Talk:9/11 Truth Movement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 9/11 Truth Movement article.
Article policies
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 19 May 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.


Contents

[edit] 9/11 +the Neo-Con Agenda Symposium

An article under this title all ready exists! 9/11_+_The_Neo-Con_Agenda_Symposium

[edit] Some general comments

Please add Fidel Castro's comments recently about the US Governement coverup of 9/11 http://uk.news.yahoo.com/afp/20070912/tpl-us-attacks-6years-cuba-castro-politi-10170b4_1.html

I don't know how to correctly edit or add comments, sorry about that.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.54.171.46 (talk) 20:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Would interested editors please note that Shadow Government: 9-11 and State Terror by Len Bracken was omitted from the "Origin" section of the article. It was published in September 2002 by Adventures Unlimited Press and was favorably reviewed by the Village Voice on the one-year anniversary. My reading for the book was covered by the Washington Post. In the book I present the state-terror thesis and the offensive-defensive theory of terrorism, describing 9/11 as an indiret defensive attack. (I had previously published a general theory of civil war and will reprise the offensive-defensive theory of terrorism in the context of the secret civil wars being waged around the planet.) The sources in Shadow Goverment: 9-11 and State Terror are footnoted and the names indexed. The book has a chronology and a bibliography. It was widely distributed in the United States and has been reprinted. A Britian and a Canadian are mentioned for their strategic analysis; wouldn't it be appropriate to also cite an American who cast his argument in the purely strategic terms of offense and defense, direct and indirect attacks, and who was writing in Washington, DC where the risks were high. My place was searched and I received identical warnings from two government employees while writing the book. I've stayed with the movement by collaborating with 9/11CitizensWatch, covering the 9/11 Commission hearings for Paranoia Magazine and reviewing Hopsicker's Terrorland, among other things. If any editors need more information, I'm at lenbracken@hotmail.com.--Lenbracken 13:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe this article is unbiased, and can clearly get the feeling that a 9/11 conspiracy whacko wrote it. Please advise. (Preceding unsigned comments by user 69.133.205.8)

Well, that statment of yours 'conspiracy whacko' doesnt prove your lack of bias, does it? id adviec you identify yourself and your bias. (Brian)

First of all, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, nor a place for those sort of ad-hominem attaks or any sort of personal hostility. Second of all, while you accuse editors here of being "whackos," it was you (or at least someone on your computer) who repeatidly vandalized the Al Franken article - replacing Franken's picture with a picture of Hitler. [1]. So please desist from vandalizing Wikipedia and slandering its legitimate contributers. Thank you. Blackcats 07:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


The pages are written by whoever is interested enough to write them. From that you must draw your own conclusion.
The standing advice is be bold; I'd temper that by saying that this is a controversial topic. Whatever is written needs to have consensus support. What would you like to see different? Tom Harrison (talk) 20:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
I think that I myself may edit it a bit to add the common arguments against the "truth movement" arguments. This would make it less biased and let people decide on their own.::
I made some changes and additions. Many more to make. Glad this is on here.

Bov 02:50, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sorting, NPOV in naming

The article should be a lot more readable now that I've sectioned it and sorted the paragraphs to group related info together more. It had been somewhat of a hodge-podge mess, with stuff being added in various random places.

I've also done some basic NPOVing. Most importantly, the name of the article, and the name that the movement goes by is the 9/11 Truth Movement, not the 9/11 movement, so whenever the movement is referred to by name, its actual name should be used. In other cases, it can simply be referred to as the movement. Also, note that quotation marks should not be placed around the name of the movement in the article, as this amounts to POV-driven scare-quotes. Blackcats 21:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Could someone who knows how to use winkpedia PLEASE list the 10/20/30 or so KEY arguments for why the 9/11 attacks were carried out by top level military/political leaders?

This should be on the FIRST PAGE, because its what 9/11 truth is all about.

This is a good starter page:

http://www.ny911truth.org/resources.htm

Source for it being called "9/11 Truth Movement", please. That last site just has "9/11 truth". — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 09:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

This article is offensive and nonsensical. I am no fan of the current administration, but articles such as this one completely ignore logic in every context and conveniently shirk the patent data manipulation "conspiracy theorists" engage in, making them no better than the bush administration. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.151.175.167 (talk • contribs) .


[edit] Boost

Whether or not you think it's a good thing, when a well known and respected physics professor publishes a peer-reviewed article supporting the movement's analysis, that certainly is a boost. Of course there are lots of other factors, but this has indisputably brought a lot more media attention to the movement. Blackcats 04:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

If you want to quote someone saying it was a boost, go for it. As it existed in the article it was just unsourced opinion. Without a cite, just saying this endorsement occurred, and by who, the reader can decide if it was a "boost" or not. Arkon 05:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
I still think it was a pretty clear boost, but in the interest of compromise, until I find a source which specifically states that, I'll simply say that it increased publicity, which it definately did. Blackcats 20:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
There is also a formerly respected historian that now claims the Holocaust did not occur. I say formerly respected because when he made that claims he lost all respect in the academic community. They same will be and should be true regarding the so called truth movement. It is akin to believing the holocaust did not occur or that the moon landings were faked. Personally, I find it completely offensive that it has received any semblance of legitimacy here. No real encyclopedia would allow it. jspugh 01:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


Sadly, another editor using the name Wowest sent me a message accusing me of posting pro-nazi propaganda after I posted the previous note. Strangely enough, when I clicked on his name to respond there was no such user. jspugh 20:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps that's because I don't exist. Have you been doing hallucinogenic drugs, perhaps? I'm not really here. Wowest 05:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of unsourced material

I think Bov was correct in his recent edit, removing material added by User:69.171.225.186, not because the work was "pov", but because it was unsourced. There were some pretty astute observations in there, but without verifiable citations we can't really include them. Tom Harrison (talk) 23:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Get a clue; that pages sources Newton and Galileo. Does being dead make a source unverifiable?

[edit] Gee, bold _and_ Hegelian!

   A little rolling back of Shenme's bold Hegelian-dialectic-hiding deletions; 
   9TM is not so simplistic!

Gee, I might want to be known as 'bold' and 'Hegelian', but I'd have to first know what the latter means (Hmm, this _is_ an encyclopedia ... I should go look it up!) The point is that people should be sure _what_ changes and by _whom_. As for casting aspersions, well, I have things to learn too. Shenme 02:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zinn

How far can he be said to "endorse the movement"? Griffin's book, perhaps, but I've yet to see anything where he, personally calls for an enquiry, he merely intimates that (a) government involvement is not outside of the realms of the possible and should be seriously considered and that (b) He liked Griffin's book.

I think Zinn does endorse the movement. For instance The People's Investigation of 9-11; and I've heard some recent developments about him at meetings of the Northern California 9-11 Truth Alliance. Kaimiddleton 16:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Zinn signed the 911truth statement. What more do you need? [2]

[edit] "Within the 9/11 Truth movement..."

"...and a resultant synthesized coerced alternative mainstream of thought between them, thus marginalizing other ways of looking at the truth about 9/11."

was changed to

"...however most activists agree on most of the same points to varying levels according to personal taste or expertise."

I have no idea which is true, so pending citations I've removed it.

I've also reworded to make clear who is saying the collapse was unnaturally rapid and like a controlled demolition. Tom Harrison Talk 15:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] discussion of reversions

I have reverted the changes made by 69.171.225.186 because 1) I think they are too sweeping in nature. i.e. I think if one is going to make changes then they should be more incremental so that people can absorb them in steps. 2) The language style seems unclear 3) I disagree with wording such as "divisive parody" and "links to a ring of limited-truth 9/11 sites" and "avoid theories they fear might possibly be discredited by the mainstream media" 4) I disagree with the deletion of the midway LIHOP MIHOP paragraph

If you want to get your edits in I would suggest: a) get a user ID b) make changes more sequentially, documenting each change c) start with the website http://911blimp.net/prf_FreeFallPhysics.shtml. Kaimiddleton 18:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Kai, I would add a caveat about that page - although the page promotes Morgan Reynolds and Webfairy (no plane at the WTC) and Pentagon Strike (no plane at the Pentagon), among many others, it has an interesting section on the simple physics of the collapses. IMO, I feel it's important to add notes about that when directing people to sites that loudly promote no-plane theories.Bov 20:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

"loudly promote"? "no-plane theories"?? That free-fall physics page does not "promote" Morgan Reynolds or make any mention of "Webfairy", so why would nannyish Bov say such misleading things? "that page" was the only one mentioned in the article which is wise enough to demolish the government's "wacko consipracy theory" without trying to advance any of its own. (Is such an approach just too concise and effective for some people's taste?) http://911blimp.net/prf_FreeFallPhysics.shtml is very powerful; it should be reinstated and retained, cited as written by Anonymous, instead of this wiki only mentioning (promoting?) sites which promote their own, limiting, theories, which causes scrutiny to be directed at their work instead of at the government's cockamamie theory of 9-11.

Links all over the page promote research questioning or stating that commercial jets could not have been involved in the attacks:
http://users.adelphia.net/~earthwatch/
http://911blimp.net/pentagonStrike.htm
http://911blimp.net/vid_Naudet.shtml
http://home.debitel.net/user/andreas.bunkahle/defaulte.htm
etc., etc. (Bov 08:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hijacking? Ha!

User 69.171.225.186 says: "Beware of people & disinfo agents who hijack (claim ownership of, and diminuize) a truth movement, and of the truth itself, and who also soft-peddle what the well-documented physical evidence proves!" Well no, just trying to take out the hard-peddling, advocacy-oriented, doctrinnaire tone, and state the movement as neutrally as is possible. Morton devonshire 22:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good, NPOV article

I wish more of Wikipedia's entries were like this...it lists the players without expressing favouritism or bias toward any of them. Great article.

Petrus4 02:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I couldn't disagree more about the quality of the writing. I'm not finding a lot of POV, but the history section is basically just a collection of dates, facts and events thrown together with little concern about whether they even belong in the same paragraph. I'm trying to revise things grammatically and not change the wording (to avoid injecting my POV), but it is qquite challenging. --Habap 21:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleaning up the article

Every time I stumble across this article, I'm confused about just what exactly is the "Movement". Not trying to disparage, just trying to understand. Is this a non-profit corporation? Does it have members? An editorial board? Who is the leadership? Is there a committee who decides what is or isn't a doctrine or position of the Movement? Are we really only talking about a Listserv? If that's what it is, then how can we describe in the article that the Movement has any particular point of view, membership, etc.? Morton devonshire 12:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I think I can address that question readily since I consider myself a member of the 9/11 truth movement. I see it thus: since 9/11 was an inside job, there can be no investigation coming from the government since the insiders have too much influence over how the government is run. The only way I see the truth coming out is via a grass roots movement. For instance, look at the peace movement or the civil rights movement. In the article on social movement, we have the following:
Charles Tilly argues that there are three major elements to a social movement [Tilly, 2004]:
  1. campaigns: a sustained, organized public effort making collective claims on target authorities;
  2. social movement repertoire: employment of combinations from among the following forms of political action: creation of special-purpose associations and coalitions, public meetings, solemn processions, vigils, rallies, demonstrations, petition drives, statements to and in public media, and pamphleteering; and
  3. WUNC displays: participants' concerted public representation of worthiness, unity, numbers, and commitments on the part of themselves and/or their constituencies.
Sidney Tarrow defines [Tarrow, 1994] a social movement as collective challenges by people with common purposes and solidarity in sustained interactions with elites, opponents and authorities. He specifically distinguishes social movements from political parties and interest groups.
Since this movement has been happening for some time and in some numbers, it is, in my opinion, worth charting its history, character, and claims. Kaimiddleton 19:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I just did a quick revision of the history section because a bunch of details and personal views were inserted which I hadn't noticed, talking about the organizers of events being 'pressured' etc. There's no reason to get into that much detail. Please don't just revert my version because the bizarre comments go back aways so you'd have to revert to long ago. It needs revision. Thanks for your efforts on here Kai. Bov 22:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Can I suggest that we reorganize a bit? Perhaps we could section it by the "format" of the material? Like put all the books in one section, statements by elected officials in another, rallies in a third? Lumping all of it into history doesn't work real well. Maybe a section for LIHOPs, one for MIHOPs and another for those that disagree with the movement? --Habap 22:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

I'm removing links to individual websites because those can be found on the Researchers page. I think it could be better to focus here on events and markers in the timeline of the movement rather than to get into a war on particular websites being on here or not. Who is and who is not a notable member of the movement? I don't really want to go there on here, so I think it might be best to leave those links off. Bov 17:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's a comment from Bov that I'm moving from my talk page, in case anyone else has thoughts:

Hi Tom,
The link I removed from that page is to a website which has never been actively involved in the 9/11 truth movement and appears to be asserting claims that most don't agree with, such as the idea that commercial jets did not hit the WTC towers.
I think that mainly those researchers listed already on the Reseachers page who have been active should be linked to, but if we link to every site out there that has never done a thing in the movement, we are getting into a mess. Tons of websites exist that scream about chemtrails and 9/11 and ufos - they are not necessarily researchers or activists, or have any notable involvement in the movement, but have a website. Bov 17:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Tom Harrison Talk 18:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand Bov's point, but I'd be wary of defining the 'movement' to exclude those whose opinions might be embarassing to people further from the fringe. Tom Harrison Talk 02:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm deleting all specific references to researchers in the characteristics section so there is no apparent bias, since the promoter of 911blimp seems determined to list his information there and to include the word 'anonymous,' which I don't think is appropriate for a 'truth movement.' His page, unfortunately, also links to alot of the worst and most discredited theories and researchers. He has never attended or been invited to a conference and he is a known disruptor on discussion threads. I believe his intentions are good, but he has a hard time getting along with others and is not prominent in the movement. I am deleting external references at the bottom of the page because those do not specifically discuss the 9/11 truth movement, but promote particular views. This is becoming an issue on all the pages of research questioning the official version, so it would be good to have a policy. I suggest that specific researchers' links should stay on pages that focus on specific researchers, i.e., the Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11 page. Bov 20:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

It sure would be nice if anyone could find one piece of truth that would discount the "official reports"...until then, maybe this article should be retitled 9/11 nonsense movement.--MONGO 05:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I it might be better to link a variety of sites to give the reader an idea of the variety of opinion that exists in the 9/11 truth community. I've restored a couple, and when I get a chance I'll do a web search an see what's out there. Tom Harrison Talk 18:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, so I'm removing one which has nothing to do with any information about the 9/11 Truth Movement - we can jam this page solid with each person's website promoting their own theories, but as you are aware Tom, we already have a page for that. Restoring links without first reading them doesn't seem like a good policy. Bov 07:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

This page cannot be the POV fork for 'reputable' theories. We need to objectively describe the movement. Tom Harrison Talk 17:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Tom, I think the links you added are fine. The point is not to divide things up by reputable and not - as much as I'd like to - but by what pages are talking about relevant aspects of the 9/11 truth movement and it's history, talking about events which are notable, that include significant others involved in making that history. If one teenager figures out how to create a website and then puts an image of the WTC towers with the planes hitting on it and says '9/11 truth movement,' but has never attended a conference, never debated on a thread, never posted images anywhere, never written a letter to the editor, never participated in a protest . . . he does not really represent the movement as far as this page is concerned -- he represents one person in the world who agrees with the movement and participates in a minor way, but he is not significantly active. He contributes, but we cannot include everyone who makes a page with a photo of the towers on *this* page. If you want to jam up the researchers page, be my guest. But even on there I've seen others discuss the fact that people on there should have a degree of notability to the issue. Bov 18:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The website titled '9/11 University College of Disinformation Recognition' is an anonymous effort to try to attack major figures in the 9/11 truth movement -- listed at the bottom of the page under the heading 'web of disinformation' are 911truth.org, 911visibility.org, cooperativeresearch, deception dollar, 9/11research, etc. I will delete this link anytime I see it posted here: http://911u.org/CoDR/ because it does not function as a part of the 9/11 Truth Movement but functions to label the major organizations of the Truth Movement as 'disinformation' without any basis and anonymously. Bov 19:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

It's entirely appropriate to include links to critiques of the movement. It's especially important to include the criticism of those from outside the 'alternative mainstream.' As a member of that movement yourself, it's not reasonable for you to demand a veto on criticism, or to suggest that only criticism that you think is well-founded should be included. To suggest that you will unilaterally delete the link on sight is not in keeping with the collaboratave nature of Wikipedia. Tom Harrison Talk 20:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I never said it wasn't appropriate to include links to critiques -- that's not what this is. Try reading the site, it makes almost no sense. Even I can't figure out what he's talking about in the 'points' and I'm a veteran at this! I'm suggesting I will delete the link on sight for the reasons I stated - that all it does is label groups and sites as 'disinfo' and provides no basis for the label. If you can understand the basis, you should describe it here. Others are welcome to defend it staying there, but I see no one else here defending it except you. I've read it, can't understand it, so please explain it to me if you do. What merit is there to 'labels' without any content anyone can understand?Bov 21:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List

Can i break out the list? --Striver 23:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

How about a category instead? Tom Harrison Talk 00:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Categories are great, but list have their merits to per List of lists --Striver 01:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, everything has its place. I have no big preference, but I will point out that a marginal list article is more likely to get AfDd than is an uninteresting category. Tom Harrison Talk 01:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Ill take that as nobody telling me to not to, so ill be bold and break it out.--Striver 03:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Which sentence?

