussaoui might have been planning to fly a plane into the World Trade Center the summer before the attack. The government has claimed, at the highest levels, not only that it had no prior information about the attacks, but that even the idea of someone flying an airliner into a building was totally unheard of. Regarding the "original research" claim, when you source information with a reliable source, it's not "original research". Original research is when you do the research and then publish your findings on Wikipedia. CNN is generally regarded as a reliable source. The material I added to the article in not the result of my research, it's a paraphrase of material published in the CNN article referenced. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
The conclusion that the line in question is drawing is that FBI was warned by its agents that al-Queda suspects were plotting to possibly fly planes into the World Trade Center the summer before the attacks. That is exactly the same information that appears in the CNN article. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
The source does not discuss conspiracy theories. Drawing conclusions not found in the sources is WP:SYNTH (I.e., like the bulk of this article, it is a fabrication). — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 13:53, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
FIRST it was OR, NOW it's SYNTH! How can directly paraphrasing a respected news source be synth? What conclusions are being drawn, besides factually representing the material in the news stories? Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Synthesis is original research. By picking and choosing points to present, as at loose trains, an advocate can make sources seem to support something they don't support - here, that the material presented supports the advance-knowledge conspiracy theories. Tom Harrison Talk 15:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

But this is not SYNTH. Here's the diff of the latest deletion: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=September_11_attacks_advance-knowledge_conspiracy_theories&diff=530297977&oldid=530295038 The first article reports that the FBI was warned, before the 9/11 attacks, by FBI agents in the field that Moussaoui was possibly plotting to fly a plane into the World Trade Center. Although this doesn't PROVE the government had certain knowledge of the attacks, it does point out that it was suspected at least by some FBI agents as a clear possibility. The second article points out that some FBI agents found the FBI's refusal to request a search warrant for Mousaoui's computer to be so puzzling that they joked that perhaps the FBI had been infiltrated by al Qeda. This lends support to the theory that normal procedures were not being followed and that something was amiss, which supports the theory that there may have been a LIHOP (let it happen on purpose) conspiracy, which is the topic of this article. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

