Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute. Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 9/11 conspiracy theories article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	To-do list for 9/11 conspiracy theories:	edit  · history  · watch  · refresh
Make all references conform to the citation style described in Wikipedia:Footnotes. Work towards a consensus on shortening the article. Conform lists so that there are no 'orphan statements'.
Priority 2

9/11 conspiracy theories was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision if you feel there was a mistake. Date of review: No date specified. Please edit template call function as follows: {{FailedGA|insert date in any format here}}

9/11 conspiracy theories has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This article was nominated for deletion on 11 August 2006. The result of the discussion was Speedily kept (nomination withdrawn).

Archives
Archive 1	Archive 2
Archive 3	Archive 4
Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8
Archive 9	Archive 10
Archive 11	Archive 12
Archive 13	Archive 14

Contents 1 9/11 conspiracy theories is an Opinion Editorial 2 Pentagon crash pic 3 analysis by structural engineers still pending ;; 20070327_131310_898 4 Rename of article? 5 Compromise on renaming suggestion 6 What about...

[edit] 9/11 conspiracy theories is an Opinion Editorial

You just have to be kidding me with this page. This is one giant straw man argument; you put words into the mouths of the 9/11 Truth Community, with statements like the following:

You say, "conspiracy theorists assume that the 9/11 attacks achieved more-or-less exactly their intended result."

How do you know how many assume, and to what extent?

• We do not "assume" anything. Books and Websites that web sites that support these theories have said this in one way or another although what is "success" is varies upon theories. This is from the summery section some of the the details you ask for are are in the paragraphs dedicated to the specific theories. You are correct here and in other other areas the language could be more clear Edkollin 08:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be doing an interview, but the persons you are interviewing do not talk, you talk for them, and no rebuttal from the 9/11 Truth People is being allowed.

• In the many hyperlinks given they do talk or writeEdkollin 08:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The conspiracy is not theoretical, it is a fact, and it could be proven beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law. Yet you assume that is a just a theory. It is not theory, and the people of the 9/11 Truth Community are not conspiracy theorist. You claim over and over again that it is just theory, and by theory you mean some sort of wild guess, more or less an unfounded belief, rather than ideas based on facts.

• While I personally believe it "could" be proven in court it has not and therefore these are theories. And a theory is not in any definition a wild guess Edkollin 08:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

You say, "a 9/11 conspiracy theory generally refers to a belief in a broad conspiracy" Now where and how did you get this? Did you do a poll?

This is clearly an attack on the 9/11 Truth Community. To show that you are neutral, you need to remove terms like belief, and theorist, as well as broad generalizations about what the 9/11 Truth Community is saying. An Opinion Editorial is not encyclopedic. It appears to me that you are agents of the conspirators, accessories after the fact, aiding and abetting the criminals, with a propaganda hit piece, and yellow journalism. Treason!

• What words would you use?. Suggest a rewrite and put it here in the talk pages.Edkollin 08:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Can I make a page called, "9/11 Goverment Loyalist Theories" ?

Alfons http://www.v911t.org/

Yes, you may make such a page, and it will be subject to the same scrutiny and review as any other article on WP. If you notice a deficiency with this article, you are free to address the problem yourself. You seem to have access to a computer; use it to familiarize yourself with WP policy and improve the article accordingly. You might first want to review WP:NPA, as insults do nothing to enhance the article, nor your credibility. dr.ef.tymac 16:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Alfons Responds: WP policy is clearly indicated on your 9/11 conspiracy theories page. If you give me the same latitude as that seen in on your 9/11 conspiracy theories page, then I am in, I will not make the "9/11 Government Loyalist Theories" unless I can straw man them, and use broad generalizations to characterize them as the whackos that they are. If you get my drift here I want editorial control in my editorial rebuttal to your 9/11 conspiracy theories page which is clearly an Editorial. Alfons v911t

Alfons, respectfully, I think you are missing a crucial point. "Editorializing" of any form is not acceptable, regardless of what "side" you happen to be on. This discussion page is not a forum for advancing particular viewpoints, and if you were to create such an article, it would probably be summarily deleted. If you really want to help out, start by dropping the name-calling, then start with some basics: (see e.g., Wp:not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox, Wikipedia:Your first article if you haven't already read these). dr.ef.tymac 17:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Alfons Responds: If "Editorializing" of any form is not acceptable, then you need to take this page down, 9/11_conspiracy_theories, or revise it to a great extent. The page is clearly slanted, makes unsubstantiated claims that can only be based upon opinion. It appears that you have arbitrarily decided that the "official story" is correct, and all others are wrong, that is your opinion, and the page in question is your editorial. I am on the side of the Truth, what side are you on? Alfons v911t