  1. "Most people recognize that the unnaturally rapid, vertical, demolition-style collapses of World Trade Center -- especially Building 7 -- are among the strongest pieces of evidence that 9/11 was an inside job."
  2. "Most researchers and activists within the 9/11 Truth Movement agree that what they see as the unnaturally rapid, vertical, demolition-style collapses of World Trade Center -- especially Building 7 -- are among the strongest pieces of evidence that 9/11 was an inside job."

I rolled back to the second version. Tom Harrison Talk 20:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Bov 00:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

The link to Alleged disinformation campaigns within the 9/11 Truth Movement is to a site critical of some aspects of the movement. I don't believe it's appropriate to exclude criticism, or to include only selected criticism. That some see the movement as having been partially co-opted as a vehicle for disinformation is highly significant and needs to be addressed. I'd like to hear what people think. Tom Harrison Talk 02:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I've read through that page. A priori I disagree with what it says because I tend to "buy into" most of the sites it claims to debunk. Objectively I can't find any strong logical error in what it claims. One criticism I can make of the page is that the prose is very confusing. It could be this is a sincere attempt from someone in the 9/11 truth movement who has evolved a different position or way of communicating about it than the researchers I'm familiar with. For example, I know that the pentagon has been the biggest point of contention among people in the movement--it's the toughest to explain. It is my opinion that this researcher has had arguments (probably heated ones) with others researchers in the 9/11 truth movement and that he (let's assume it's a male) has concluded that the other researchers must be sowing disinformation. So he takes a very accusatory stance; the wording at the top of the page reads: College of Disinformation Recognition NEW The False-Flag Legend of 9/11, Deconstructed! NEW. His reasons may have some substance. For example, look at point 3 from the page:
Keep people from recognizing that what became of the twin towers was truly supernatural. "Controlled demolition" is now being bandied about. While this does infer that we cannot blame the collapses on "airplanes", it acts as a limited hangout, by distracting people from the realization that something highly unconventional was involved in turning the towers to so much unnaturally fine powdery dust, generating the huge pyroclastic (very hot and dense) clouds, and leaving behind enough heat to keep metal molten for weeks afterward and fires burning for 99 days despite constant dousing with water
Then there's a diagram saying (among other things):
Pyroclastic dust clouds (volcano-like heat) -- thermite: unaccounted for
Fires burned for 99 days -- thermite: unaccounted for
In my conversations with Jim Hoffman, when Jim was trying to wrap his brain around the tower collapses and the odd phenomena surrounding the pyroclastic clouds and fires that burned for 99 days, I've heard him assay some rather wild ideas. So the page author seems to think that controlled demolition via thermite is not enough to account for the effects, and that researchers who talk about "controlled demolition" must be implying conventional controlled demolition (thermite), which wouldn't account for these effects. So I think he has a legitimage point, though I don't seem him offering an explanation either. Kaimiddleton 03:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Video

I did not understand this paragraph, in particular the last sentence:

In July, 2004, Khaled al-Harbi, an associate of Osama bin Laden, surrendered to authorities in Saudi Arabia [3][4][5]. This was trumpeted by the media as a victory in The War Against Terrorism, because al-Harbi was in the scene where Osama bin Laden seemed to confess to having been in on the planning of the attack on the twin towers. But by then, learned 9/11 researchers were ready with their VCRs to capture the video evidence[6] that the U.S. government had framed Osama bin Laden for 9/11.

Tom Harrison Talk 01:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Monopolistic Bigotry

There has been a concerted effort to remove the external link to WING Tv (which I consider a very fine resource, since they try to keep a journalistic integrity about them, they also happen to be closely linked to Scholars for 9-11 Truth). The last removal of the link was accomanied by the remarked that it was a "mostly commercial website". For the person who wrote this, is Infomercial.com or Purchasplanet any less? Indeed they are still up, as they should, please have some moral consistancy. -- IdeArchos 15:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


These 911 truth movememt hatemongers were listed as participants in the NY Commission hearings, which is false. (Victor Thorn and Lisa Guliani - researchers, activitsts; authors of 9-11 On Trial and hosts of WING Tv)


For those who are not aware, WING TV has a long and ugly history of personal attacks on other researchers and independent media. Even 911blogger, which lists practically every 9/11 website, won't list WING TV because of such attacks. It's been disappointing to see people like Jim Fetzer embrace WING TV after they interviewed him, and David Ray Griffin review their book so nicely, because others can unwittingly come to believe they are harmless..

WING TV has brought ridicule on the 9/11 movement for screaming at people mourning at Ground Zero on 9/11:

"The anguish was palpable at Ground Zero yesterday, as family members made their way down a long ramp into the vast emptiness of the World Trade Center site, then took turns reading out the names of their lost loved ones. . . Into this somber setting marched about a dozen 9-11 conspiracists, who claimed a patch of sidewalk to preach what they called the truth. "These people weren't killed by Arab terrorists. You've been lied to!" shouted a woman who looked vaguely like Joey Ramone, holding up one end of a banner that read, "9-11 World Trade Center: Controlled Demolition. . . .Her message played about as badly as could be expected. "I was there, so shut the fuck up. You don't know what you're talking about," snapped an enraged firefighter in fatigues, stalking off into the crowd. "You shouldn't be here. Have some respect," another firefighter shouted. "It's a crime scene," Lisa Giuliani shot back. "We honor them with the truth. Al Qaeda is a concept. This is state-sponsored terrorism." The clamor was all too much for a passing tourist. "God bless America, you bitch!" he screamed in a thick accent." accent.http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0537,fergusonweb2,67726,2.html

WING TV have openly and personally attacked Jim Hoffman, Mike Ruppert and Alex Jones, among many many others.

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/10questions.shtml Michael Ruppert refutes some of the sleaziest attacks from Wing TV. http://911review.com/wingtv/markup/hoffman.html Jim Hoffman refutes deceptive attacks from "Wing TV"

They have also attacked members of 9/11truth.org repeatedly, which they call the "9/11 Truth Mafia":

"What Levis deserves is to be spat upon by not only me, but by tens and thousands of 9-11 writers, researchers, truth-seekers, activists, and all good people of conscience who are sick and tired of his Judas betrayal. I'd even go so far as to say that Levis, Hence, David Kubiak, Janice Matthews, John Judge, and Jan Hoyer should be drowned in the spit of our communal disgust." http://www.wingtv.net/thornarticles/leviswtc.html

Do ANY 9/11 researchers deserve anything like this? No legitimate movement can move forward with these types of personal attacks on others which have nothing to do with academic debate about the issues. fyi - the name Victor Thorn is a not his actual name - upon publicly attacking Mike Ruppert, Ruppert did some investigating and discovered that his real name is Scott Makufka.

Lastly, people should be aware that the website hosts essay promoting anti-abortion essays, among other divisive issues, as well as Satanic books. Here's a couple of excerpts from a book review essay by Thorn:

"In the end, we need to ask ourselves: why is the Jewish power-structure so intent on flooding our culture with the crap that comes from groups like the NAACP, NOW, NEA, ADL, and the ACLU (most oftentimes with a positive spin on it)? If their interests were truly that of empowering the American people, they would denounce these organizations and their messages in a heartbeat. But instead, they serve as champions for their destructive agendas. Why? Can the answer be found in the overall Globalist plan that has, as its ultimate end, the eradication of our once strong, moral country?" http://www.wingtv.net/issue1/clearmoralobjectives.html Bov 19:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I've restored the link to Disinfo Campaigns Subverting The 911 Truth Movement From Within; I don't think we can include only positive coverage. For balance we need to include criticism. Tom Harrison Talk 00:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
First, thanks Mr. Harrison, it is important that we proceed cautioussly and make sure that we have it all together before rushing head-on to battle.
As for you Bov, these criticisms by Scott Makufka (AKA: "Victor Thorn", who did admit this information about his name and the reasons for it already) and Lisa Guliani are well foundedand they are not the only ones to say this either, there are others who say this as well, such as Frank Whallen, who can be found on RBN. They have noticed that many who talk about the controlled demolition of the WTC often talk about weak or unimportant points that can serve as straw men for skeptics to toss, or as red herring for dinsinfo purposes (such as what Mr. Harrison above is trying to expose with his link).
Their money quip with Alex Jones is a little questionalbe since I heard that his shows are indeed downloadable, with only the cost of survice, which is simply $5 per month. However, it is also true that he REFUSES to ever mention them or their research, regardless of quality. The reason seems to be that he is, albeit subtally, to gain a monopoly by focusing his listerners away from those who can compete with him.
Jeff Rense also does the same (likely because GCN, who know how great an asset Alex has been, will not allow him and Jeff seems to depend on this job), and since he does not do an exclusively paranormal oriented show, but rather one that perports to be an alternative news venue (which may raise the issue of the paranormal), they are appalled that he refuses to raise awareness about what can be done such as protesting, but will talk about UFO sightings, cryptozoology, and parapsychology (where there are tons of other shows that DO concentrate on these very things exclusively). Their ultimate diagnosis on him is that he is obvioussly there just to make his living, and since he does give just enough information for listiners to be sated on this very important topic, he is all the worse. -- IdeArchos 01:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
People who write articles personally attacking other researchers and call for everyone to 'spit' on those they disagree with are not critics, they are attackers with little or no academic debate except to promote screaming at Ground Zero at survivors. I'm not talking about Alex Jones in particular but a consistent pattern of behavior by WING TV to many other researchers. Similarly, 911u is an anonymous site broadly attacking others with unsubstantiated labels no way to dialog, no actual debate, no sense that there is even a real person behind the website. There are a handful of points promoting no planes and something more supernatural than thermite. I don't consider that a critique of the 9/11 truth mvoement. Bov 22:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this is not a reliable source in fact it kinda offensive... sorry...24.252.27.114 (talk) 05:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] People

I think the link to People questioning the 9/11 Commission Report should be removed from its own "List of people" heading and added to the "See also" heading. There is no way to verify that all the people listed in that article identify with or otherwise endorse the "9/11 Truth Movement", and having the link listed in its current form makes it seem as if that is an official roster of some sort. --mtz206 21:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

In the absence of any expressed opinions one way or the other, I was bold and made this change. --mtz206 20:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I think the list is mainly biased nonsense and most of it would fall apart as to why one person was excluded from the list and another included. Everyone questions something about the official version. Make it semantically meaningful or delete it.Mrdthree 07:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this is not a reliable source in fact it kinda offensive... sorry...

[edit] The Video List

Firstly lads, good work on a good page. NPOV, and I'm kind of surprised it hasn't been vandalised, or at least it doesn't show evidence of vandalism.. Anyways, on to the question: Personally, I'd have added the video Loose Change, as it's informative, non-inflammatory (At least before the end) and approachable. Best of all, as evident in the link, people can watch it from the internet: It's on googlevideo. Count me as a member here, and lads, keep it up. Cathal 20:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Caps in article title?

Any opinion about moving this to 9/11 truth movement? I mentioned in the AfD lowercase might be more appropriate. Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Lowercase second and subsequent words states "Do not capitalize second and subsequent words unless the title is a proper noun (such as a name) or is otherwise almost always capitalized" - I'm not sure whether 9/11 Truth Movement is a proper noun/name? It is a name used outside of wikipedia to refer to a movement, as opposed to a label that wikipedians created to identify the subject of an article. Civil Rights Movement is capitalized. I'm not sure how to make an internet search caps-sensitive, but most of the first couple pages of hits did seem to use caps, though some used lowercase. In books on amazon for which it was possible to search inside them, lowercase was a little more common: CAPS: 9/11 Revealed : The Unanswered Questions, The Puzzle of the Matrix : Intriguing explorations into the nature of reality; lowercase: 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA, Inside Job: Unmasking the 9/11 Conspiracies, Waking up from our Nightmare: The 9/11/01 Crimes in New York City, I am a War President I haven't gone through news articles to see which is more common in them. Шизомби 19:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It could be useful to change to lower case. For one thing, to avoid any misconception of a monolithic organized structure. Also, should not the movement be understood to include non-active sympathizers? A movement is a broad social phenomenon. I think the Civil Rights Movement included sympathizers, not only those who actually moved in vehicles to take action in the South. Along these lines, I propose that in the definition, where it says "its members convene through the internet, and national and international conferences," to change that to "active members." But I don't see an edit link there. JPLeonard 18:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cite request

"The 9/11 Truth Movement is a collection of groups, individuals,..." I added a request for citation here. I think we need a reliable source who says that there is a 9/11 Truth Movement (with or without caps), and says what they are and believe. Thoughts? Tom Harrison Talk 20:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

That sounds fair; I think it should be possible to find that either from the books I mentioned or from news articles. To some extent, self-definition of the movement would be allowed per e.g. WP:V#Self-published sources in articles about themselves and WP:RS#Personal websites as primary sources. Incidentally, should the citation style of the article be changed? I don't care for bracketed URLs in the text except in stub articles. Footnotes provide more information without always having to click on the link to find out author, title, dates, etc. Шизомби 23:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I removed the citation because someone immediately deleted the information I posted and that annoyed me. So the info is there in the history if someone wants to add it -- just more links to 9/11 websites and media, though. bov 17:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Membership?

Bov wrote in his edit summary, "rm websites - websites can be listed elsewhere, this is only for articles about the movement" - Who says which websites are part of the movement? Tom Harrison Talk 21:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Tom, do multiple people use your ID, because we've had this conversation before. Do you want every 9/11 website listed on here??? I don't! Not only will that be a mess, but that will cause official story defenders to come over here and try to dump the whole article because it is a 'link farm.' The place for links to websites is on either the 9/11 CT page or the 9/11 Researchers page (which was recently dumped of all its links). There are no individuals' websites which do and do not qualify as 9/11 truth movement pages -- this is a page for information and critique of the movement itself (but not fake critiques that just throw the 'disinfo' label around) and not for individuals to broadcast their websites. If you read the links you will see that they are articles ABOUT the 9/11 Truth Movement, not people's personal websites. There were 500 people at the conference this weekend, if even 1/2 of them have websites . . . 198.207.168.65 01:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, that sounds like a reasonable standard; but what about these "fake critiques that just throw the 'disinfo' label around"? Which are the fake critiques, and why? And which are the critiques that you think do belong? Tom Harrison Talk 01:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

There are a lot of individuals with a webpage that can go around saying anyone in the 9/11 truth movement who doesn't advocate "X" is a "fascist" and "disinfo" because "X" is true, while not bothering to make a meanginful case. Anyone can get on a wikipedia page and say that aliens caused that topic to happen and so any other reason for it is 'disinfo' - is that a legitimate critique in your opinion? In my opinion it is not. When someone says, 'Evidence "Y" shows that "X" may be true, but persons or organizations "a," "b" & "c" ignore or refuse to cover this information,' that is the beginnings of a critique. But is it a critique if the evidence is that one frame of a film shows a blurry dark spot that isn't evident in any other evidence, witness testimony, news stories, etc? When there is some semblance of reasonable evidence shown for a theory or position, and not just screaming disinfo and cointelpro etc. with no content whatsoever, then there is something to it. The same for those who try to say that everything is 'nukes.' Where is the evidence? It's one thing to scream it on a web page and another to show actual evidence. 198.207.168.65 00:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

"Where is the evidence? It's one thing to scream it on a web page and another to show actual evidence." Well, yeah. But irony aside, how do you want to decide what critiques to include? The ones you don't think are kooky? The one's you think are well-supported by evidence? Tom Harrison Talk 01:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

How do you decide on critiques to include of the official version? Oh, that's right, anything that deviates from the official version is automatically a conspiracy theory, so doesn't count. Well, I guess we'll have to come up with our own criteria as we go, which means having to actually read the critiques and discuss them, not just defend their right to exist without engaging in any discussion about their content. 198.207.168.65 22:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


Tom - you keep restoring the citation to the one Canadian article (Macleans) as somehow defining about the movement in the first paragraph. What about that article is important to you that shows the characteristics of the movement that the links to the actual websites and events do not show? There are many similar articles about the movement cited both at the bottom of the page and on the researchers page. What's so special about this one? And why only one article? 198.207.168.65 22:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It's from a reliable mainstream media source not connected to the movement itself, and is one of the only reliable independent citations I've seen. If you have something from the BBC or the Times, or other reliable sources, post a link. Tom Harrison Talk 22:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Both the NY Magazine and the NYTimes pieces linked at the bottom of the page are also reliable sources, so I'll post them. 198.207.168.65 19:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
That's okay if you want, but it looks like one is specifically referenced in the last paragraph of Evolution. Tom Harrison Talk 19:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Definition

You realize that this diff discredits the entire article, as it states that the "movement" supports government conspiracy theories, while the previous context included those people and organizations who think the government has no idea what's going on. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the 9TM includes "agnostics" who say "we don't know the truth" and only ask for an independent investigation. JPLeonard 18:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I do think it's appropriate to note that some people think the movement has been co-opted by disinformation agents, if that's an accurate summary of their views. Of course it has to be cited, not given undue weight, etc. Tom Harrison Talk 14:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removing Dead Internal Links

I'm removing the internal links that go to pages that don't exist anymore, and ones that have little relevance. Additionally, the ST911 link should not be listed there or we can put a link to every other 911 research group, website and person -- there will be dozens and it will be a mess. Please don't revert this correction. The Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11 page is the page where everyone can have their link. This page is about the movement overall and while individuals are mentioned in the text, they are not linked to at the bottom separately. bov 18:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The dead links should be deleted, but links to a live, relevant article (such as Scholars) should be kept somewhere in the article. I don't think it necessary for them to be in the See also, but the link should be there. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The scholars are a 9/11 research group, just like 911truth.org, and WINGTV and Loose Change and everyone else under the sun. I've already stated why we can't only have st911 on here and not everyone else. Since you reject that, I'll start posting the links to every other relevant research org as well. Tom? 198.207.168.65 20:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Tom, why do you want to restore links that go to pages that don't exist? Why do you keep restoring a sentence that essentially says 'the public is WRONG.' Those in the 9/11 truth movement don't say that so it is extremely misrepresentative. 24.4.180.197 05:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge Discussion

I see a note on the front and no discussion. Given that the person who put the merge note on is not interested in discussing the merge reasons, I'll delete the note as this has been discussed before, and rejected.