"...which supports the theory that there may have been a LIHOP (let it happen on purpose) conspiracy..." What source says that? Tom Harrison Talk 13:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
This article is not the place to provide information that "lends support" to conspiracy theories by WP:SYNTH. You do realize that they are called conspiracy theories because they're synthesized (i.e., not true, made up, false, fabrications, etc)...Right? — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 15:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
The edits in question don't say anything about the LIHOP theory. They simply accurately paraphrase the referenced reliable sources. The reader can draw his or her own conclusions - IF they aren't deleted from the article. Or we can just pretend none of this ever happened... Ghostofnemo (talk) 18:13, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
"The edits in question don't say anything about the LIHOP theory." Nor about any other advance-knowledge conspiracy theory. Tom Harrison Talk 23:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
The reliable sources are stating that FBI agents suspected Moussaoui was learning to fly a jet airliner with the possible intention of using this skill to commit an act of terrorism, and even suggested the World Trade Center was a possible target. And it's also a fact that FBI agents were puzzled about why the FBI wouldn't let them go after Moussaoui. And it's a fact that France had warned the U.S. that Moussaoui was linked to radical Islamic groups. It's only a "conspiracy theory" because these reliably sourced FACTS are politically inconvenient for the government. So in the Kafkaesque world of post-9/11 America, we can't include this in the conspiracy theory article, because the NEWS SOURCES don't label it as a conspiracy theory (because these are things that factually happened that indicate there was strong suspicion that some kind of attack was brewing, involving al Queda, jet liners and possibly the World Trade Center). But we can't put this into the regular article either, because - it's a conspiracy theory! Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
You can't select and synthesize facts to support a fringe theory. That's not a new or unique restriction. Tom Harrison Talk 13:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Where is the synthesis? Have you looked at the diff of the deletion? Where am I saying something that is not a direct paraphrase of the reliable sources referenced? Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
It's a synthesis because it's presented as supporting the conspriacy theory, when it has nothing to do with the conspiracy theory. Tom Harrison Talk 13:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
So you're asserting that when an FBI agent tells headquarters that a suspect, who has been identified as an Islamic extremist, is possibly plotting to fly a jet into the World Trade Center BEFORE the 9/11 attacks, that this doesn't even hint at foreknowledge? And that this is actually in no way related to this article? Is this because you have a reliable source that says this is a fake story, or one where the agent says, "Actually, that was just a wild, lucky guess I made - I really had absolutely nothing to base that on. I pulled that out of thin air and it was just the hugest freak coincidence! Man, was I blown away when that ACTUALLY HAPPENED just a few weeks later!" Here's the story mentioned on a 9/11 Truth website: http://www.911truth.org/article_for_printing.php?story=20060322133637223 And here is it on another "conspiracy theory" website: http://www.truthmove.org/content/warnings-foreknowledge/ Ghostofnemo (talk) 15:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm saying you need a reliable secondary source that connects it to the subject of the article, September 11 attacks advance-knowledge conspiracy theories. Tom Harrison Talk 16:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
So you're saying that if there was an article in a respected newspaper about researchers finding sound recordings which indicate that there was more than one shooter at the JFK assassination, you could only include that information in the "JFK assassination conspiracy theory" article if it said, in the news article, that this new finding lends support to JFK assassination conspiracy theories???? Ghostofnemo (talk) 15:24, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Maybe. I don't know a lot about JFK assassination conspiracy theories. That's a question to take up at that article. In any case, we can't synthesize from primary sources our own defnition and anatomy of the 9/11 conspiracy theories. We have to use reliable secondary sources that describe them. Something is relevent to the cts only if a reliable seconday source says it is. Is that so difficult or unreasonable? Find a news article in the Guardian that says "this supports the idea that Bu$h Knew!!! and is leading the best minds to re-consider whether it is after all a conspiracy theory, or a conspiracy." Tom Harrison Talk 15:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
You seem to be saying that news stories from reliable sources that support the "prior knowledge" theory can only be used if they explicitly mention that theory. That seems like a fairly artificial standard. If the article was about "Flat Earth theories" and I included a line from an article in which astronauts orbiting the earth noted that the earth is indeed round, I couldn't use that in the "Flat Earth" article unless the news article said, "clearly disputing Flat Earth theories"? Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
This has been explained to you several times, by several editors. If it gets explained to you one more time, do you honestly think you're going to understand? Or do you think you're just going to keep repeating the same stuff ad nauseum? There's no evidence that this is even a notable topic. The fact that you can't find sources about this topic speaks volumes. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I assume that's a "yes, you can't use a general truth to assert a specific truth". I have heard this before - I was told that you can't insert the sentence, "Research has shown that smoking cigarettes increases your risk of cancer" in an article about "Marlboros" if the article about cigarette research doesn't mention "Marlboros" BY NAME! That is ridiculous - you're saying this is Wikipedia policy??? Ghostofnemo (talk)

Is this sub-topic independently notable?

There's little doubt that 9/11 conspiracy theories are notable. But are advance-knowledge conspiracy theories independently notable? Is there significant coverage of this sub-conspiracy theory that is independent of the source? I'm considering nominating this article for deletion, but want to discuss it first. What does everyone else thing? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I think this article is kind of a pov fork. There are sources about the state of intelligence before 9/11, sources about different hypothetical scenarios, and sources about some conspiracy theories; these have been assembled to support a fringe position, and then some of the most egregious nonsense has been removed. It does not seem that academics and researchers break out conspiracy theories about foreknowledge from 9/11 conspiracy theories generally. Nearly everything here is already somewhere else; the title isn't a likely search term. I'd support deletion. Tom Harrison Talk 13:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
POV fork. All conspiracy involves advance knowledge. Merge with main conspiracy theory article. Binksternet (talk) 17:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Based on the Israel section alone I think it must be notable, if only in the context of the rhetoric that comes out of Iran. Andrevan@ 01:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the Israel section has good text and sources, but why does it need its own article? That material can be merged into the main conspiracy article. Binksternet (talk) 01:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Usually the reason for starting sub-articles like this is because editors of the main article complain that there is too much material to include in the main article, so large amounts of material have to (unfortunately) be deleted. Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Article name change