• I suggested and wrote the original draft to the "official story" paragraph. I have explained why this was done again and again in these talk pages. The reason it was done had nothing to do with believing in a story I have many personal problems with. But I am not going to tell you what the reason was. You have to do that for yourself. You also will find vigorous debate about the wording you object to. You probably will not agree with the reason things were done and thats fine but calm down (hard to do on this topic I agree) do your research before leveling accusations at people Edkollin 08:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion or Wikipedia:Help_desk if you have concerns regarding removal or revision of an article. Those links, as well as the others given to you, provide a lot of useful information. As for your other comments, if you truly believe what you are saying, then it follows that not everything is as simple as it may appear on the surface. You might do well to remember that, before making casual accusations about what "other people" may think. That's all I have to say, regards. dr.ef.tymac 19:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

This isn't editorializing; there's a lot of people who think this page doesn't even deserve to exist as the 9/11 conspiracy theory movement generally have little idea what they're talking about. Fundamentally, they feel you're an irrelevant minority. I think that's not true; there's enough random stuff out there to support the existence of this article. However, it is our duty to report from an NPOV, not from your POV. Titanium Dragon 19:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

If you think the page is wrong, tell us where or fix it yourself. That these theories have holes and disagree with the official account is factual. That the official account has been called into question is also a fact. Both sides of this problem are addressed here. If they are not, put them in, but do not be surprised if there is a lot of information that contradicts any conspiracy theories (remember, they can read your thoughts...and you know who they are) BQZip01 18:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pentagon crash pic

Howdy, the article says that the picture does not show the plane impacting, as a matter of fact you have to have a good imagination to say that the small silvery blob is a plane. Thus the image captioning should not claim that the picture shows something when it really does not, it is disrespectful towards the reader. Anyways, this article looks more like a rebuttal than an article. -Lapinmies 13:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I don't think that a missile or what ever hit the Pentagon, I just think that the captioning is not appropriate for a fuzzy picture like that. -Lapinmies 15:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it is not clear.--Dcooper 15:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Reworded: regardless of personal viewpoints, the image caption should reflect: 1) a reasonably accurate interpretation of the content of the image itself; 2) a description that is consistent with the subject matter of the article; and 3) a neutral point of view that does not characterize disputed matters as though they are resolved. Since no credible source has disputed that the picture is a picture of the Pentagon, and since the other factual statements are under dispute (at least within the scope of this article) the caption has been changed to reflect only those matters which are not under credible dispute. The previous wording was inappropriate for the reasons enumerated above. dr.ef.tymac 17:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up: To those who keep changing the caption, and yet do not address the relevant issue here in the discussion page: Please do not present disputed factual matters as though they are not under dispute. Please do not make one-sided characterizations of cited sources, especially if it means omitting content relevant to the subject of this article. Please do not persist with undiscussed and unsupported edits to the article when discussion has been expressly requested.

The caption has been changed back *again* to reflect only non-disputed facts. Supporting rationale follows:

1. The prior caption presented a disputed factual matter as though it were not under dispute;
2. Cites were offered in support of (1) above, but the cites were either not dispositive, or actually substantiated the existence of the dispute;
3. The existence of the dispute is the very subject matter of this article;
4. Illustrating one aspect of the dispute is the very purpose of the image and its associated caption;
5. Dispositive sources clearly identify the nature of the dispute, and some quotes even mention doubts are fueled (at least partially) by the image and the associated video itself.

   http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1968910          
       -- mentions the subject matter of this article, and clearly identifies there is a
       factual dispute.

   http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/03/07/gen.pentagon.pictures/ 
       -- does not even mention the subject matter of this article. 
       therefore, this cite is not dispositive.

   http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/16/AR2006051600788.html         
       -- mentions the subject matter of this article, clearly identifies there is a factual dispute.
       For example, the article quotes in relevant part:
       "I don't hold those [conspiracy theory] viewpoints, but I really don't see how these 
       tapes are going to put anything to rest."

Regardless of your or my personal views, there are some who dispute or question what is seen in the video. The existence of this dispute is documented in mainstream sources. The existence of this dispute is what this article is about.