That said, the info on here SHOULD be on the 9/11 researchers page, NOT here. This is not the page to individually list each person and group. This is an OVERVIEW page. I don't want this to be a link farm and then be merged and gone. There is no reason for so much extra info to go on here now when its already on the researchers page. I vote for summarizing here or moving the new info over to that page. 74.71.26.72 04:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The discussion is on the talk page of the page to be merged into, so as to keep all the discussion of the merge in one place. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Factual Inaccuracies

There seems to be some factual inaccuracies in this article that could hurt real-life people. I have removed the Venezuelan Government and Lou Dobbs from the "list of participants". The "9/11 Truth Movement" implies a movement of people who believe that the government played a role in the September 11th attacks, in regard to Lou Dobbs this video was used as a "source" to show he was part of the "9/11 Truth Movement". If you actually watch the video, it in no way implies a government role in the attacks just government mismanagement. With regard to Venezuela, the two sources used were Alex Jone's Prisonplanet.net [7] and "Online Journal" [8]. I do not believe that either of theses meet WP:RS, if you want to argue that the Venezuelan government is "part of the 9/11 Truth Movement" then please provide reliable sources. Until then we are dealing with real people and real governments and I will removed any unsourced (or information sourced with unreliable sources) "participants" of this movement.--Jersey Devil 22:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I have also removed Howard Dean (for the second time, I had removed him as a participant before and he was re-added), the source used was a blog article by conservative pundit Larry Elder [9] where he claims
"Really? Maybe it began when Dean, on National Public Radio, mentioned a "theory" that President George W. Bush possessed prior knowledge of 9/11, yet took no steps to halt it. Two days later, he said that no, he didn't believe the theory. And a couple of days later, he called the theory "crazy."
Has the user that added this "info" heard the NPR interview? Does saying that the government had intelligence that Al-Queda was plotting attacks in New York imply "support" for a "movement" that claims that the 9/11 attacks were manufactured by the government? No it does not. Please stop adding this unverified information. These are real people and despite what outsiders may think we are trying to make a real encyclopedia with real verified facts.--Jersey Devil 22:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

JD, you are using straw man arguements, First you changed the lead to state that the 9/11TM was about beliving USA did it, then you removed everyone that did not belive it. The 9/11TM is not about theorizng about who did it, its about questioning the official version. And Lou Dobbs did just that. --Striver 15:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

We are dealing with real people and with the new Biography Wikiproject we are under further pressure to keep from adding inaccurate material about real people on Wikipedia. A blog article by Larry Elder does not prove that Howard Dean believed that "9/11 was an inside job", a link from "conspiracyplanet.net" does not prove that 400 9/11 families believe "9/11 was an inside job", [10] etc... I am not going to let you taint the name of real life people so you can further your agenda on this article. I will revert any changes you make in which you use unreliable sources to make observations of fact. You no longer own this article and if you have a problem with this you can request mediation.--Jersey Devil 23:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
JD, you are using a straw man arguement. You yourself WP:ORishly changed the definition of this group, and then advocate removal of people from the list. That is neither honest nor accurate. --Striver 15:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Howard Dean, by alledging that Bush knew, he questioned the official version, and that is the criteria for inclusion. He then changed his mind, and that is why he is included under the former skeptics section--Striver 15:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Participants

If, hypothetically, I were WP:notable, and I agreed with the conclusions of the 9/11 Commission, but disagreed with some of the arguments used, would that put me in this movement? If not, why not? (For example, if I believed steel would soften at 500 degrees F, rather than the 800 degrees in the report, making the explanations for extreme heat unnecessary....) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


This section seems bais! Scroll your browser window to the heading Participants and only four members will be seen in the whole browser screen: The Venezuelan Government, Iran's Government, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, Hugo Chavez. This will give someone who takes a quick look that these groups or people are representative of the 9/11 Truth Movement, which is not the case. Presentation is everything, and someone knows that. The box has three sections: entity, role, and statement. The "role" does not reflect the role in the movement, but is more of a job description. Why is this needed? I believe the info should be included, but not in this fashion. Once you get below authors, to politicians, it goes to a less destructive format. I suggest that these item not be put into tables. I also believe the order of the subsections should be changed, and perhaps randomized. --Slipgrid 18:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Ill add a line of text that will remove the confusion. --Striver 19:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I added a Zogby poll to the USA section. I belive it shows that a large group of the US believe "government and 9/11 Commission concealed or refused to investigate critical evidence that contradicts their official explanation of the September 11 attacks." --Slipgrid 02:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

A lot of people listed without citations or their own article to validate their inclusion on this list. Without reliable sources, they should be removed. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 14:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Conspiracy theorists

Is up for review at [11]. Thought all of you would want to know. Morton devonshire 21:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] JD

JD, it has an accuracy tag, and the version you reverted includes "manufactured by the government", something that is inaccurate OR, added by you. Please tell what the problem is. --Striver 14:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem has been stated above. Blog articles by Larry Elder do not make it a fact that Howard Dean was a "member of the 9/11 Truth Movement", a link to "conspiracyplanet" can not be used as fact for "400 9/11 families being active in the 9/11 truth movement", etc... I will continue to revert your edits, you do not WP:OWN this article and you will no longer be allowed to use this article to further your agenda especially when in doing so you taint the names of real life people. If you disagree then request mediation.--Jersey Devil 19:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I can agree that conspiracyplanet is not a RS for "400 9/11 families being active in the 9/11 truth movement". But are you realy claiming that Dean did not question the official version by stating that Bush knew? And further, please do not blindly revert, i and other have worked on the article since then and you are hindering the article from developing. Ill remove the conspiracyplanet sourced issues. lets be cooperative about this, you dont own this article any less or more than anyone else. --Striver 20:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I am done discussing why a random blog article does not prove the Howard Dean believed 9/11 was an "inside job". I have reverted your edit again. I understand that it removes the entire table, I am sorry for that but if you really want the table to stay you will remake it again using reliable sources. If you disagree, take it up to mediation and we will see where community consensus really falls.--Jersey Devil 20:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
FFS JD, why dont you just remove the part that you are objecting to? Now i cant bring back the un-disputed improvents for fear of being accused of violating the 3rr. --Striver 20:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

"9/11 + The Neo-Con Agenda Symposium" I am not a member or anythinng but I would like to point out that an article entitled "9/11 + The Neo-Con Agenda Symposium" all ready exsists This article is not disputed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_%2B_The_Neo-Con_Agenda_Symposium

[edit] Split proposal

Hmmm. No discussion here, either. Should I delete the tag?  :)

In any case, it's not People questioning the 9/11 Commission Report. It's People questioning the official account of 9/11. I question the Commission Report, but not the official account as a whole. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/People questioning the official American 9/11 account. There are enough Striver forks already. Morton devonshire 21:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)\
Don't you mean Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/People questioning the 9/11 Commission Report (2nd nomination)? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Let them be there untill the discusion begins.--Striver 10:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I really feel like this page is ruined with so much information - way overkill. I don't agree that it helps anything. It's like trying to read a phone book. bov 21:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I strongly argue that we create a consensus to re-split the aritcle. It was done before, but since i was to bold, it got deleted. So we have me and bov wanting to split out the list of people. Who more? Who opposes this? --Striver 21:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

fyi, when you list and categorize each and every person involved it makes it easier for intelligence agencies and other detractors easily to keep track of them all - just one click to get everyone and exactly what they are doing. I've also noticed that the people pushing the most loony nonsense to make us look crazy to the public are also often interested in documenting everyone and their websites extensively, getting their personal information, passing on gossip about them, etc. As much as the list on here seems impressive, it's not functional or easy for readers who simply want to understand the movement and its history, and thus, primarily serves to document people as in a phone book for the State Department to keep an eye on everyone. bov 04:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose. One page is enough.--Peephole 22:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Simon Smith

An elected britt that says it was an inside job, might be interviewd next week [12]. Im just wairing for RS for it. --Striver 20:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Polls

Removed polls. Surveys of various populations about their opinions on 9/11 has nothing to do with the 9/11 Truth Movement. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 15:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, it has everyting to do with the movement - the movement is nothing more than people having a view or question, that is the whole essence of this article. --Striver 15:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
No, if you are defining the 9/11 Truth Movement (with capital letters to designate some official organizing principle) as "a collection of groups and researchers questioning the official account of 9/11...", there is no possible way of knowing if the repsondants of these polls actually identify with the Movement, let alone know if it even exists. This Movement cannot just be a collective of anyone who happens to question it - that's not a Movement, just a groups of people with a shared opinion on something. A Movement (with capital letter) is a structured group that one knows and acknowledges membership within. ZimZalaBim (talk) 16:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that is what it is, just like the anti-war movement. No membership there either. --Striver 16:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok, so if we accept your logic, then there should be no membership list here, either. Nor should there be any opinion polls, since none exist on that article. This should just be about a movement (lower case), and not an attempt to itemize each and every person who is associated with a particular Truth Movement (with caps). If you want, I can start removing the unnecessary content. ZimZalaBim (talk) 16:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
You see the people in Category:Anti-war activists? Im sure they are in no "Club" or signed any "membership" in the "Anti-war club". Its the same here. --Striver 18:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
You are veering off-course. The point here is that a poll indicating a sample population's opinion on theory X does not merit mention in an article about a "movement" about theory X. If you want to list members of this movement, "49% of Pakistanis" or whatever is not a member. Keep the polls off, please. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 20:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
That is the point i am trying to make, that there is no membership, just as there is no membership in the Peace movement. I changed the heading to reflect that, and i presented Category:Anti-war activists as an arguement. The cap leters escaped me since i am not that good in enlish, decap the article title if you want.

The apporpriateness of these polls as a description of people who questioned the "official 9/11 report" was discussed at length at (the deleted) Talk:People questioning the 9/11 Commission Report. Striver now wants them here, which makes little sense to me. I don't want to get into an edit war or violate 3RR, yet Striver put the polls back in after 2 editors removed them. We need to establish consensus on this issue. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 00:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The only thing that happened there before the afd elimiated all discution was that some people argued that article should only present individuals, something that several other people objected against. I am disscusing, don't you see? I am only chainging to my prefered version a few times per day, mostly only once. I know you would prefer me to no change to my prefered version at all, but that is not going to happen. So dont accuse me of edit waring and 3rr vioolations, i am not even close to that. --Striver 10:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Tom harrison removed them as inappropriate, then you put them back with the inaccurate edit summary "re-added unmotivated removal" (his motivation was that the polls were inappropriate). Then I reverted your inaccurate change, and started this thread. Then you put them back again. That, my friend, is edit-warring. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 13:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
The polls are important because a key issue here is who is actually right about the events of 9/11, the "mainstream" or the minority of "911 truthers." If the latter become mainstream or even a large minority, then the burden of proof and credibility etc are going to shift. So it's important for all readers and editors to know the lay of the land in the realm of public opinion.

The 9TM page is a logical place for polls on the subject. It's been argued that 9TM should not have links to researchers or entities that are covered under 9/11 researchers. Polls wouldn't go there. But they might also go on the 911 CT page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories. In fact, the Zogby poll is there, under Origins and reception. How about if we link there from 9TM and place all polls there? Or vice versa. Feedback anyone?

Zimzalabim says "a poll indicating a sample population's opinion on theory X does not merit mention in an article about a "movement" about theory X." That seems a very arbitrary opinion. Isn't the amount of support in the population that a movement has for its cause a key variable? If you were doing a history of the civil rights movement, you might well include a public opinion graph tracing the growth in support for equal rights. Zimzalabim is the one who deleted the polls, so this alone is an argument for restoring them.JPLeonard 16:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Texts for deletion

I think the quote from Rolling Stone is vulgar and illogical and adds nothing but only drags down the tone of the article. I would like to delete it with the comment: obscene, non-factual, detracts from the gravity of the discussion.


Also the reference to ECREP (extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof) seems out of place and rather cryptic. 9/11 was an extraordinary event, and it was a conspiracy, those are just facts. The official conspiracy theory is certainly no less extraordinary than the minority one. Since the government has the machinery to produce proof that we citizens do not, the remark should be tagged to the 9/11 Commission first, if the remark is true at all. So to me this seems to be a rhetorical diversion. What is extraordinary is a subjective measure so this doesn't inform the reader further except as to the state of mind of the person making the remark. Further, the remark is probably not true. Proof is proof. Subjectively, people require more convincing of something they see as extraordinary, but this is a problem of psychology, not of logic; the term "require" implies this is true in logic. To turn it around, for what is completely ordinary (the sun rises every day) we require no proof at all. So I don't think it holds much water. Is it meant that ECREP is a wing of the movement like Lihop and Mihop? If so, it's the first I heard of it. There are only 50 google hits on ECREP 9/11 (not in quote marks), and 38,100 hits on Lihop 9/11.
Something can be objectively extraordinary if it defies the known laws of nature, but it is the official narrative on the explosion of the Twin Towers and implosion of WTC7 that has this problem. JPLeonard 17:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Also the comment by Prof. Eager about 'reverse scientific method' is rhetorically void because that is exactly what "911 truthers" say about his methods. Indeed, it is the biggest problem faced by those trying to push through the minority viewpoint. Human beings are subject to perceptual bias at the physiological level, it's how organisms screen input to avoid overload. Contrary to human beings' cherished notions about their own mental acuity, subjective opinion conditions perception more quickly than objective perception changes opinion. Americans clearly have a vested emotional interest in not believing their own government was behind 9/11, because that is extremely disturbing, indeed, it upsets one's whole universe. So I would add such a caveat to his remark or delete his remark. If nobody has any objections, I would like to go ahead and make the changes above. Feedback? JPLeonard 16:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I doubt there is consensus support for the changes you want to make. Certainly I do not find your arguments persuasive. Tom Harrison Talk 16:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discrediting Meyssan

Bov, why are you trying to discredit Meyssan's work? He's the father of your movement, and has applied the same academic rigor to his research efforts as the rest of the 9/11 conspiracy theory acolytes? Morton devonshire 06:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with bov that Meyssan's work is... to put it nice, not central. Several people in the movement that have theories discredit his views. --Striver 10:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
As stated in the outset, the movement is occasionally fractious. Acolytes are hard to find. The Pentagate issue, about which Meyssan wrote, is particularly controversial. To use a term Wikipedians can easily relate to, 9TM is open source... JPLeonard 17:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Alex Jones credits himself"

From the article: Alex Jones credits himself with predicting the US Government would orchestrate the 9/11 Attacks and blame it on Bin Laden, or some other CIA asset, etc etc. Could we please contain this a little bit? Alex Jones has also predicted:

  • Nuclear war within the next few years (predicted in 2001)
  • Suitcase nuclear attack in US within two years (2001)
  • Smallpox attacks, chemical attacks, and buildings blown up within six months (2002)
  • US government will kill millions of americans (2002)
  • Suitacase nukes will be detonated in Iraq (2002)
  • International depression (2002)
  • World government (2002 et al)
  • They're going blow more stuff up (2004)
  • Arnold (Schwarzenegger) will save kids in a school shooting (2005)
  • Bombing followed by Arnold coming in on a helicopter and saving everybody (2005)
  • Osama bin Laden has already been captured and will be delivered to influence the presidential election (that's the 2004 election)
  • Washington DC will be blown up before the election (still talking about the 2004 election)
  • Saddam Hussein has been secretly taken to Cuba (before Mr. Hussein's arrest)
  • The United Nations will take over most of US soil within two years (2002)

Etc etc. The guy predicts a bunch of things all the time, listen to his ranting on the radio some time. It's a miracle he accidentally gets one right only so rarely! Is there a more widely used term for The Nostradamus fallacy...?

Wikipedia should not imply Alex Jones really correctly predicts stuff. That claim is now going into some articles and it's better contained in Alex Jones (radio) with a suitable explanation. If you say many times that known professional terrorists will strike then eventually one of them will strike and presto you "predicted" something. Weregerbil 12:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

We have talked about that, he is a radio talk show host and gives opinions all the time, but how many times have he put up the whie house number and told people to call it to stop it, and even given it an operation name? Lose everyday "predictions" that everyone does is not comparable to dedicating large segments on geting people callin the white house. In any case, wikipedia is not claiming anything, it is just accuratly mentioning that people view him as the originatior of the movement. What you are saying has merit, source it to a notable source and add it to his article. --Striver 14:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Further, read the text, it states that he credits himself with the prediction, and the goes on to give a sourced statment about people agreeing with him. --Striver 14:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm. The sourced statement seems to state that there are people who agree that he credits himself with the prediction, not that he actually made the prediction. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
And that is all the sourcing that is needed, the article does not state that he made the prediction. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Striver (talk • contribs).
It did so assert. It doesn't any more. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
And David Icke credits himself as Son of God. Yet we shouldn't spam every article on religion with that information. Wikipedia is not be a soapbox for every crackpot and scam artist who credits himself with something for his own self-glorification. (By the way, Alex Jones talking about Alex Jones on a video clip is not a reliable source. Haven't we discussed self-published sources? Even if someone copies the video clip to youtube or some other video server it's still Alex Jones talking about Alex Jones in order to advertise Alex Jones.) Weregerbil 16:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:911tm

Template:911tm has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.