Why was the article title changed without consensus? The first change had the comment "See talk page for explanation" yet looking at the discussion the limited input shows a consensus to keep, not change. The title was later changed back then changed again with the comment "There is no debate outside of conspiracy theorists". In this case I agree with the comment as "debate" is too strong a word and "claims" may be more accurate. However, this does not justify changing the title to include the words "conspiracy theories" as I doubt there is even much of a debate in conspiracy circles, no conspiracy theories are present in the article and all the questions have been raised by mainstream sources. ATM the title is WP:OR and WP:POV. I suggest AQFK self revert until a consensus is gained for the change. Wayne (talk) 18:22, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

This article was created as a sub-article of 9/11 conspiracy theories. It selectes references to advance the position that George Bush, the Mossad, etc. knew the attack was coming and let it happen. advance-knowledge conspiracy theories accurately describes that. The article about the state of intelligence before the attacks is September 11 intelligence prior to the attacks. Tom Harrison Talk 12:46, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Are you reading the right article? Nowhere does it suggest that "George Bush, the Mossad, etc. knew the attack was coming and let it happen." At best the implication is that an attack was planned somewhere at some time in the future rather any specific target and that's not a conspiracy theory by any stretch. The only claims related specifically to 9/11 were made by reliable sources and discussed by the 9/11 Commission or courts so no conspiracy theories there either. Could you point out any conspiracy theories mentioned in the article? Wayne (talk) 14:08, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
@Wayne: Your question is based on a false premise. It was discussed in the subsection above, "Is this a real topic?" and we proceeded fix the title as the result of this discussion. This is the consensus version. It's been six months since the discussion in March and nobody has objected until now, so if you want to change it to something else, the burden is on you to change concensus. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:32, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Since when is your opinion considered a consensus? Looking at the "Is this a real topic?" section I find one "vote" to include conspiracy theory in the title, one editor making a comment, one "vote" for a merge, one editor talking rubbish, one "vote" for using the word claim and two "votes" for keep. No consensus for anything. What does six months without an objection have to do with consensus? All that says is that few people patrol the page and actually lends support to there being no conspiracy theory content. The burden is on you to change concensus although I fail to see how you can use a title that makes a claim not found in the article itself. That seems to be WP:OR. Wayne (talk) 07:53, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
I count three editors (me, MONGO, and Tom Harrison) who saw this article as being about conspiracy theories. I renamed the article and nobody objected. The fact that this edit stood for 6 months without objection validates that this is the consensus version. Look, I'm not interested in playing games. If you want to change consensus, the burden is on you to change it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
MONGO merely commented that the article may be a fork before a name change was even suggested while Harrison also made a comment saying the subject didn't exist (IE: delete article not change the name.) Specifically he stated the article was: "a conspiracist synthesis of material from articles about the hearings and investigations, from primary sources, and from ct sites" which relies on false claims. The article contains no synthesis and none of the content is sourced from ct sites. Even accepting three votes for the change leaves the "vote" tied at best and possibly three to four in favour of keep if we use your reasoning, which still means no consensus for change. If you are not interested in playing games as you claim, show good faith and abide by WP guidelines. There was no consensus for a change. A bad edit standing for six months is not unheard of and can mean no more than that the change wasn't noticed. Nor is such an error automatically assumed to be consensus per WP policy and you yourself have acknowledged this in other 911 articles by deleting longstanding edits at various times. If you want to rename the article you only need to point out the conspiracy theory content to support it. If you cant, then there is no basis for changing the name to the one you want. However, I have no problem with changing the name to September 11 claims of advance-knowledge or similar as that does accurately reflect the content. Wayne (talk) 10:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
I concur with Wayne's post above. Nothing in this article is about "conspiracy theories". The name change was completely unwarranted which is why I reverted it back to the original. All the information in the article is referenced from mainstream sources (not so-called conspiracy-theory websites). Unless someone can provide an actual rationale for why this name change should stand I shall be reverting it back to the original.Dangermouse72 (talk) 15:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
@Wayne: Unbelievable. I just told you that I wasn't interested in playing games, and there you go again. I'll repeat: 3 editors agreed and nobody opposed for 6 months.
@Dangermouse72: That the Bush administration knew of the attacks but allowed them to happen is a 9/11 conspiracy theory. In fact, the article start off as a spin-off of 9/11 CT.
The article was created by Corleonebrother on 13:49, January 9, 2008. This was their edit summary:
Source: 13:49, January 9, 2008
That the article has been twisted around to mean something other than what it was intended is hardly a surprise. Wikipedia is frequently abused by WP:FRINGE proponents to make their viewpoint appear more mainstream. That just means that the article is poorly written. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
BTW...can you point out where in the article it is claimed or even implied that the Bush administration knew there would be attacks on 9/11 but allowed them to happen? Wayne (talk) 16:59, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
And I'll repeat: three editors agreed and four editors were opposed when you changed the name. Just because a bad edit went unnoticed for six months does not make it legitimate, not everyone stalks topics. It seems that the "spin off" was an attempt to separate mainstream questions from the conspiracy theories. Regardless of how the article started it has no conspiracy theory content. The article was actually named September 11 attacks advance-knowledge debate for more than four years without complaint. An accusation that four years of edits by a wide range of editors is nothing but poor editing and abuse by fringe proponents is an astounding claim and your refusal to acknowledge WP policies or act in good faith is dissapointing. Wayne (talk) 16:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The advance-knowledge "debate" is entirely an artifact of the ct community. There is no debate. We shouldn't miss-inform the reader by presenting references chosen to support some lihop conspiracy theory in the context of rational assesments of the state of intelligence prior to the attacks. Our pages about conspiracy theories are about social/psychological/political phenomena. Our pages about 9/11 are about historical events. Tom Harrison Talk 17:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