If you personally consider this dispute and the claims of the disputers to be fundamentally repugnant, then follow WP:AFD. Don't use one-sided characterizations of cited sources. That's simply misleading. It tends to imply the dispute does not exist, and that's why it was necessary to change the caption to present only those matters not under dispute. dr.ef.tymac 02:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Reliable sources describe the video as showing the plane crashing into the Pentagon, for example:

• "tapes showing American Airlines Flight 77 striking the building" (CNN),
• "split-second image of the hijacked airplane slamming into the Pentagon", Washington Post),
• "showing how a hijacked airliner struck the Pentagon and exploded into a ball of fire on September 11, 2001. A surveillance camera in a Pentagon parking lot caught the moment that American Airlines Flight 77 slammed into the southwest side of the military headquarters. Although the two video clips last about two minutes, the nose of the jet is seen for only a fraction of a second in one film before the explosion." (Al Jazeera)

The wording needs to be consistent with reliable sources. --Aude (talk) 02:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

That's funny, that's precisely the point I am making here. You seem to be agreeing with me. The sources cited (we can stipulate they are indeed reliable) clearly indicate that the content of the video and associated images is subject to dispute. That dispute is the subject matter of this article. Is there a rationale for omitting content from cited reliable sources that are directly relevant to the content of this article? Is there a rationale for supplying a caption that implies the matter is not under dispute? dr.ef.tymac 03:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

What they say is "lack of film evidence of the attack had fuelled conspiracy theories".[1] They really don't dispute the subject of the images. --Aude (talk) 03:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Nor does the article you cite state "release of film evidence has definitively discredited conspiracy theorist views" nor anything similar. In fact the aljazeera.net link doesn't really address the issue in any depth. Additionally, other cites actually quote sources that assert the exact opposite, that the video and images are not definitive (see my previous remarks above). dr.ef.tymac 04:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The cited sources say a lot of different things yet no one has (to my knowledge) provided a single cite that definitively substantiates "no reasonable person could disagree that the images and video depict flight 77."

  The Pentagon videos provide only the briefest glimpse of the plane as it hits the building; 
  the images were recorded on cameras designed to record license plates of vehicles entering 
  the Pentagon grounds and were too slow to capture the airplane's approach. 
  http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1968910

why is it necessary to selectively characterize only one interpretation of the video, despite the fact that reliable sources acknowledge there is ambiguity? Is there a wikipedia policy to substantiate selective representation of cited sources especially when the content from those sources directly relates to the subject matter of the article in question? dr.ef.tymac 03:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

While it is not a policy it certainly become a habit of many editors who try to "defend the world" from sources, or interpretations of these sources, that "fuel conspiracy theories". You're making very good points Dreftymac. SalvNaut 10:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The cited news sources[2][3][4] do not question that the images show the plane "just the way witnesses described it to us" (CNN's words) (by the way, you need to click "Play video" on the CNN page to see the report). Two of the sources quote people who say that conspiracy theorists probably still won't be satisfied by evidence. How about say what reliable sources say: news sources say the tapes show a plane, and some interviewed people speculate that conspiracy theorists won't believe the pictures. Weregerbil 12:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully, this remark is a bit beside the point, Weregerbil, and I think it reflects a reason why the credibility and neutrality of this article has been criticized by others. Although I don't consider their criticism as totally justifiable, I also think rigorous and unbiased attention to what is said in the sources is important. Therefore, please consider the following issues:

Cited and reliable sources already demonstrate that it is possible for a reasonable person to answer "yes" to all of the above questions. That means for the image caption, It is irrelevant that some of the people who might answer "yes" to (2) might also answer "no" to (1). The relevant dispute is not whether a plane hit the building, the dispute is whether the images and video are definitive, regardless of how you answer (1).

Moreover, as far as "news sources say the tape shows a plane" that's exactly what they are supposed to do. Since when are reputable news sources supposed to independently dispute findings in officially documented reports? Journalists are subject to same rules of attribution that we are. The same journalists have also interviewed people who have questioned the officially documented reports, and who have also said that the documentary evidence is not totally unambiguous. Omitting these latter points, and pigeonholing all people who may answer "yes" to (2) seems to represent a clear case of unbalanced representation of cited sources, as well as an unbalanced treatment of the subject matter of this article.