[edit] POV fork of People questioning the 9/11 Commission Report?

So, if the article People questioning the 9/11 Commission Report was deleted because, according to the nom, it was "Original research, POV fork, indiscriminate list with vague requirements for inclusion, redundant" [13], why should the list of people from that improper article be essentially pasted in full here under an equally loose descrption of "Participants"? -- ZimZalaBim (talk) 16:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, in discussing the arbitrariness of the 9/11 Truth Movement template, Striver claims here [14] that "only people that self-indetify with the movement are included." If that is the case, then this article needs to be trimmed to include only those people who have self-identified as a member of the 9/11 Truth Movement. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 16:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I think that in all of Wikipedia there should be one and only one page on this topic: 9/11 conspiracy theories. That page should be no longer than, say, Byzantine empire. Having all these pov forks and promotional pages is a gross distortion of the importance of the subject, and an example of recentism bias (among other things). In particluar, a list of people who think 'the government was in on it', or 'the Jews did it', or 'there's more happens than we ever know' is about as informative as a list of old men I saw at the coffee shop this morning. Tom Harrison Talk 15:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] serendipity

Whoever is adding stuff to the page is filling it with links to subtley anti-semitic sites (serendipity.li) and people who attack other researchers openly while advocating lunacy like the idea that the plane crashes at the WTC were done by 'video fakery.' Please look at what you are doing. These additions don't help anything.

On serendipity:

"But Serendipity also hosts hateful attacks on some of the hardest working 9/11 activists (see http://serendipity.ptpi.net/wot/fake_opposition.htm for a particularly ugly example), and promotes the webfairy / pod hoaxes.

Their page http://www.serendipity.li/wtc_other_sites.htm purports to be a comprehensive list of 9/11 pages, yet it is a mix of accurate information and suspect claims. The Serendipity comments about Mike Ruppert's site blatantly misleads the reader:

'This has long been regarded as one of the most perceptive sites concerning both 9/11 and peak oil. That Ruppert supports the official lie that 9/11 was an "Al Qaeda" operation should make one wonder.'

A simple review of virtually any article at www.fromthewilderness.com quickly exposes Serendipity's claims as false. Why does "Serendipity" promote disinformation about Ruppert's work -- it should make one wonder. Perhaps Serendipity is trying to discourage people from reading Ruppert's book "Crossing the Rubicon," which details Cheney's complicity in 9/11. Who benefits from that outcome?" http://www.oilempire.us/hoaxes.html 24.4.180.197 01:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes serendipity is full of Horse****, but who cares, we are not here to promote or suppres one side of the movement. --Striver 15:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I question the notability of that serendipity site.--Baltech22 01:07, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
So from the page 9/11 Truth Movement we link to a site that is full of nonsense? What is your point? Tom Harrison Talk 15:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
There are a number of individuals who claim to help the movement but who busy themselves attacking others in it, most often over differences in emphasis. However, Mike Ruppert of From the Wilderness has suffered a distinct fall from grace in the movement as a whole in the last year or two, for several reasons. His emphasis on Cheney is not the main one, but it can be opposed as a "limited hangout" or "regime rotation," in that the real stringpullers are higher up in the invisible government, not the elected puppet government (if elected is the term for Bush/Cheney). IOW, there is a fear that "9/11 truth" will stop at impeaching a couple bad eggs who are relatively minor lackeys, while the real structure of false flag terror and aggressive war remains intact. JPLeonard 00:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Third Party Sources

I see all of these lists, but it all seems to be original research, unless we have citations that say that these people are part of the "9/11 Truth Movement". We don't get to say yeah or nay -- that's up to other sources which we can then cite. Otherwise, I will begin to delete anybody without a citation. Morton devonshire 02:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. We need citations that they, using Striver's words [15], self-identify with the 9/11 Truth Movement. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 03:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, we need citations, and as is evident, i am constantly working on it. And yes, i am constantly woking on finding quotes were people embrace the 9/11 Truth Movement stance of questioning the official view. I propose you help me in doing that, that is, unless you do NOT want to see the list sourced, but rather deleted. --Striver 15:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
A list of people who happen to "embrace the 9/11 Truth Movement stance of questioning the official view" should be deleted. This article is supposed to be about the 9/11 Truth Movement, and shouldn't inculde a laundry list of people who happen to have said something that happens to be similar to what the Movement believes. I might say that "I think civil liberties are important," but that doesn't mean I should be listed on the ACLU page as a member or participant, unless, using your words [16], I've "self-identified" with that movement. ZimZalaBim (talk) 16:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
The comparision is lacking, the ACLU is an organizations, this is a movement, just as the peace movement. Movements do not have membership per definition, organizations does. This article statrts with "The 9/11 Truth Movement is a collection of groups and researchers questioning the official account of 9/11 who disagree with the mainstream media's account of the September 11, 2001 attacks. " and the section we are talking about states "Below are a list of people that have publicly questioned in a negative sense the offical account of the 9/11 Attacks." and are quoted to that effect. There is no loose conections or original research involved. The list is verified by first hand quotes and are relevant to the article. The people listed have self-identified with that movement by embracing what the movement is about: - the only way to be included in a movement. The notion that you need a membership card to be included in a movement is false. --Striver 18:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You are trying to have it both ways. You want this to be an official "9/11 Truth Movement" with capital letters, media mention, etc, and you also want anyone who ever said anything contrary to the MSM/gov't account of 9/11 to automatically be included. This article is not a list of people that have publicly questioned in a negative sense the offical account of the 9/11 Attacks. If you really want this to be compared to the peace movement, then an attempt to enumerate and list members is futile and unnecessary. Just make the article about the movement, and not cluttered with lists and polls of people that have already been rejected from other articles. ZimZalaBim (talk) 18:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

In niether this interpretation nor the one above do I see any justification for includeing the polls. I have removed them. Tom Harrison Talk 18:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure they are, they are quoted all over the internet. Did you bother to read the introduction to the article? Here it is again for you: "The 9/11 Truth Movement is a collection of groups and researchers questioning the official account of 9/11 who disagree with the mainstream media's account of the September 11, 2001 attacks. The 9/11 Truth Movement is informal, decentralized and occasionally fractious; its members convene by electronic mailing lists, ongoing local meetings, and national and international public conferences". See? Lots of people. How do you figuere out how many? They have no membership list. What do you do? You poll them. --Striver 18:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
The purpose of the polls was not to determine membership or self-identification with the "9/11 Truth Movement" They are not relevant here. (deja vu). ZimZalaBim (talk) 18:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Bro, why are you insisnting on "determine membership" on a movement? How does that make sense? You think they have a centreal "911TM" agency that you can ask for membership from? I have given a full answer below, answer there. --Striver 19:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Bro, you were stating that the polls were an acceptable proxy to a membership list: "you poll them". And yes, if there is a 911TM (with CAPS, as you insist), then there should be a membership list, or a list of people who, using your terms, "self-identify" with the movement. But if I happen to say "I think peace is better than war" that doesn't automatically make me a member of the peace movement. I just happen to hold an opinion that is in concert with that group of people. That said, if we accept your description of this as an "informal, decentralized and occasionally fractious" movement, then any attempt to list members is fruitless. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 21:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response

What is the "Response" section for? What is being responded to? Seems to be a list of media/gov't responses and reactions to the various 9/11 conspiracy theories. Unless these include specific mention that they are in response to the "9/11 Truth Movement," the list should be moved to 9/11 conspiracy theories. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 18:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theories" is what the Media and Government call the movement. But they refere to themselves as the "9/11 Truth Movement". Yes, with capital leters and all [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]. It is best described by this:
“ When GNN asked me to report on the “9/11 Truth Movement,” I shuddered. How can one attempt to describe this fractious, nation-wide phenomenon of disparate researchers and activists, spread far and wide, but tied umbillically on the web? This amorphous network of folks has only recently become known as “The 9/11 Truth Movement” [22] ”
See? It is a movement, its not a club or a oraganiztaion. They do not have any membership list, they do not hand out buissness cards, and they do capitalize the leters. The name is what an umbrella term they self-indetify with. And yes, people are in the movement on the sole issue of rejecting the government version, that is they do not belive NITS, 9/11 Commission, Popular Mechanics and such. You will never hear anyone say "i belong to the 9/11 Truth_Movement", but you will hear them say "9/11 was an inside job". The people having those stances are very easy to identify, and you will see them talking about "Truth" and such. You will hear them talk about the "9/11 Truth Movement", but very rarly say they are in it. That is the nature of the way they talk, its their language.--Striver 18:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
So as long as someone mentions "9/11" "government coverup" and "truth" they can be listed here? That's not sufficient criteria for an encyclopedia article (this is an encyclopedia, remember). Feel free to make your own list on your own webspace. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 21:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Musicians

How does singing the hook on a song that suggests the US gov't was behind 9/11 automatically make someone a member of the "9/11 Truth Movement"? What about the background singers? Or the audio technician? Or the janitor who cleanup up the studio? These "membership" distinctions are arbitrary, and not encyclopedic. We need reliable sources indicating that these living persons "self-identify" with this Movement. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 21:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

What up with this "membership" stuff? Why are you insisting on a "membership"? No offence, but it is really starting to feel like a straw man. Do you see any audio technician or janitor in the list? How is that not a straw man? Please, read the heading again "List of those questioning". It is not "List of members", see? i see your point with "if i said peace is better than war, whould i be in the peace movement?". That is a legit question, and here is my answer: Saying "Peace is better than war" is not controversial, it does not make you become branded as an kook in all major television chanels, trying to teach about it in schools will not make politicians wanna eat you alive. It is true that both are movemnts, but there is more to it: One is mainstream and cool, the others are branded semi-traitors. Thus, making a "peace is good" statment in public not anything notable, but going live like Charlie Sheen and saying what he did, that takes balls. With this, i conclude that it is trivial to say "peace is good" and you will need to be doing what George Galloway is doing for it to be considered non-trivial. But as far as this movement goes, it is now non-trivial and actualy very notable to say "bush knocked down the towers". Want proof. go to the shop and cry "Peace is good" and then compare the reaction to shouting "Bush knocked down the towers". The last line only will get you healines in reuters and having your song sencured on non-explicit content, ask Jadakiss. So as long as people get headlines for sayin "Bush did it", that alone will be enough notability to be considered in the movement. Actualy, you do not even need to go that far, as Charli Sheen did not even say that Bush did it, and he went throuhg FOX news, CNN, and all major newspapers. As is now, only rejecting and questioning the al-qaeda theory in public is notable enough to get you headlines. Actualy, even sugesting Bush had prior knowledge and let it happen on purpose will cost you your political carrer. We do not need to go trough this, we all know that it is notable to question in public the official version. And that will bring you in the inside what this umbrella term is defining. so JD, stop with your straw man "He did not say bush did it", just wanting to creat an international investigation after meeting Mr Rodriguez at lenght is notable enough--Striver 10:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
btw, nowere in the George Galloway article do you see him saying "i am a part of the peace movement", yet the peace movement template is there. That is simply because you do not need to state "i am in this movement" to be considered such, actions talk higher than words. And that is a fact, you dont need to say "i am a murdered" to become one, you become one when you murder people. You become a part of the 9/11 Truth Movement when you publicly state that there is a hidden truth to 9/11, not when you say "i am in the 9/11 Truth Movement". Nobody says that, yet the movement exists and people refer to it. --Striver 10:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
It is important because you are claiming these people assign to a particular set of beliefs with anything but the anecdotal evidence you can find: see WP:OR and WP:BLP. if I recall, there has been a huge debate over whether we can label living people as "conspiracy theorists" per the WP:BLP policy, yet you see no problem placing anyone who utters a "Bush did it" on this list.
So, let's take a controversial example: Since Mel Gibson apparently made an anti-semetic remark, should he be listed as a member/participant of the neo-nazi movement?
So, again, any attempt to list people associated with this group must adhere to WP:OR and WP:BLP policies, and we should be using the criteria you've suggested elsewhere that they "self-identify" with the movement. It is not for you or me to say someone is a member of this movement. We are encyclopedists. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 11:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Further, you claim that these lists are ok because the section intro states ""List of those questioning." Well, that's not the purpose of an encyclopedia article about a movement. The peace movement doesn't include a "list of people questioning war policy" and the civil rights movement doesn't include a "list of people questioning white supremacy" Such a list simply doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article about the "9/11 Truth Movement". IFF someone says "guess what, I'm a member of the 9/11 Truth Movement" or "I identify with those in the 9/11 Truth Movement" then we can add their name here. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 15:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Ill get back to this, just dumping [this right now... --Striver 16:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a repository of links or your own bookmarking space. Please don't "dump links" here. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 16:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
DO NOT REPEAT THAT!!! DO NOT TOUCH MY EDITD ON TALK PAGE!!! --Striver 17:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Please do not shout, and what part of WP:NOT are you not understanding? Just dumping links on a talk page is not what talk pages are for. If you don't have the time to actually make constructive contributions or comments, then use the bookmark function on your browser and come back to it later. This page is not your personal web space in order to archive links. ZimZalaBim (talk) 18:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:LIVING

So, here Striver removed mention of Bob Mcilvaine's association with the 9/11 Truth Movement from his bio [23], invoking WP:LIVING. If that's the case, we need to apply WP:LIVING to every person on this page. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 16:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

And remove McIlvaine from it! --ZimZalaBim (talk) 16:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


I have done so. Please provide high quality sources for any individual that you would like readded to the list. Thank you. JBKramer 13:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ken Jenkins

There is one source quoted showing Ken Jenkins as part of this group of 9/11 deniers. However, the source lists him as a videographer and activist. This should be removed unless it can be proved that this is the same person as the actor. 67.10.133.121 03:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Ken Jenkins is a common name, a number of them come up on google. The Ken Jenkins in question here has long hair, lives in Berkeley and has made several "9/11 Truth" DVD's. I think he is too busy doing that to be an actor. I have never even heard of Ken Jenkins the actor, anyway, I don't see having a common name as a reason for removal. JPLeonard 23:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Ken Jenkins was originally listed in this article with the word (actor) after his name. THAT Ken Jenkins is one of the stars of NBC sitcom "Scrubs" and is a well known character actor who has been on "Star Trek: The Next Generation", "Homefront" and many other dramas. Just to clarify. Looks like his name's been removed. 67.10.133.121 10:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New film / deletion vote

Please vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/9/11: Press for Truth. Badagnani 06:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Hologram Theory

Someone was telling me all about Hologram Theory today and how its causing waves even within the 9/11 Truth Movement because its so contoversial. I looked for it on Wiki, but couldn't find ANY info on it, or its leading researcher Rosalee Grable so I started articles on both. Hopefully you 9/11 'truthers' know much more about this topic, and will add to these articles on this important subject. The 9/11 truth movement is not really my field of study. Good luck. - F.A.A.F.A 08:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Is the hologram theory related to the brains-in-vats theory? Tom Harrison Talk 14:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Why would someone start articles in an area they admit they know nothing about? Sounds like a fitting end for those articles. bov 01:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] YouTube links

This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed, feel free to ask me on my talk page and I'll review it personally. Thanks. ---J.S (t|c) 07:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Full of grammer and spelling errors

As I read this article its full of grammar and spelling errors. It needs some proofreading. --63.228.246.132 16:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] including "left," "right," pacifists, paleoconservatives, Greens, anarchists, and libertarians.

This whole article is a POV-saturated mess, but let's start at the top:

The 9/11 Truth Movement embraces a political diversity of members, including "left," "right," pacifists, paleoconservatives, Greens, anarchists, and libertarians.

This statement is unsupported by citation, and I believe it to be false. Unless examples of subscribers to these conspiracy theories can be found in each of those seven categories, they should be deleted.

The statement is a POV-motivated attempt to mislead readers into thinking that the 9-11 conspiracy theorists are not just wacky leftists. But the truth is that the "9-11 Truth Movement" is a movement of the Left.

Where are the conservatives (paleoconservative or other) who believe these conspiracy theories? There are none. In fact, where are there any prominent political figures from any party of the American political spectrum who believe these conspiracy theories? There aren't any. The 9-11 conspiracy theorists come from the extreme Left of the political spectrum, so extreme than they are outside the range of electability.

What's more, the phrase "embraces a political diversity of members" is POV-promoting hogwash, too. These conspiracy theorists do not "embrace" political diversity, they just embrace paranoia and Bush-bashing. The purpose of that phrase is to make the reader believe that the "movement" is broad and reputable, when it is neither.

Where are the citations of examples of adherents in each of these (overlapping) political categories?

"right"
"paleoconservatives"
Greens
anarchists
libertarians

There might be anarchists and Greens who believe the 9/11 conspiracy theories, but those folks are so extreme that they are outside the range of electability in the USA. But even for them, if there are no citations to show that they subscribe to these conspiracy theories then the article should not say they are part of the "movement."