If you read above you will notice suggestions to change the name to September 11 claims of advance-knowledge or similar. Wayne (talk) 01:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I would like to weigh in on the side of—well, not debate—but against conspiracy. The airline stock shorts were treated as a reasonable theory by the mainstream financial press. The weight of the evidence was eventually against it, but it was not really considered absurd at any time. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
I think the only thing that relates Able Danger, Willie Brown, and short selling is they're all elements of lihop conspiracy theories. We might turn this page into a redirect to 9/11 conspiracy theories, and incorporate anything non-ct into existing articles. Tom Harrison Talk 20:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
You keep using WP:SYNTH to support your views. Short selling, Able Danger and Willie Brown have no relation and short selling has not been used in lihop theories as far as I know. Whether or not any of the claims have been used as elements of conspiracy theories is as relevant as claiming that planes have been used as elements of conspiracy theories. So what... the artical is NOT about conspiracy theories. Incorporating this material into existing articles has been tried and does not work as it just gets deleted or manipulated by editors "because it has been used by conspiracy theorists". The article has enough daily page views to justify it's existence anyway. Wayne (talk) 02:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
"Short selling, Able Danger and Willie Brown have no relation..." Sure they do - September 11 attacks advance-knowledge conspiracy theories. Here's short-selling as part of a ct, by the way. If you mean reliable sources don't put them together, then you're right. Tom Harrison Talk 11:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
September 11 intelligence prior to the attacks has an edit history and a talk page history of one or two days, six months ago. It looks like an obvious WP:FORK that would qualify for WP:AfD, especially since it's no more than a stub. Had there been a real effort to develop it, maybe I would have found something about the 70 "full field investigations" by the FBI of al Qaeda cells in the US that were under way in the months before the attacks, and the 1998 and 1999 intelligence reports about the use of airplanes as weapons, all of this mentioned by Rice in her testimony before the commission. The 1998 CIA's Counterterrorist Center report to President Bill Clinton isn't it, unless the CIA assumed that hijacking aircraft to gain the release of 'Blind Sheik' Omar Abdel Rahman meant crashing planes into buildings until their demands were met.
To say that there is or was no debate outside the ct community would classify some senators, members of congress, the 9/11 Commission, the former chief counter-terrorism adviser on the National Security Council, Former National Security Advisor, and pretty much everyone who has written about the topic, as conspiracy nuts. Move or remove the real conspiracy stuff and restore the name.
BTW: Not only wasn't Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves followed, there was no way of knowing such a move was proposed or discussed, unless one took the time to read the whole talk page. If you can call it a discussion, I see three comments after the first suggestion of changing the name (which came the same day the FORK was created), and then a name change, 17 hours after the suggestion.
The fact that no one complained for so long could well be due to the fact that people arrive here by clicking on a wikilink that still shows the original name, for example in 9/11_conspiracy_theories#Foreknowledge. Wikipedia:Moving a page is clear about this: Open each of the redirect pages (best to do so in new tabs), click edit this page for each one, and change their target to the name of the page to which you have moved the page. Yes there is a bot, but clearly it doesn't do it's job very well, probably the reason why they tell you to do it manually in the first place.
The person who proposed and performed the name change repeated again and again "we already have an article for that". Am I to believe that he thought that article was created first and that his arrival on this talk page when it was only eleven hours old was pure coincidence?
This looks more like an effort to get rid of criticism of the administration and the intelligence community than anything else. Proposing and performing a name change to conspiracy theories, at the same time suggesting that "9/11 advance-knowledge conspiracy theories" isn't notable on its own, and declaring "If there's content in the article not about CTs, it needs to be deleted." Ssscienccce (talk) 12:55, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the title should be changed to "September 11 claims of advance-knowledge" or "September 11 attacks advance-knowledge debate". The expression "conspiracy theories" doesnt fit in the title, since it sounds like a denigration against the debate. As many other said previously this debate went mainstream and has never been an "eccentric theory". 79.31.92.60 (talk) 01:42, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality

This article reeks of bias or, at the very least, does not have much content explaining the opposing side of this argument. This foreknowledge theory is not something that is universally considered true and should be treated like the conspiracy theory it is. (NBMATT (talk) 08:14, 13 May 2012 (UTC))

Are you aware of the existence of some "universally considered true theory" (either from the government or from the dissidents) about this theme ? It could be a big news ;)
btw the topic here is not about "September 11 attacks advance-knowledge conspiracy theories" , it is instead about:
  1. proved and recognized "september 11 attacks advance-knowledge"
  2. claimed and still not proved "september 11 attacks advance-knowledge"
And again, this is an article based on mainstream sources, maybe you were deceived by the incorrect title. Please read here, where many users already explained that the article is ok (and based on reliable secondary sources) and it's the title the real problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:September_11_attacks_advance-knowledge_conspiracy_theories#Article_name_change

79.45.101.243 (talk) 04:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Alteration of the meaning

In this https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=September_11_attacks_advance-knowledge_conspiracy_theories&diff=next&oldid=563469397 edit the meaning has been altered:

  1. as i explained in the "edit summary" sections, so i fixed it back to the previous version.
  2. Also i re-inserted the second source link (two sorces are better than one, and also note that his statements to the press are way less relevant if compared with statements to the Senate Judiciary Committee' ).
  3. I'm also going to insert (from the CNN source) that he said that they got a clear warning and not something like "Moussaoui is one among many that could hit the WTC with a plane".

@Binksternet if you've something to say about it please do. Stop doing editwarring with such explainations like "no it was better like this" without specifing why. thanks 79.45.101.243 (talk) 08:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

just to be clear on this: i made edits as 79.31.92.60 before (i'm the same user) -- Errico --79.45.101.243 (talk) 09:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was withdrawn. bd2412 T 01:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

September 11 attacks advance-knowledge conspiracy theories → September 11 Attacks Advance-Knowledge Conspiracy Theories – to match Wikipedia article naming/ capitalization format Kona1611 (talk) 18:43, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose and suggest speedy close. With respect, Kona1611, you're mistaken—WP:NCCAPS says we use sentence-case capitalization, not title-case, for article titles, so the current title is entirely appropriate. --BDD (talk) 21:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I gotcha. I was not aware of that convention. So much around here I am still learning. Can close it if you want to. It appears I was mistaken. Thanks for the clarification. Kona1611 (talk) 01:09, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