Thank you for taking the time to consider these points, for discussing this matter, and for your contributions to the article. Regards. dr.ef.tymac 15:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up: @ User:Cberlet It's difficult to tell if your edit histories + reverts variously sprinkled with POV, Undue Weight, O-R and other zero-context policy-buzzwords is intended as humor, but if not, you are welcome to discuss your serious concerns in detail here on the discussion page, so your points can be given fair consideration by me and all others attempting to maintain the quality of this article. Thanks. dr.ef.tymac 17:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] analysis by structural engineers still pending ;; 20070327_131310_898

Unless someone wants to clarify or explain this, the more accurate wording "do not support the controlled demolition hypothesis" should be re-inserted. As far as I am aware the only still-pending analysis is the detailed review of progressive failure scenario of WTC 7. dr.ef.tymac 20:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rename of article?

Conspiracy is defined as:

  1. A combination of people for an evil purpose; an agreement,
     between two or more persons, to commit a crime in concert,
     as treason; a plot.
     [1913 Webster]

Given such, the accepted theory of Al Qaeda orchestrating the events of 9/11 is a conspiracy theory. Perhaps a better name is in order since it seems that the intent of the article is to summarize unpopular theories of 9/11. I understand that in many cases the vernacular allows for this, however, it is likely that the usage would be pejorative, thus biased. The name should convey the sense that the theories are unlikely, flawed, or otherwise unpopular without ridiculing the people who support the theories.

• See Hot dog. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• One should do ones research before posting on the talk page. If you look in the archives you will see that you are not exactly the first one to broach that idea or raise the points you have raised. And if you read the article you will see that public opinion pools showing that while the "Al Qaeda did it" remains the majority view alternative theories are far from unpopular Edkollin 04:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise on renaming suggestion

As Ed points out, the most recent suggestion has been tried before. It may be okay to think about it again though. It occured to me, for example, that a rewrite of the lead might express a compromise that doesn't require a name change. It seems clear (and uncontroversial) that the label "conspiracy theory" is used by the mainstream to dismiss these views. So a good question is: should the article in WP participate in that dismissal or just objectively report on it? The article currently does the former (simply by labelling), but it could do the latter:

Since the September 11, 2001 attacks, a variety of theories that contradict the mainstream account of those events have emerged. The theories are typically dismissed by mainstream sources as "conspiracy theories" because they 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, or that the attacks were a false flag operation carried out with the intention of stirring up the passions and buying the allegiance of the American people.

The claims that the collapse of the World Trade Center was the result of a controlled demolition and that a commercial airliner did not crash into the Pentagon, and that United Airlines Flight 93 was shot down have occupied a central place in coverage the of 9/11 conspiracy theories. Published reports by structural engineers, of course, do not support the controlled demolition hypothesis, and U.S. officials, mainstream journalists, and mainstream researchers have concluded that responsibility for the attacks and the resulting destruction rests solely with Al Qaeda.

This tone could then also guide a rewrite of the section on the mainstream account, which could take up the labelling issue directly by defining key notions such as "conspiracy theory", "mainstream account" and "official story". I'm still taking a break from active discussion here at Wikipedia for personal reasons, but I thought I'd put this idea out there if someone wants to run with it.--Thomas Basboll 09:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Are conspiracy theories dismissed as conspiracy theories, or are they simply called conspiracy theories because they are conspiracy theories in the truest sense and definition of the term? Ducks are dismissed by evil Illuminati-controlled media as birds that quack... Weregerbil 09:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

To change the direction a bit we need a better wording or explanation of what constitutes "mainstream" (My POV Network and cable news and most members of the two major political parties but where would you find a cite?). Once that is defined better then we could say something similar to what is said now that although the Al Queda by itself theory fits literal definition of a conspiracy theory the "mainstream" does use that term but does use that term to describe alternative theories. In most of the summary sections I have read a less strict citation policy is usually followed Edkollin 04:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What about...

Overall, good work. But what about the anthrax fiasco that came right after the attacks? What better of a way to scare the hell out of an already freaked out American public? Also, why isn't it spoke of how American civil liberties have suffered (i.e. the patriot act) after the attacks? That could have been part of the plan; to create a scared, complacent population who would only allow themselves to give up their basic rights under such an extreme form of duress.

• If you can find reputable cites for people claiming a nine-eleven/anthrax connection put it in this article and the 2001 Anthrax Attacks article. The curtailing of civil liberties as a motive was in here at one point but not now for some reason and I agree it should be because most conspiracy theory websites mention that at some point Edkollin 04:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)