The "right" and "paleoconservative" categories are even more obviously fiction, and the "libertarian" category probably is, too. There are neither significant numbers nor prominent political figures in those categories who silly enough to believe these conspiracy theories, and the article certainly contains no citations to show that there are.

I propose to replace:

The 9/11 Truth Movement embraces a political diversity of members, including "left," "right," pacifists, paleoconservatives, Greens, anarchists, and libertarians.

with:

"The 9/11 Truth Movement" is what many 9-11 conspiracy theorists call those who share their point of view. It consists of conspiracy theorists, mostly from the political Left, who disbelieve the eyewitness accounts, scientific consensus, and government analyses of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Instead, 9-11 Conspiracy Theorists theorize that the attacks were a U.S. government plot. However, no prominent American politicians, even from the American Left, subscribe to these conspiracy theories.

Comments? NCdave 00:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah.
You wrote: "Where are the conservatives (paleoconservative or other) who believe these conspiracy theories? There are none. In fact, where are there any prominent political figures from any party of the American political spectrum who believe these conspiracy theories? There aren't any. The 9-11 conspiracy theorists come from the extreme Left of the political spectrum, so extreme than they are outside the range of electability."
Completely false. Many if not most of the notables are libertarian and/or conservative. Conservative 9/11 Theorists - F.A.A.F.A. 06:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Wrong. That web page you cite is entitled "Prominent conservatives who question the 'official' story of 9/11," but the title is very misleading. It actually names no conservatives at all, and only one prominant former conservative: Paul Craig Roberts.
I did not claim that there is no such thing as a former conservative. They are rare, but they do exist. There are not as many former conservatives who are now liberals as there are former liberals who are now conservatives, but some former conservatives are, indeed, now liberals or even extreme-fringe leftists. Paul Craig Roberts is a famous example. Arianna Huffington is another. Neither have in any way resembled conservative for quite a long time (though Huffington is not so insane as to believe the wacko 9/11 conspiracy theories).
Roberts now writes for Counterpunch magazine, which is Alexander Cockburn’s Marxist rag, the latest issue of which "examines the growing body count of journalists in Iraq and documents numerous incidents where US troops have deliberately targeted reporters." If that isn't off-the-reservation, anti-American, left-wing nuttiness then I can't imagine what is. Roberts has gone completely off the deep end. He now calls American conservatives " brownshirts," and says that conservatives who write for National Review are like "Hitler and Stalin."
I suspect that the cause of Dr. Roberts' insanity might be a brain tumor, or perhaps prion disease. But, whatever the cause, he is certainly no conservative.
9/11 Conspiracy Theorists are almost exclusively leftists, with those few who aren't clearly leftist being mostly hard-to-categorize nut cases, like Lew Rockwell and perhaps a few Birchers (who are sure that everything that happens in the world results from the machinations of a conspiracy). There are no "notables" from the Right who subscribe to this nonsense. None at all. NCdave 06:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

How about this version?

"The 9/11 Truth Movement" is what some 9-11 Conspiracy Theorists call those who share their point of view. It consists of people, mostly from the political Left, who disbelieve the eyewitness accounts, scientific consensus, and government analyses of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Instead, 9-11 Conspiracy Theorists believe that the attacks were a U.S. government plot. However, no prominent American politicians, even from the American Left, have said they believe that, and only one (Rep. Cynthia McKinney, D-GA) has ever suggested that it was possible.

Comments? NCdave 22:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

If you insist on a change and are indeed being serious, it could work if you exclude certain phrases - "political left", as it's an unbased and unsupported generalization just like the original, "eyewitness accounts", as no one disputes that planes flew into those buildings - it's what happened after, and "scientific consensus", as the fact that there are researches questioning what happened is obviously, NOT, consensus.
But I do agree that an unsupported list of political backgrounds is unneeded, and the bit about government analyses is certainly true. However, I would refrain from using the term "conspiracy theorists", as I don't think it's really in the spirit of the article and has a negative bias.
"The 9/11 Truth Movement" consists of a minority of people who disbelieve the government analyses of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Instead, 9-11 Truth Movement believe that the attacks were a U.S. government plot, or in the least are withholding information.
That version would certainly be more NPOV, although you probably wouldn't like it as it doesn't promote your personal opinion. :) 71.252.177.83 08:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • There is no fair way to say this is a movement of the left or right. But the "mostly from the political" left suggestion is nonsense. The Nation, Z Magazine, Mother Jones,Amy Goodman, Matt Taibii The Guardian, Noam Chomsky, CounterPunch etc .. have all dismissed the claims of the truth movement. And in fact, the 9-11 truthers spend a great deal of time lamenting what they call the "gate keepers of the Left." Also, the newspaper quoted in the Loose Change video is actually a far-paleo old right newspaper.

[edit] Unclear sentence

Currently the article reads:

"These activists argue that the physical evidence of rapid falls of the three WTC skyscrapers could not have occurred as the result of aerial collisions alone, though these arguments have not been widely shared in the civil engineering or scientific communities."

Is this idiomatic English? Is it the "physical evidence of rapid falls" that could not have occurred, or would it be more correct to state "These activists argue that the rapid falls of the three WTC skyscrapers could not have occurred..." I'm not a native English speaker. __meco 21:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Red Brigades mislabeled

The Red Brigades can hardly be said to belong to the category of state sponsored terrorism. __meco 00:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Template Deletion

The template on this page is up for deletion at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_January_20#Template:911tm [24] --NuclearZer0 21:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Result of the TfD was no concensus. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scope of "membership"

Is there any consensus as to what exactly constitutes the '9/11 Truth Movement' - specifically is it people who believe that the 11 September attacks have been intentionally misrepresented or is it everyone who believes that there may be inaccuracies or omissions? I appreciate that it may be difficult to establish a definitive boundary to the topic, but I think the difference warrants more attention than it seems to be getting. (I personally believe there are examples of unexplained gross negligence, but I certainly wouldn't associate myself the delusions referred to.) Peter Grey 04:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the "9/11 truth movement" refers to anyone who does not believe the official account and believes that things have been covered up. This includes believers of 'incompetence theory' - i.e. that the cover-up is to save political embarrassment and/or criminal action. And the "tm" is also indiscriminate, embracing believers of all kinds of theories about who was involved and how was it done.
The "9/11 Truth Movement" appears to be the site 911truth.org (judging by the Title Bar on that site and the lack of any other site claiming to be the "TM"). This organisation specifically endorses the view that the government was complicit. The site criticises the official account and the Commission Report, but doesn't go into particular alternative theories. However it does warn strongly about misinformation and has a prominent link to Jim Hoffman's 911Review.com, a site strongly opposed to believers of 'wild' theories such as the various forms of 'No-Boeing Theory.' This view is echoed by the fact that Steven Jones of "[9/11 Scholars for Truth and Justice]" is on it's advisory board and by it's choice of endorsed links (notably Fetzer's "[Scholars for 9/11 Truth]" is certainly not endorsed).
This article currently does not make the important distinction between the two ideologies - the "all theories welcome" approach endorsed by James Fetzer, and the more focused approach endorsed by Steven Jones and Jim Hoffman. Even worse is the 9/11 conspiracy theories page - in my opinion that page should have two clear sections: first the theories endorsed by the "9/11 Truth Movement" (i.e. these), and then the theories that have arisen in the more general "9/11 truth movement". Corleonebrother 21:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
It would be helpful in general for Wikipedia to make a distinction between those against actual truth who reject reality with hysterical conjecture, and those for truth who challenge the conventional narrative with sensible and still unanswered questions. I don't quite understand the point of saying 'truth movement' where the words are not used in an ironic sense - that seems to potentially add confusion. It's not a "movement" when uncoordinated people simply defend reality against disinformation, nor would someone ordinarily invoke 'truth' if they were actually truthful. Peter Grey 13:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I think the 'truth' part of the 'truth movement' is not meant as "we are telling you the truth" but "we seek the truth because we believe the government is lying". I'm not sure that coordinated efforts are a prerequisite for something to be a movement. From Dictionary.com: a 'movement' is "a diffusely organized or heterogeneous group of people or organizations tending toward or favoring a generalized common goal". In this case, the generalized common goal is to make as many people as possible aware that there are many questions and anomalies about 9/11 and things may not be quite as they seem.
Perhaps we should have a page for "Doubts about the Official Account", limited to pointing out anomalies and unanswered questions, and then a page for the "9/11 information war" describing the ways the various alternative theories have come about and how it is that this topic is so complicated and confusing, and then another page for a single "9/11 alternative theory endorsed by 'The 9/11 Truth Movement'". This last page would be basically a brief summary of Attack Scenario 404. Corleonebrother 21:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Norwegian sister article deleted

Just to inform all that it isn't only the English language Wikipedia that has to deal with heated debate over the "legitimacy" of the 9/11 conspiracy theories, the translated replica of this article along with the translated replica of Groups and individuals challenging the official account of 9/11 were both voted for deletion recently.[25] [26]. __meco 12:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article Bias

I added the neutrality tag. The tone of this article needs to be changed significantly to be NPOV. This article reads like a set of 9/11 Truth Movement talking points rather than an encyclopedia entry on the movement. --Grogan 09:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

You might make a few edits so people can see what you want to change. Tom Harrison Talk 15:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

How is this article NPOV? It strangely opens explaining what the critics of the 9/11 Truth Movement say. It most definitely is not unbiased in it's present published form (4/12/2007). I would at least change the order of the layout. It would really make a difference. - NoSnooz 13:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 9/11 Truthiness

So, what's the story with the reverts over [27]? A link about the so-called Truth Movement will be a non-notable and uninformative parody almost by definition. Peter Grey 12:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a parody with real contact addresses. In addition to being non-notable, even in the context of the 9/11 Truth Movement, the descriptions given are probably libelous. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 12:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I find your entry to be ambiguous, and I don't really understand what your point is. On the question of whether or not to include an external link to http://www.911truthy.org, I hold the opinion that this should be included together with probably two or three other similar sites that I am aware of which strongly critizes the 9/11 Truth Movement for being hi-jacked by disinformation agents. These are important allegations which the reader needs in order to make a considered judgment about the integrity of the various leading members of the 911 TM. __meco 16:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
http://www.911truthy.org fails any attempt to call it a WP:RS. It might be used as an example of a particularly bizarre 9/11 conspiracy theory, but it's clearly misleading under WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided#2, as it pretends to be written by some of the more normal conspiracy theorists who don't subscribe to any of the stated theories. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Timeline needed

Would some of the proponents of the 9/11 truther movement kindly make a timeline of events? It is at present hard to determine what they suggest the real events, as opposed to the officially stated events, were. What, in their opinion, actually happened on 9/11. E.g.
8.46 - NORAD pilotes remote-controlled drone aircraft into North Tower.
10.28 - CIA demolishes North Tower by exploding pre-set explosives.
...
16.58 - Conspirator at BBC messes up and reports that WTC 7 has been demolished seven minutes before it actually is.
etc

Something like THIS http://www.mishalov.com/wtc_9-11-timeline.html but with the Truther sequence of events as opposed to the official sequence of events.

I think having something like this would be very useful and enlightening. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Man On The Street (talk • contribs) 11:18, March 23, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 9/11 Truth Userbox

I have made a userbox for Wikipedians who are involved in the 9/11 Truth Movement. Here ya go!

Ask Questions This user is involved in the 9/11 Truth Movement Demand Answers

ToxicArtichoke 00:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! bov 05:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Cool! Now it will be easier to spot the nutjobs! Pablo Talk | Contributions 16:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Yea, the people who dont have it are the nut jobs, lol. Actually i wont be using it, but i do tend to feel that the people investigating such as the truth movement are more professional and scholarly then the debunker's. However that is only in general, the truth movement also has its nut jobs, and they are just more noticeable. Its sad how a few nuts can discredit and entire group. - Debeo Morium: to be morally bound (Talk | Contribs) 20:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Two Groups shouldn't really be in the same article

Dr. Jones' research and views which use (or claim to use) physical evidence and scientific data shouldn't be included in a page with views that have little more than imagination and speculation as their basis. Since Dr. Jones and his associates that share his scientific beliefs operate a distinctly different organization they ought to have their own page. I suggest this because the potentially valid claims of Dr. Jones are made to look like "conspiracy theories" because they are lumped into the same article/category/discussion as the holographic planes and laser weapons of the other party. As long as a view that tries to use logical evidence is laughed away as being "lazor guns PEW PEW," a NPOV issue will exist. Cheers, BlackVegetable 02:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Jones' "research" does not have a scientific basis. It merely sounds scientific, which indicates a deliberate effort at deception. Peter Grey 02:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Regardless of this particular Dr, he does have a point that some try to follow scientific methods and others don't, and should be distinguished. Elfguy 19:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editors concealing Giuliani knowledge of WTC collapse

Be on guard about editors playing slick with the facts, especially when backed up by references.

Rudy Giuliani has flip-flopped since 2001 on his story of whether he knew of the coming WTC collapse.

Editor User:DBaba gutted a bona fide statement by a commercial newspaper and by a commercial TV station. [See the recent history of the Rudy Giuliani article.] Such gutting of documented statements is POV. Dogru144 23:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
This talk page is for discussing the articles content only.

This talk page should only be used for discussing the article, and the development of its content. If youd like to discuss personal opinions regarding the topic feel free to go to an off-topic talk page.

- Debeo Morium: to be morally bound (Talk | Contribs) 21:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rosie O'Donnell deletion

For the record, my recent addition regarding Rosie O'Donnell and ABC was deleted. The line of reasoning was to the effect that she is a dupe and thus irrelevant. In other words, the Truth Movement is itself a conspiracy, and only those who know it are relevent. Interesting logic. JLMadrigal 12:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC) Where did she get her PhD? Plenty of people believe there are significant problems with the official story, including myself. Her opinion doesn't add to the discussion of facts, and should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.150.253.192 (talk) 23:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Restructured and expanded article

I have begun a major re-write of this article to try and clean it up a bit. It is currently on my userpage, here, and I would like to invite comments. Thanks, Corleonebrother 16:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nose Out pic to illustrate No Plane theory

Image:Noseoutframe.jpgThe "Nose out frame" is one cornerstone of the so-called "no plane" theory, which asserts that it depicts a superimposed CGI image of a jet nose exiting the building, and that it is a 100% match for the image of the same jet nose as it was shown approaching the building.

The "consensus" at talk:9/11 conspiracy theories was specifically that this pic is irrelevant to that article, because there is no mention of the "no plane" theory at that article. So I found THIS article which does describe the "no plane" theory; and I see it has been removed for the pretext that it was considered irrelevant to the OTHER article. I'm sure you will come up with a better excuse to keep it from sight than that. Os Cangaceiros (Yippie!) 18:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The picture and it's accompanying caption are original research. You need a reliable source to include that picture and that caption in the article. Pablo Talk | Contributions 18:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't be too hard. It's a cornerstone of the "no plane theory", so any source that there even is such a thing as a "no plane theory" is going to include it. Os Cangaceiros (Yippie!) 19:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, find a source and then we can really begin discussing whether or not the picture belongs in the article. You can't just add a picture and a disputed caption without a source, even if you think it shouldn't be too hard to find one. Pablo Talk | Contributions 23:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
The section as a whole is pretty much sourced to "Scholars for 9/11 Truth", I would think they are sufficient evidence of the existence of the September Clues film... The clearest technical explanation of the so-called "no plane" or "pinocchio" theory I have found yet is on this webpage. So far, at a minimum I can reliably say it is not my original research. Os Cangaceiros (Yippie!) 02:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
That webpage is not a reliable source. Pablo Talk | Contributions 02:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
It can't be called my OR, because I didn't make any of it up; and I certainly had nothing to do with the September Clues movie -- I just happened to see a rare copy on the internet that hadn't been banned yet... Kooky or not, this really is a part of their "no plane" theory, honest to God... And, they are actually being quite serious...! Os Cangaceiros (Yippie!) 02:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm no longer accusing you of using original research; I'm now accusing you of using unreliable sources. There's a difference. Pablo Talk | Contributions 02:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
You mean you don't believe this is really any part of the "no plane" theory mentioned in the article, and believe my claim is unreliable that it is what they are saying? This is a section about "Scholars for Truth" (they have a search engine on their website to help you find what I'm talking about -- just look up September Clues.) Surely we already use the Scholars for Truth website as a source about what they are saying about the "no plane" theory and those who promote it. This is merely taking more explanation of that theory from that same site under discussion. Will you now shift your argument to citing "undue weight", now that I have conclusively justified its relevance to the article's "Scholars for Truth" section, where it may be easily found on their website link? Os Cangaceiros (Yippie!) 04:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that the source is unreliable. It seems as though the insane no-plane theory relies heavily upon the photo. I don't mind if we spend a couple of sentences on the no-plane theory. Any more than that would be undue weight. Pablo Talk | Contributions 05:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