Secondary Source Reliability

I do believe that in the past under the insider trading section of this article, there was reference to a London Times Article located here: http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/sept11/londontimes_insidertrading.html. But it was deleted as the site 911research.wtc7.net was deemed dubious as a source. However archive.org does not have the article in its cache, nor does London Times itself. However, a few days ago, I spoke with the author, James Doran, on Twitter and he said, indeed it was his article. How can we re-add this article and cite it? I have been reading over on the Cite_Book Help Talk page concerning link rot on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Cite_book which states concerning WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT "This guideline doesn't demand that we note which content deliver holds the specific source that we accessed. It simply says, 'Don't cite a source unless you've seen it yourself.' I have seen the article on 911research.wtc7.net, which by the naming structure of the link, it is a cache of the article. What to do? I hope this makes sense as to what I am asking. Kona1611 (talk) 01:04, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Sources and the "Insider trading" section

The Insider trading section is practically devoid of sources that cover the topic as a conspiracy theory. It appears to be mostly primary sources spiced with weasel words and phrases (e.g., "..an international team of experts showed that..."). This article is supposed to be about the phenomenon of advance-knowledge conspiracy theories and is not the place to "document" what advance-knowledge conspiracy theorist see as suspicious, etc. Is any of the section salvageable? — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 06:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Content removed from lede by banned editor

Per WP:WikiProject Qworty clean-up, all edits by User:Qworty are being examined. Qworty, who was known to be a liberal activist and POV-pusher, removed the following content from the lede[15].

With reference to intelligence failures that took place before the attacks, the 9/11 Commission Report concluded that both the Bush and Clinton Administrations had been "not well served" by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) or Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). It also concluded that no-one outside of al Qaeda had any foreknowledge of the attacks.

I leave the question of whether this content should be restored to the editors actively involved in this article, but per Project Qworty-cleanup and Qworty's tendency to POV-push, I'm bringing this to the article talk page for discussion. Seth Kellerman (talk) 03:33, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Intelligence Warnings- OR and wrong.

This section contains what amounts to OR opinionating of a dubious nature:

"In her testimony to the 9/11 Commission, Condoleezza Rice stated that "the threat reporting that we received in the spring and summer of 2001 was not specific as to time nor place nor manner of attack. Almost all the reports focused on al-Qaeda activities outside the United States." However, on August 6, 2001, the President's Daily Briefing, entitled Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US warned that bin Laden was planning to exploit his operatives' access to the U.S. to mount a terrorist strike: FBI information... indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country, consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attack."

First there isn't a reference but more importantly the word however indicates the following passage would disprove Rice's statement but it doesn't. It's like saying "The market claimed they were out of apples, however we went there later and found they really did have oranges". "Hijackings or other types of attack" is far too broad of scope and in fact confirms her claim of manner of attack, and no intelligence report detailed a time or place.

If someone wants to find a way to express this factually with references that's great but I'm going to remove that whole passage until then. Batvette (talk) 14:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, finally someone sees how "however" generally sucks on Wikipedia (or I at least see them seeing it). Good job. But the lack of a reference is still the more important flaw. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on September 11 attacks advance-knowledge conspiracy theories. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:38, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Odd subject/content disjunction

I came here expecting false claims of the administration intentionally letting it happen (doesn't really warrant an article) but instead find much information of actual warnings and prior knowledge. How does this fit into a conspiracy theory article? Either change the subject or move the information. There are plenty claims of Bush not taking warnings seriously without resorting to conspiracy theories. Article XXXIII of the Bush impeachment attempt bill was: "Repeatedly Ignored and Failed To Respond to High Level Intelligence Warnings of Planned Terrorist Attacks in the U.S., Prior to 9/11". Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 13:27, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:September_11_attacks_advance-knowledge_conspiracy_theories/Archive_1&oldid=1231866180"