But the section is about "Scholars for Truth", and they themselves are the already-linked source for this, as I noted above. How could they possibly be "unreliable" information for what their own members are promoting? Os Cangaceiros (Yippie!) 05:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Per WP:V, questionable sources such as the Scholars for 9/11 Truth should only be used in articles about itself. Since the section is about the Scholars, there is no problem including them as a source. However, the blog you linked to earlier doesn't appear to be from the Scholars. Pablo Talk | Contributions 07:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Once again, the Scholars' website itself is sufficient explanation of the "no plane" theory and those who hold it, since it includes September Clues, and much more on this subject. The blog source may not pass your muster for reliability in the article, but it is unnecessary and extraneous; I merely linked it above to show that it is not my OR as you initially claimed, and to show this talkpage where a more detailed explanation may be found. When I first read about the Scholars, on this very article (about a month ago), I was curious as to how any of them could make such an outrageous claim, and how they could explain it as anything else. Surely other people who read here that there exists a theory no plane hit the towers will also be wondering just how they can say this; there's no need to tantalize readers by mentioning their theory but then refuse to describe it; and we shouldn't fear documenting an incredible theory that is clearly insane, as you say. If or when the Scholars ever get their own article, it might be more appropriate there, but ATM this is it. Os Cangaceiros (Yippie!) 11:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
The Scholars did have their own article, and it was deleted. As for the no-plane stuff, go ahead and include it in the Scholars section. Just be sure not to violate undue weight. Pablo Talk | Contributions 15:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I just added a brief explanation of what the theory is, and tried to keep it in proper perspective without getting bogged down in detail. Til Eulenspiegel 17:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
"No Boeing Theory" is not the same as "No Plane Theory". And both terms refer only to the Pentagon. The difference is that "No Boeing Theory" does not preclude some other jetliner or military drone hitting the Pentagon. "No Plane Theory" means it was a missile. This "CGI Theory" (my term) is not widely believed within the truth movement at all - most believe that Flights 11 and 175 hit the Towers. Therefore if this is to be mentioned, it should be on 9/11 conspiracy theories as that page seems to include every theory that has ever been suggested, regardless of how many people believe it. Corleonebrother 18:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Not to contradict you, but the paper Wood and Reynolds wrote on their "No Boeing theory" makes it abundantly clear that they are asserting NO Boeings were used in the attacks anywhere, whether at the Pentagon, New York, or Shanksville. So the article as it stands now is correct regarding Wood and Reynolds' theory. Wood and Reynolds' paper is entitled "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Disintegrate?". Regards, Os Cangaceiros (Yippie!) 13:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
They call it the No Big Boeing Theory but I guess that's pretty much the same as No Jetliner Theory and No Boeing Theory. You are right about the terms referring to the WTC as well as the Pentagon. Then No Plane Theory would be a subset of No Boeing Theory and would itself include Missile Theory, Hologram Theory and this CGI Theory. Bearing this in mind, mentioning it seems to give it undue weight, don't you think? Especially on this page, which doesn't even go into details about various theories.
And Wood and Reynolds don't suggest that CGI was involved at all so the paragraph is still incorrect. They hint that it might have been a smaller plane, and talk about 'the impacts', so they are not even No Plane advocates, let alone CGI Theory advocates. Unless you can find another source?? Corleonebrother 20:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Corleonebrother, I don't understand your most recent objection to the inclusion of this image to illustrate the "no plane theory", as Reynolds and Wood themselves are the very sources that they do indeed advocate this, as repeatedly shown. They both point to films like "9/11 Octopus" and "September Clues" that purport to demonstrate that one of the live networks broadcast the very same live footage as the others, except that no plane is visible; as well as numerous detailed examinations of all the plane images of the second strike. I also don't see how you can claim from the recent conversation above, your most recent post to now be the "consensus" of discussion, and summarily remove the image. This is the only article that describes Wood and Reynolds' "no plane theory", and it isn't "undue weight" to illustrate what they and many others are now focussing on, just because you say it is. Why not allow a second opinion besides your own, let alone third opinions? Or should we take it to Request For Comment? 70.105.52.107 22:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Please can you provide a source for where Wood and Reynolds have specifically referred to either of these films, or to the use of CGI? I am not doubting that they advocate a form of 'No-Boeing theory', only they have not (to my knowledge) specifically said anything about CGI, which is after all just one kind of 'No-Boeing theory'. And I never said anything about a consensus, merely that it had been discussed and no source was provided, so I removed it. Corleonebrother 22:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Corleonebrother, your argument is spurious because your premise is false. Both Woods and Reynolds make ample reference to "no plane theory" and "CGI" on both of their respective websites, not to mention the Scholars for 9/11 Truth website. We are not using second hand or third hand information. "No plane" and "CGI" is what Reynolds and Wood say directly from the horses' mouth. It seems you are either totally unaware of what Wood and Reynolds' theory is, and have spent little time on it, or else are deliberately misrepresenting their theory in a last-ditch, desperate attempt to prevent wikipedia from describing their theory. In either case, I suggest you look over the already-linked websites (Wood's site, Reynold's site, and Scholars' site) one more time if you still honestly think there is "no source" for any such thing as a no plane / CGI theory. 70.105.50.144 13:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I have looked at [28] and [29] - presumably these are the sites you are referring to? I cannot find any specific mentions of CGI - it would be helpful if you could provide a link. September Clues is linked to on the Scholars site, but I can't see any full members that endorse this theory (Nick Irving is an Associate Member) - perhaps you can help me out here as well. The closest thing I could find was this article by Morgan Reynolds, in which he suggests there may have been some 'plane trickery' involved, but no specific mention of CGI. I would also point out (again) that CGI Theory is just one form of No Plane Theory, so the current paragraph and the caption are still incorrect and misleading. Corleonebrother 15:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I have now added a paragraph mentioning this theory on the 9/11 conspiracies page and so I have removed it from here. I found a source for Reynolds suggesting this as a possibility so I think there is a case for mentioning this idea. It is certainly better to mention it on the 9/11 conspiracies page though as that is what it is. This page is about the truth movement itself and no other theories are discussed on this page, so in my opinion it would be out of place. I would ask that if do not like what I have done, leave a message for me here rather than simply reverting. Thanks, Corleonebrother 19:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
The main thing I do not like is that the pic I took the trouble of uploading specifically to illustrate the theory, seems to have become "lost in the shuffle" with the old card game here. My whole intention was exactly to have the pic in the relevant place, as an illustration of the "no plane theory". It might have seemed that your intention is the exact opposite, to come up with one creative way after another to somehow "lose" the pic. But I will give the benefit of the doubt, assume it was an honest oversight, and re-add the pic myself in the new location. Os Cangaceiros (Yippie!) 23:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I did not add the picture back in as I don't feel it's necessary to have an illustration to describe this theory. Other theories on that page are not illustrated. However, I don't feel so strongly about this that I will remove the picture myself. I'd like to hear what other wikipedians think about the picture to see which of us is in the majority. If no one else objects to it being there then fine. Corleonebrother 08:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zogby Poll and Member Professions deletions

An unregistered user recently deleted the information relating to the Zogby Poll, saying that the question and explanation are biased. I disagree with this as there is no explanation or interpretation given and the question itself is stated precisely, so we can leave the reader to decide whether or not they think it's biased. I have therefore restored this paragraph. The same user also deleted the line about the professions included among the members of the movement, with no reason given as to why. The line was referenced and I don't think it can be disputed, so I have also restored this. Any objections, please discuss here before deleting. Thanks, Corleonebrother 09:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] unreliable

The following cites the scholars page and a self-published website. I did indeed explain, but of course it was ignored so someone said I didn't. I will therefor restate what I said here. A self-published website is not reliable per WP:RS. debunking911.com is ran by a middle schooler.[30] the other source is the site itself. No creditable source is cited.

Critics said their website lists only three structural engineers as members,[52] and argue that the engineers involved with the scholars have little or no relevant experience or qualifications in the disciplines related to structural engineering or controlled demolitions.[53] Critics also said that they have just one American Society of Civil Engineers member, Joseph M. Phelps. Other critiques have said the website is biased in favor of Pentagon views and includes information which has little basis in evidence.[citation needed]

— Selmo (talk) 06:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

On what do you base your claim "debunking911.com is ran by a middle schooler"? I cannot spot such a claim in the link you cite; the only school reference I see is a tirade against someone's grammar mistakes. prisonplanet.com is foaming-at-the-mouth crackpottery to begin with; what do we get with misreading and misrepresenting it...? Weregerbil 06:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
You know what? Fine. Your opinion is fact I will edit WP:RS to say "Prison Planet.com is not reliable because Wergerbil said so". Seriously though, your opinions on the site are frankly irrelevant. He's an important part of the movement, and to exclude him shows no interest in NPOV on your part. Perhaps you can tell me why he's worth mentioning? Let's see some notability established. — Selmo (talk) 06:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Not only is Prison Planet not a reliable source, but it is also an attack site. Pablo Talk | Contributions 07:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
No it isn't. — Selmo (talk) 15:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Prison Planet has attacked Wikipedians in the past in such a way that it is considered to be an attack site. Any reference to Prison Planet will be removed. Pablo Talk | Contributions 16:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
What authority gives you the right to make such an arbitrary decision? Perhaps you think you WP:OWN the article? I think not. — Selmo (talk) 20:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Take it up with the ARBCOM. There was a decision that attack sites' links can be banned from Wikipedia. See WP:ATTACK#External links. I don't think it's reliable, as there is evidence that some of the radio shows' copies and transcripts were altered, but, as long as it's an attack site, it goes. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
To answer your question, Arbcom gives me that right. Perhaps you should become more familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines before you edit this (or any other) article again. Pablo Talk | Contributions 21:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, in my opinion, we've no need to invoke arbcom or call it an attack site in this case. We can simply treat it as we would any other unreliable source. Friday (talk) 21:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

You're definitely correct. However, it's a lot easier to fight off POV-pushers that want to use PP as a source if it can be described as both unreliable and an attack site. Pablo Talk | Contributions 21:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Don't call me a POV pusher. That's a personal attack. Besides, the article Prison Planet published came from another article. I am a bit familar with Wikipedia policy. I suggest you get to know me a bit better before you attempt to dismiss my valid view because I ahvn't read changes in a while. Your definition from WP:NPA fits Prison Planet.com of you were WikiLawyering perhaps.— Selmo (talk) 22:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WOW

THis article is a tour de force. Bravo. Bigglove 04:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Morton Devonshire's changes

This user recently made some changes to the intro of this article and I'd like to question some of them and see if we can reach a consensus. Specifically:

  • "organisations and individuals" was changed to "entrepreneurs who seek to capitalize" - this seems to me to be unfair... some of them may be entrepreneurs but not all.
  • "question the official account" was changed "the United States was not attacked by terrorists" - this seems to suggest that the view is that al-Qaeda was not involved, but this is not the universal view in the movement - that the official account is not true is a universal view, so it is more accurate.
  • The Mossad is now mentioned in the opening paragraph - this is not a part of the Truth Movement at all as far as I know - it certainly isn't as prevalent as the view that the US government are responsible. Can anyone find a source linking this view to the movement?
  • The whole part of the 'Members' section describing the political and professional background of the members was removed. What is the reason for this? I would have thought this information is vital to explaining who these people are.

Look forward to hearing what you and others have got to say about this. Thanks, Corleonebrother 18:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

What are our sources for what the movement is and what it believes? Tom Harrison Talk 18:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
911truth.org is the central website of the movement - this site, it's sister sites and it's endorsed links (such as the organisations 9/11 Research and the Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice) represent the core beliefs of the movement. Corleonebrother 19:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
"911truth.org is the central website of the movement..." How do you know that? Tom Harrison Talk 19:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Good question. 911truth.org organises most of the movement's rallies and events, bringing different regional groups, and groups of different 'specialists' together. Unlike most 9/11 sites, it does not go into detail in just one area of the movement (eg research, awareness, litigation etc) but brings them all together in one place and provides an overview of the whole movement and it's activities. The site also links to more websites than any other I've seen (choosing to endorse some and not others), making it 'central' in that sense. Further, the title bar on the website suggests that it is The 9/11 Truth Movement. More than any other, I'd say this organisation represents the movement. Corleonebrother 19:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I think there would need to be reliable secondary sources to support what you say. Tom Harrison Talk 19:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. After a quick look, I can't find any reliable secondary sources that describe them as 'central' ('a leading TM organisation' is often used). But even if I'm wrong about them being central, I don't see what it has to do with the points I am raising here. Corleonebrother 21:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

What "Movement"? There is no "Movement" to speak of. There is a the anti-war movement, an Ecology movement, the Anti-globalization movement, the Civil rights movement, , the Gay rights movement. All of these are observable political or social movements in the US -- where is the "Truth Movement"? There isn't any, it's not a "movement", it's just commerce.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 19:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Exactly. Social movements, such as those Morton cites, exist for the purpose of changing public policy. The 9/11 Truth "Movement" exists solely to spread lies and bully productive citizens. Pablo Talk | Contributions 19:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
It is referred to as a movement by mainstream media sources; it is observable. It has not been as successful in persuading people round to it's POV as the movements you mention, but this does not make it not a movement. It exists to change public policy just like any other movement. Corleonebrother 19:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, there are certainly mainstream sources that refer to the "9/11 Truth Movement" by title, but none that describe it as a "movement." There's a difference.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 21:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
In fact the 'M' is quite often not capitalized, but this conversation is becoming sidetracked. Please can you respond to the specific objections I have raised to your changes? Thanks, Corleonebrother 22:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

So, I was asked to comment on this; I've of a mixed mind about the changes. I definitely don't agree with the "entrepeneurs who seeks to capitalize" phrase -- it has strong negative connotations, and doesn't appear to be universally true. Any "movement" will have its share of people trying to get rich, but it's not fair to characterize the entire movement as such without strong evidence. Calling it a little-m "movement" is questionable; it's more like an organization, but the terminology, and how its treated in the mainstream media blend the two together, so I don't have a strong opinion about this; personally, I would go with "organization" or "loose affiliation". I do, however, mostly agree with removing the laundry list of members; if it's an organization, then it will have a member list of some importance. If it's a movement, then prominent people associated with it can be mentioned in their historical context. --Haemo 23:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Middle ground

I think there is something to what  MortonDevonshire  Yo  is saying, but it doesn't quite surmise the whole situation either. They aren't all con artists (which is what the word entrepreneur comes off as in the disputed text), many of them genuinely believe the theories they put forth.

The article needs to be closer to a NPOV tone, frankly the "movement" version is the opposite of MortonDevonshire's, which makes it POV for the 9/11 dissenters. Essentially the article should, IMHO, discuss the group as holding a minority (scholarly) view which is often based on flawed information. Either by poor understanding of technical details or intentional misrepresentation for commercial profit. Anynobody 07:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Incident Report

I had to make an incident report. Morton's edit was not 'good faith'. The edit is non-sense and myabe even trolling. I'm not even a 9/11 person and I saw it like trolling. Bmedley Sutler 08:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to sleep now. Hopefully it will be straight out by tomorrow. Good night. Bmedley Sutler 08:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] To administrator Harrison

Morton is the one who made massive POV changes with out links and proofs to support his POV claims. Why are you not asking or challenging him for proofs of his claims? Do you really think your administorial actions are following 'NPOV' with your line of questioning? I don't. Sorry. Bmedley Sutler 21:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 9/11 truth movement Growth due to Iraq War

Is it true that the 9/11 truth movement grew significantly ONLY after public opinion shifted against the Iraq War? Of course with more people disgruntled with the President, more people would be accepting of 9/11 conspiracy theories, regardless of the amount of evidence for the 9/11 truth movement. Shouldn't this be mentioned as a main cause for increased support for the 9/11 truth movement over the past few years, rather than an increase in evidence (because evidence has evidently remained static since the attacks)?

[edit] Links to a movement website every time it's mentioned violates Wikipedia:External links and...

...Wikipedia:Neutral point of view because it looks like an endorsement on Wikipedia's part. I'm not saying it's being done intentionally for POV reasons because I can think of at least one good faith reason someone might have done that to be helpful; There are several groups so the links help the reader keep track.

I think they should be removed from the article and moved to the external links section, which I'm willing to do, but want to know if anyone thinks it would be a good idea to replace some of them to links within the article to each group? Anynobody 07:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Solution: Wikilink. Create a main page, and then have that page redirect to the proper section in this page. THF 11:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "seeking to use the scientific method"

This edit violates WP:SYN. The source does not say what the text says, it is the editors' synthesis of the material that comes to that conclusion, thus making it original research. THF 12:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The scientific method is stated elsewhere in the article. Which is why there was an edit summary. Any other objections? --SevenOfDiamonds 12:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
One point is that the group has many more members than when it started, about double in just a few months. I realize Salon hasn't yet covered this for me to reference, but this is simple fact, not original research. bov 23:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Doubled from 6 to 12? (Sorry, if that's the URL in question, that's the count.) In any case, you (SevenOfDiamonds) need to find a specific URL that says that, in order to include it. I really do believe they say it somewhere, which might require inclusion, even though we all know it's untrue. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Keith Ellison

I have removed his name under provisions of our policy on biographies of living people. The source cited in no way supports including him here. Tom Harrison Talk 23:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alleged edits by alleged editor Zen-master

Only one of the alleged additions of the word "alleged" is at all justified. I'm at 3RR, or I'd revert the nonsense violating BLP, as it alleges that the alleged refutations are phony. That's the only reason they could be "alleged" refutations. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

So you claim you say. Tom Harrison Talk 19:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The word "refute" means "to prove to be false or erroneous" so it needs a caveat. zen master T 19:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Surely you mean some dictionary says that's what it means. Tom Harrison Talk 20:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Well yes, and I happen to agree with that dictionary's definition, and I could discern that definition from how the word was being. zen master T 20:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inline external links

Is there some prior compromise that led to external links being in the body of the article? Because that's normally discouraged. (I'm referring to the links to organization web sites under the "Truth Movement organizations" heading. Gazpacho 03:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why list "architects, engineers & scholars" but lock the list from adding these?

It seems typical of wikipedia - make a list title but then block anyone from being listed there while protecting the hoax advocate who remains at the top of a list of 3 people, making it appear there are no other architects, engineers or scholars despite the ones being added already having their own pages on wikipedia which include their involvement in questioning 9/11. This seems to be Arthur Rubin's purpose -- delete any other names who are listed there. Explanation not required. Peter Dale Scott is apparently not a scholar, neither is Nafeez Ahmed, and Richard Gage, head of ae911truth is apparently not allowed to be listed despite being a registered architect going around the country speaking and presenting the case against the official story. Classic wikipedia behavior. bov 21:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

That may have been my fault, and I apologize if that's what you did and I reverted it. I was trying to clear out the alleged edits of a certain alleged (and former) editor, and may have reverted some constructive edits in the process. However, I was wondering why you deleted James Fetzer, and rewrote the "mininuke" description as if they were kooks. <Begin WP:OR> I mean, they are kooks, but so are the "mainstream" 9/11 Truth members. <End WP:OR>. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Then I retract my above statement. James Fetzer openly rejects the scientific method as a means to analyze evidence. This suggests he rejects the basis for how evidence has been analyzed since the times of the Dark Ages and puts his status as a "scholar" on anything, into question. Presenting him to the public as a "scholar" -- whether as a nutty conspiracist "scholar" or a philosophy "scholar" -- is misinforming the public. He does advocate mini-nukes -- that's a simple fact. No embellishments are necessary when it comes to Fetzer's beliefs, and he supports any statement that is put before him if it sounds exciting, even the idea that all the mainstream media news videos were "manipulated" on 9/11, and hence fake ("TV Fakery"). One could disagree and debate a hypothesis - that's what scholars do - but one can do nothing when even the pretense of a hypothesis is not engaged at all and is claimed to be unnecessary. Hence, portrying him as a "scholar" seems incorrect on a very basic level, regardless of his claim to the title. You can read his writings for yourself.bov 00:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid James Fetzer, as a former university professor, qualifies as a scholar, even if he has renounced the scientific method. Do I detect a double standard? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 04:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
No one else has renounced the method all scientists have used since the Dark Ages, so no, there is no double standard. I'd rather remove the section altogether. bov 01:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Similarly, "Prominent" Government and Military members - only the worst are listed

Similar to the above (now slightly corrected), isn't it interesting that the ONLY members listed under this section are the presidents of Iran and Venezuela, despite the list of over 100 who specifically question aspects of the attacks at the website patriotsquestion911.com. It seems that by listing the people most likely to offend conservatives or people who support Bush, then listing only these people most offensive to them, can surely help to defend the official story. Simple and transparent. bov 00:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

They're heads of state, therefore influential in the world, and therefore worth mentioning in an encyclopedia article. It's not political. Gazpacho 02:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure it's not political, just discrediting. If only heads of state can be in that section, it should be titled so, otherwise there are dozens and dozens more that can be added who are also prominent. But again, I'd rather remove the section altogether. bov 01:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The undefined "smaller fraction"

The below paragraph does not identify any individual or group known to be a part of the "9/11 Truth Movement" who advocates the distinctions it makes between evidences. Where are they located? How big are they? What role do they serve? I agree with the overall idea, but generally those being described don't lump "demolition" in with space weapons and missiles (although some individuals do), because most of such a fraction also typically agree that Building 7 was a demolition, even if they do not support the demolition of the Twin Towers hypothesis. In fact, the 9/11 Family Steering Committee is evidence for this -- the vast majority of their questions relate to hijackers and intelligence issues, but they also ask specifically why Building 7 collapsed - "13. On 9/11, no aircraft hit WTC 7. Why did the building fall at 5:20 PM that evening?". Citing Youtube and cbsnews isn't evidence for the existance of the faction itself -- you need to identify the faction, not the positions they support.

"However, a smaller fraction of the movement has united in attempting to expose that the more speculative theories - involving controlled demolition, missiles, space beam weapons, and other unsubstantiated claims - are false information, and is distracting the movement from investigating the more crucial issues of the 9/11 attacks, such as information collected on several of the hijackers by the U.S. Army intelligence unit 'Able Danger,'[1] Israeli spy rings in the U.S. with classified involvement in the 9/11 attacks,[2] and possible Pakistani involvement in financing Mohammed Atta through Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh[3]."

[edit] Proposal for 'Prominent Members' section

A few weeks ago, the Prominent Members section was a much longer list of the people who are commonly mentioned when discussing the truth movement. I'm not saying this was ideal as it was unencyclopedic (a laundry list), but it was useful I think - now however the section is deceptively short and has some strange inclusions/exclusions (as Bov has mentioned above). We will never agree to who should and who shouldn't be on the list and for this reason I propose to change the section as follows:

Genuinely prominent members (such as Steven Jones, James Fetzer and David Ray Griffin) should not be listed but be mentioned only in the sections that they are prominent for - e.g. Jones should be mentioned only in the STJ section, Fetzer in the ST section, Griffin in the Books section, etc. 'Supporters' but not 'prominent members' (such as the foreign heads of state, Michael Meacher, etc) should be listed with their remarks - the section should therefore be renamed to something like "Notable Supporters".

IMO this would give the section more meaning and reduce the arguing about who is prominent, who is a member and who is credible/representative etc.

However, this would make it harder for the reader to identify quickly from the article who comprises the Truth Movement, so I still think we need to restore the paragraph in the introductory subsection 'Members' that was deleted a few weeks ago by Morton Devonshire (see discussion above), to give a general idea of the kinds of backgrounds (political and professional) that are common among Truth Movement members. Corleonebrother 11:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the whole concept of a prominent members section at all and don't agree with leaving some out -- creating "icons" in general helps no one, especially not those who are put on pedestals and lose perspective. I do feel strongly Jim Fetzer is NOT a prominent member. Early on people thought he was great because he had magically appeared on the rightwing scream-news cable stations -- as long as they didn't mind all the little mistakes he was making -- but then he went downhill quickly. Currently he advocates the worst lunacy and only 10 members out of over 200 in the original Scholars group voted to stay with his group alone. The rest left his group. Then it tooks months for people to get their names removed from his list of members. Why did they leave? Because they wanted nothing to do with anyone advocating space weapons, nukes, TV Fakery, etc. bov 01:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

To be "prominent members" requires that a reliable source has called them "prominent members", and cannot be Wikipedian's subjective evaluation of whether someone is a prominent member or not. So, without that objective test, we can't include such a section.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 17:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Then just change it to say members, i agree that prominant cant be verified, so perhaps that word shouldnt be there. However they are still clearly members. Id go with notable supporters or jsut supporters as well. Also i added a tiny bit formt he POV revert (that seemed to make it more POV, not less, but i kept most of it) - Debeo Morium: to be morally bound (Talk | Contribs) 18:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I prefer "notable members", which will at least keep the list to only those persons who meet WP:BIO. That is, persons with standalone Wikipedia articles. -- Satori Son 12:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I Agree with you, "notable members" is better, and that seems like a good criteria to use - Debeo Morium: to be morally bound (Talk | Contribs) 20:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I think the list of "members" is better placed in the template {{911tm}}, rather than in this (or any) article. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
As with most articles with parents I like the idea of keeping a list here with short introductions, and the template to navigate to larger descriptions. However as long as it stays somewhere id be happy. - Debeo Morium: to be morally bound (Talk | Contribs) 18:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Bowman, PhD?

i found this in the Proquest dissertation database:

INVESTIGATION OF SHOCK FRONT TOPOGRAPHY IN SHOCK TUBES by BOWMAN, ROBERT MARCUS, Ph.D., California Institute of Technology, 1966, 217 pages; AAT 6610962. Source: DAI-B 27/05, p. 1454, Nov 1966. Source type: Dissertation. Subjects: Aerospace materials. ProQuest document ID: 757950121.

is this the guy? Peterhoneyman 00:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

also, i found this bio in the following article:

Robert M. Bowman (B.Ae.E., Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute; M.S., AFIT; Ph.D., California Institute of Technology) is president of the Institute for Space and Security Studies, Potomac, Maryland. As an Air Force officer, he served in a variety of assignments, including faculty, Air Command and Staff College; director, Advanced Space Programs Development, Space Division, AFIT; head, Aerospace Engineering Department, AFIT; and deputy director, Ballistic Systems, ABRES. Dr. Bowman is a graduate of Squadron Officer School, Armed Forces Staff College, and Air War College.

the air university journal was renamed in 1987:

The Air University Review was published from 1947-1987 on a bimonthly basis. It was designed to serve as an open forum for presenting and stimulating innovative thinking on military doctrine, strategy, tactics, force structure, readiness, and other national defense matters. In 1987 it was renamed Airpower Journal, then Aerospace Power Journal, and currently the Air & Space Power Journal, the Professional Journal of the United States Air Force.

i found all of this in af.mil -- it looks legit. Peterhoneyman 01:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It looks legitimate to me, but thats not exactly my problem. Typically if someone claims to have a PhD, on wikipedia we accept that claim unless there is a source that disproves the asserton (like a list of graduates). Since i have yet to see any source which can be used to indicate he does have a phD i think we need to accept that. Saying "he claims" is POV without reason to believe it is just a claim. We dont treat anyone else that we refer to on WP in this manner. I saw no sources which investigated him concluding he was a fraud, nor have i seen a complete list of graduates fromt he university he attended. Therefore i think we need to remove the parts where it says "he claims". - Debeo Morium: to be morally bound (Talk | Contribs) 03:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
not to beat a dead horse ... here is his dissertation Peterhoneyman 03:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
In a non-public alumni database, I have a confirmation that someone with that name has a Ph.D. in aeronautics from Caltech. Nuclear engineering does not appear in the record. If he claims a Ph.D. in nuclear engineering, that claim can tentatively be considered disconfirmed, and possibly notable as being disconfirmed. Otherwise, I'm happy with removing "claimed". It may still need to be sourced in his article, though. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
you said "In a non-public alumni database", this sounds like Original Research to me. If the database isnt public, we cant use that information to attach the word "claims" to him claiming having a degree. Also according to the policy on biographies if we are going to call his degree a "claim" (hinting that there is doubt) we must be able to cite a source confirming that. If you can find a public alumni database that suggests his claim is false, or in doubt, then i will whole heartidly support the term "claim". - Debeo Morium: to be morally bound (Talk | Contribs) 18:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I think you misread what I wrote. I support the removal of "claims" provided that nuclear engineering is also removed. As one can verify the fact that CalTech did not and does not issue degrees in nuclear engineering, that qualifies as unsourced and improbable. If it is to remain here, it needs to be "claimed". — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes i did. However before i remove nuclear engineering myself (which id be happy to do if Caltech never offered it and bowman claimed to have one) I did a quick search and seem to have found some contradictory evidence. According to this article Caltech did indeed once offer a nuclear engineering degree. While it is no longer offered there were some graduates of the program. I will quote the article: "Caltech’s nuclear engineering program, though short-lived, attracted superb students; several went on to become prizewinners and distinguished alumni." - Debeo Morium: to be morally bound (Talk | Contribs) 18:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, his Ph.D. thesis says "aeronautics", as I just (after 5 tries) got into this article. Unless there's another, classified, Ph.D. thesis? (Your reference doesn't say that CalTech offered degrees in nuclear engineering, just that they had a nuclear engineering program. The degree could still have been in aeronautics or applied physics.) I now don't think that his apparent claim to have a nuclear engineering degree is notable, as the thesis seems to be relevant to nuclear engineering. (In spite of all of this analysis being WP:OR. WP:NPOV might require adding that he claims to have a nuclear engineering degree in his article, but I don't think it needs to be here.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Im satisfied. As long as it says he has a PhD (assuming it cant be proven otherwise) then im content. - Debeo Morium: to be morally bound (Talk | Contribs) 18:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
i removed the citations attached to Bowman from the article. it didn't take me more than five minutes to find two independent authoritative verifications of his PhD; another five minutes got me the dissertation itself. and the other fact is also easily established by a minute or two of googling. why clutter up this page with irrelevant citations? they belong on this one. Peterhoneyman 19:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] what many people thought in the days following the attacks

what bugs me about this

At the time, many people, including engineers, stated that they thought the complete collapses of the World Trade Center Towers, particularly Building 7, were likely caused by planted explosives, with the plane impacts being a diversionary attack. But within hours, the explanation that the impact damage and fires had led to a ‘progressive collapse’ was presented in the mainstream media.

is the subtle rhetorical suggestion that the progressive collapse explanation was planted in a complicit media by conspiratorial puppet masters. it also suggests that the 9TM sprang forth fully formed on 2001-09-11. both of these suggestions are controversial, and consensus on them is unlikely.

by me, the less said about what was commonly believed in the days after the attack, the better -- it is not possible to make authoritative statements about that momentary zeitgeist. Peterhoneyman 13:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

At last, a serious objection to this sentence. I can see where you're coming from with your first point and perhaps it could be reworded to sound a little less like the idea of progressive collapse was 'planted.' Perhaps just changing "was presented" to "appeared"?
I don't understand what you mean by your second point - the TM obviously wasn't fully formed on 2001-09-11 - what in this paragraph suggests that to you?
I think it's important to mention that many people presumed explosives were in the building because it looked like there were. This makes the next paragraph, which is Jim Hoffman's critique of the NIST Report, follow on naturally - his biggest criticism is that NIST failed to study past the "point when global collapse was inevitable" because this way they avoided having to explain the very features that caused people to presume that explosives were in the building. If you miss out this sentence entirely, it reads as though the official story was not questioned until after the NIST Report. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corleonebrother (talk • contribs) 16:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
"...many people presumed explosives were in the building because it looked like there were." This would require citation to a reliable source. Tom Harrison Talk 17:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, I meant 'looked' or 'sounded' or 'felt'. My point is that "many" people believed it was a CD and said so at the time. Of course, "many" should to be defined in the article. As for a source, there is some primary evidence cataloged here which shows that dozens of firefighters and other emergency service personnel thought so, plus we know that a few news anchors and reporters said they thought there were explosions, plus at least 3 engineers. That would be "some" at least. But rather than worrying about semantics we could just be specific:
"At the time, numerous firefighters and other eyewitnesses, as well as at least three engineers, stated that they thought the complete collapses of the World Trade Center Towers, particularly Building 7, were likely caused by planted explosives, with the plane impacts being a diversionary attack." Corleonebrother 19:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
911research.wtc7.net is not a reliable source for anything but what its operator thinks, and maybe as a primary source for the conspiracy theories. Tom Harrison Talk 19:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
But in this case it's primary evidence which is just collected and sourced on this page. Do you dispute the accuracy of the sentence? Corleonebrother 20:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
primary evidence which is just collected and sourced? Tom Harrison Talk 20:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I think we can both recognize that that is a parody site - a very amusing one too. Seriously though, do you dispute the accuracy of the sentence? Corleonebrother 20:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
If you pick and choose, you get meaningless results, whether you pick out all references to trains or all references to explosions. wtc7.net is not a reliable source, partly because of the use of this 'reverse scientific method', where they start with the conspiracy theory, and look for factoids to support it. If you think it is a reliable source for matters of fact, you might take it up at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and see what others think. Tom Harrison Talk 20:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Tom your recent comment about reverse scientific method has led me to consider other pages as unreliable sources. Take the popular mechanics article on debunking 9/11 "myths". They wrote the article with one goal in mind, to debunk claims that 9/11 was an inside job. They do not include any of the counterpoints, or give equal time and credit to both sides of the argument. To me this looks like reverse scientific method as well. making a claimt hen picking the factoids that support it. - Debeo Morium: to be morally bound (Talk | Contribs) 20:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with corleonebrother with the fact that many peoples first impression was controlled demolition. I have seen at least a hundred videos of firefighters or others being interviewed who claimed ot have heard demolition charges and other events that suggested demolition. Its pretty undeniable in my research that "many" people saw and felt this way. Of course this doesnt mean it was a controlled demolition, none of these people are experts. But we are talking about public reaction, so as long as that is stated its ok. On the other hand i am not sure if i agree with tom harrison, that the source cited is not a reliable source. Im kind of on the fence about the source, ill have to give it some thought. But something like this is hard to source, we would have to source dozens if not hundreds of various sources simultaneously, which gets ugly. I do however feel that the statement should be re-added, and remain unsourced, until someone can find a notable source talking about the publics reaction. - Debeo Morium: to be morally bound (Talk | Contribs) 20:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

You wouldn't have to find dozens or hundreds of sources, and it wouldn't help if you could; that would just by OR by synthesis. What you would have to find is one reliable source that says substantially the same thing as the sentence: "At the time, many people, including engineers, stated that they thought the complete collapses of the World Trade Center Towers, particularly Building 7, were likely caused by planted explosives, with the plane impacts being a diversionary attack." Personally, I don't remember anyone suggesting on 9/11 that the collapse was caused by explosives, but my recollection is totally irrelevant because Wikipedia runs on reliable sources. BTW, the reason I don't consider that site a reliable source has nothing to do with "the reverse scientific method" and everything to do with Quote mining. A large collection of short, out-of-context quotes doesn't prove anything. I also feel like I should point out that someone saying "I heard the 3 loud explosions" or even "It seemed like on television they blow up these buildings" is not at all the same thing as saying "the world trade center collapse was caused by planted explosives" or "it was a controlled demolition." Explosions don't need to be caused by explosives, and these quotes aren't suggesting that these specific explosions were. At the time I remember a lot of people said that 9/11 seemed like something out of a movie, but that doesn't mean they believed that what they were watching was simulated with CGI. If you want to say, "at the time, many eyewitnesses described hearing explosions," then that's at least accurate and supported by some evidence, although it's somewhat misleading.--P4k 21:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

from the cited source, i find excerpts from the statements of 47 first-hand accounts, some of whom tell what they saw, some what they heard, some what they thought, some what they believed. it makes no case whatsoever for the quote up above, which talks about engineers and diversionary attacks. furthermore, the 47 excerpts are selected from a corpus of over 500 witness statements.
by me, the most that can be drawn from these statements is that some witnesses reported seeing something that at the time they thought looked like a controlled demolition and heard things that at the time they thought sounded like explosions. of course, none of them had ever seen or heard the progressive collapse of a 100-story building, so it would have been impossible for any of them to report that it looked like or sounded like that. consequently, i don't find the statements to be a reliable source regarding the witness' beliefs about whether the destruction was or was not a controlled demolition.
i think the most that can be said from this source is something like in post-mortem interviews, several dozen firefighters and emergency medical stated that what they saw looked like films of controlled demolitions and sounded like explosions. but that ain't saying much ... and does not meet my standards for encyclopedic content. ymmv. Peterhoneyman 02:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
How about...
"Immediately after the collapses of the Towers and Building 7, eyewitness testimony referring to explosions, along with features of the collapses caught on film that resembled footage of controlled demolitions, led many people, including some news anchors and engineers, to suspect that explosives had been pre-planted within the buildings." Corleonebrother 17:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Professional/Political Background of Adherents

The following two sentences that I added have been reverted, with reasons of OR and SYN given...

"The 9/11 truth movement includes professionals from a wide range of backgrounds, including Professors, Physicists, Engineers, Scientists, Pilots, Intelligence and Law Enforcement Officers, and government officials. It embraces a political diversity of members, including left, right, pacifists, paleoconservatives, Greens, anarchists, and libertarians."

Could somebody explain how this is either OR or SYN? The list has been gathered at patriotsquestion911.com so I can't see how its original research. And SYN? Its an introduction to who the adherents are, so its an obvious thing to have under the Adherents section title. What position is it advancing? Corleonebrother 11:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

If patriotsquestion911.com is a reliable source, even about the truth movement, then it may be allowable, although wikilinking quotes is generally discouraged. I misread the statement, and assumed that you (or the original poster) had taken the items of the list from different sources. I'm still not sure about the source, though. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Well here's another source that does a similar thing: [31]. I don't suppose you would consider this one any more reliable though (probably less). If someone can find a better source, we'll use that, but for now, are you happy for me to add this back in?
And about the wikilinking - this is not a direct quote - I only put the " marks here to show this is what I would like to add. Corleonebrother 14:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
If the list is taken from a single, reliable, source, it can be included. If the list is combined from more than one source, it's WP:SYN. I think we need to leave it out, for the moment, though. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I really think this intro needs to be added back in. patriotsquestion911.com is reliable for what it is trying to do - i.e. list some members with high credentials. The site is fully sourced so there is no doubt that these people said what they did, therefore it is reliable for our purposes here. Corleonebrother 19:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Original Research tag

This sentence: Many scientists and professionals involved in the truth movement increasingly are seeking groups and websites which use the scientific method to research the events of 9/11/01. has been tagged as OR. Though I can see why its been put there, I think it is self-evident from the rest of the paragraph that its true: there is increasing support for the more "scientific" of the two scholars groups, and an increasing number of articles criticizing the extreme theories. The sentence is a necessary opening to the paragraph. Does anyone object to me removing the tag? Corleonebrother 18:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid is OR, unless (at least someone) says that they are seeking groups and websites which "use the scientific method", or some WP:RS says that (some)… "… in the truth movement … are seeking groups and websites which use the scientific method". It's not obvious. We could (probably, if a WP:RS says it), that that "Many … are seeking joining groups and reading websites which appear to use the scientific method", but we cannot make the conclusion that that:
  1. People are seeking groups which use the scientific method.
  2. The groups actually use the scientific method.
  3. People are seeking groups which appear to use the scientific method. (They're joining and reading the groups, but, even then, we can't say why.)
And various other combinations of conclusions. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] smart quotes and other dumb ideas

There are a number of places in the article where "smart quotes" are used instead of conventional quotes or italicizing short phrases, or in some cases, for no apparent reason at all, also a number of places where "dumb" single quotes are used in place of conventional quotes. I think I've killed the "smart (double) quotes", but I'd have to use an editor with regular expression processing ("[ ]['][A-Za-z]") which isn't a word processor to take care of the misused single quotes. I don't want to lock down the article while Corleonebrother is actively editing the article, though, to take care of clear style problems. Any ideas? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm probably as guilty as anyone for the dumb quotes - sorry about that. I'm done editing here for now - go ahead and show me how it should be done. Corleonebrother 20:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] members

I'm brand new to editing but will someone PLEASE add these three people to the list of the 9/11 Truth Movement??? I was really surprised they were not mentioned.

Ray McGovern

Jeffrey King, PhD MIT Engineer and Research Scientist http://www.stj911.org/

Richard Gage, AIA, Architect Member of the American Institute of Architects, Founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth http://www.ae911truth.org/

Also the movie Zeitgeist

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5547481422995115331

Markshark4 03:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

This is OR, so it can't go in the article itself, but some members of the 9/11 Truth Movement are very critical of Zeitgeist because of disinformation in it. For example, it claims that on December 25, three stars suddenly line up. "Fixed stars" don't move around. Planets do. If I have a chance, I'll try to add the other references, though. Also, it seems to violate Wiki policy to add things like Youtube. I don't know about google video, but I'm sure someone else will comment.Wowest 20:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Arthur Rubin's last change to the article

Thank you, you Arthur. I think you handled that well. Wowest 22:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] notables not able

some of the "prominent members" are not members of the 911tm (or any m, they just happen to have expressed doubts about the mainstream account), some owe their prominence to being members of the 911tm, and some have no prominence whatsoever. where to draw the line? imho, the list has no encyclopedic value — it does not inform a reader about the 911tm in any useful way — and should be excised. Peterhoneyman 15:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the recent additions to this list have highlighted the ill-defined nature of the term "prominent members". The encyclopaedic value of the list has decreased as the number of names on it has increased, so we need to define some rules to limit it. As you say, you have people who are prominent only/mostly for being in the movement (eg Steven Jones), and people who are prominent for other reasons but happen to be in the movement (eg Charlie Sheen). However, I don't think we necessarily need to distinguish between these two. The problem is the word "members" - since there is no membership, perhaps this should be changed to something like "campaigners" or "activists" for those who are genuinely active. People who are not particularly active (even if they are prominent (famous)), such as Mos Def, should be left off entirely.
With regard to people who "just happen to have expressed doubts about the mainstream account", I'd call these people "supporters" of the movement. So my proposal for where to draw the line would be this:
1. Reasonably prominent - either from being "famous", or from being well-known from documentaries/discussions about 9/11.
AND
2. Reasonably active - written papers, appeared on TV, appeared in documentaries etc - i.e. not people who have just written a song, or made a one-off comment, that suggests they support the movement.
How does this sound? Corleonebrother 17:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

sounds good ... now, who will bell the cat? Peterhoneyman 17:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

looks good, Corleonebrother, thanks. but i wonder if the précis makes sense for wikilinked people. (i would argue that non-wikinked people fail the prominence test.) Peterhoneyman 20:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree in principle about non-wikilinked people failing the prominence test, and I have removed a couple. It feels wrong to remove Kevin Ryan and Richard Gage though (two of the best known names in the movement perhaps - certainly the CDH). They should probably have their own articles, although I believe they were deleted before. The same is possibly true of Bill Doyle, Bob McIlvaine and Paul Lannoye. I think it would be counterproductive to enforce a must-be-wikilinked rule here.
I think a subset of the 9/11 Truth Movement that is missing is the high-ranking people who have just made a comment or two - I'm talking about all the Senators and foreign Heads of State, 9/11 Commissioners, military leaders, lawyers, religious leaders, etc. Perhaps we should have a new subsection at the end of this section with a paragraph or two summarising these people? Corleonebrother 21:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
perhaps. if so, that's where castro would go, eh? Peterhoneyman 15:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I've re-added Paul Craig Roberts, deleted because he "isn't a 9/11 truther" because "he doesn't believe that the government did it." You don't have to believe that "the government did it" to be a 9/11 Truther. The test is that some significant part of the "fable" is obviously untrue. It doesn't matter that you don't know who planted the explosives in the WTC buildings. It's enough that you recognize that SOMEONE did. Wowest 23:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Moore a prominent member of the Truth Movement?

He is highly critical of the Bush administration but I don't think he is really doubting the official explantions. I think his only point is that the intelligence agency and/or the Bush administration have done a bad job too prevent 9/11.

Rekel 18:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that he rather stands out on this list. Firstly, I think we need to be clear what his views are: this article suggests that he might have changed his mind since 9/11. I know this is not a reliable source, but does anyone know more about this? Has he since retracted his comments, denied making them, or explained what meant?
Secondly, even if his beliefs haven't changed since Fahrenheit 9/11, I would argue that this view makes him a part of the 9/11 truth movement. See this article for a simple summary of beliefs about 9/11 - Michael Moore is (at least) in category number 3. The 9/11 Truth Movement is "those who have questioned the mainstream account" - so the question is: does category number 3, asserting that "influential Saudi fundamentalists" financed al Qaeda, qualify as "questioning the mainstream account"? Corleonebrother 19:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I suppose that really depends on what exactly the "mainstream account" is. Does that account specify what nationalities the members of al-Qaeda are? Considering Osama bin Laden himself was a Saudi, it wouldn't be that difficult to come to the conclusion that other rich and influential Saudis might have been in on it (as part of the al-Qaeda network, which we know was quite extensive).
At any rate, I don't think it's quite accurate to call someone a member (especially a prominent member) of the 9/11 Truth Movement solely because they don't agree to the letter with the official story. For instance, I believe that government incompetence played a part in 9/11, but I don't, in any way, consider myself a truther. The issue isn't black (agree with the government) and white (disagree with the government). There's a lot of gray in there. --clpo13(talk) 05:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
When you say 'I believe government incompetence played a part', presumably you mean that there was more incompetence than it actually admits to in the 9/11 Commission Report? This would put you in category 2, so no, this does not make you a truther. You may not think its difficult to come to the conclusion that rich and influential Saudis were in on it, but this is a significant accusation (it means that people have "got away" with murder) - if you believe this, it takes you from category 2 into category 3, and, I would argue, makes you (and Michael Moore) a truther.
To be crystal clear, I'm saying categories 1&2 in the article are certainly not truthers, and categories 4-10 certainly are truthers; the only question is over people in category 3. Corleonebrother (talk) 18:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting Aude's changes

Aude just deleted the references to Patriotsquestion911 without consensus and, in fact, without discussion. Reverted. Would you like to discuss that? Wowest 12:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not convinced it's a WP:RS, even in context of the Truth Movement. Care to explain why it is? (In general, sources not considered reliable should be deleted from articles.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's see. We seem to have had this conversation before, with you and other people.

If the list is taken from a single, reliable, source, it can be  
included.    
If the list is combined from more than one source, it's WP:SYN. I think
we need to leave it out, for the moment, though. 
 — Arthur Rubin | (talk)  15:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

    I really think this intro needs to be added back in.
   patriotsquestion911.com is reliable for what it is trying to do - 
   i.e. list some members with high credentials. The site is fully
   sourced so there is no doubt that these people said what they did, 
   therefore it is reliable for our purposes here. 
   Corleonebrother 19:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree with Corleonebrother on this, but I'll add my own comments to this discussion shortly.Wowest (talk) 23:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I still need to get back to this conversation. O.K. Later. Wowest (talk) 05:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I've explained why I feel this source is reliable for supporting the sentence. The ball is in your court, Arthur and Aude. Corleonebrother (talk) 19:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Would you say that the list of professions is a fair and representative description of the professions that are held by conspiracy theorists? Is the conspiracy movement primarily an organization of professors, engineers, etc?
Or is the cited source thoroughly unreliable and slanted, and tries to paint conspiracy theorists with an untruthful coat of "yeah, we are all four star generals here"?
Is the "wide range of backgrounds" a genuinely representative list of conspiracy theorists' backgrounds, or is it engineered to mislead Wikipedia readers (and readers of the referenced web site)? Are we at all able to notice when a source is thoroughly slanted?
Calling for a bit of genuine intellectual honesty here, any available...? Weregerbil (talk) 07:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Weregerbil, the sentence was removed because of concerns about the source. Your concerns here are about the sentence itself, and as such I've responded to your points in a separate section below. Corleonebrother 19:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Patriots Questions lists Sgt Lagasse and Sgt Brooks (Pentagon police officers), based on what they said to the "Citizen Investigation Team" (Craig Ranke & co.). The officers were not sure of the flight path (did the plane pass just to the north or south or over the Citgo gas station) before they saw it crash. Ranke has him say north of the Citgo, which contradicts evidence (light poles, other witnesses, ...) and takes that as "proof" that the plane did not crash at the Pentagon but did a "fly over" and something else (bombs) exploded there. That's the most bizarre theory. Definitely one that the police officers have not agreed with. They saw the plane crash into the Pentagon and concur with the "mainstream account". They do not belong on Patriots Questions list. That is just one example. There are numerous other people who do not belong on the list, but have just been listed there by the authors of the site regardless. Patriots Questions is definitely not a reliable source. --Aude (talk) 09:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Aude, even if the site contains one or two or ten people you think shouldn't be on there, it doesn't make any difference to the question of whether or not the source reliably backs up the sentence. The source for this sentence (which I think we all agree is true), need only reliably list a few professors, engineers, pilots etc, that associate with the movement - in order to show that the particular professions we list is not original research. This source does this. It is a reliable source for the sentence. Corleonebrother 19:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
A reliable source is one that has a reputation for fact checking. Patriotsquestions is absolutely not acceptable, per our WP:V#Sources and WP:V#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29 sections of the verifiability policy regarding use of sources. Having Sgt Lagasse and Sgt Brooks (and others) on their list is also makes it a completely unacceptable source, per WP:BLP#Sources policy. --Aude (talk) 20:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Who decides whether or not a particular source has a reputation for fact checking? Corleonebrother 18:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The "Adherents" section

To respond to Weregerbil's questions (above), which relate to the adherents section itself rather than the patriotsquestion911.com source... your point is that including in the adherents section only the sentence about people with 'reputable' professions gives undue weight to them over the 'nobodys' that make up the bulk of the movement? You have a point. So how can we correct this? Perhaps by adding another sentence to the end of the existing one, like this...

The 9/11 truth movement includes professionals from a wide range of backgrounds, including professors, architects, engineers, pilots, and military, intelligence service, law enforcement, and government officials.[4] Various 9/11 opinion polls have shown that a significant proportion of the general public also believe that Federal officials either participated in the attacks or took no action to stop them.

How about it? Corleonebrother 19:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About Zeitgeist

I think I agree with the decision to delete it as a 9-11 truth film. As much as 1/3 of the film may have that function, but the first part of the film is blatantly anti-Christian, and the other two parts seem to be an attempt to link the anti-Christian message with other popular movements for conversion purposes. Hmm. I said that badly enough, but I think I'll let it stand. Wowest (talk) 05:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Overall very excellent

I do like this Wikipedia coverage of the so-called "911 Truth" movement. We have the Bush regime's obvious war crime atrocities against humanity and its treason against America on one hand, and on the other hand we have conspiracy notions advanced by nutters who seek to make this theofascist terrorist regime's crimes and abuses appear worse than they are -- as if the Bush regime's terrorism and tyreason aren't bad enough. This Wikipedia page covers all of the bases and I think it does so farely. FredricRice (talk) 23:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Retitling

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 speedy close as vandalism and disruption. By the edits to Template:911tm, 66.29.115.69  (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count) is clearly one and the same as Neverneutral (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), who is in turn DavidYork71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). Uncle G (talk) 11:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I will retitle this article '9/11 denialism'. The present title, perhaps unintendedly, is unfortunate in that by including the phrase '9/11 Truth' it is tending to reflect legitimation and approval upon false and debunked speculations and fantasy conspiracy theories that do not have any basis in the confirmed factual and investigative record of the 9/11 atrocity events. Policies such as WP:NPOV and some other are quite expansive that Wikipedia must never and nowhere tend to make such reflection through POV-titling such as with the current unacceptable/undesirable title ie. "9/11 Truth Movement".66.29.115.69 (talk) 12:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Strong Oppose - any move to '9/11 denialism' would be POV and would breach neutral point of view. We don't for example host Scientology at Scientology cult. 'Denialism' could be construed as a pejorative term, which should be avoided in article titles. Perhaps 'skepticism' would be a better word to use, but unless there is a consensus for a name change, I think it should stay where it is. EJF (talk) 14:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: It parallels Holocaust denial, but the 'movement' isn't really a single phenomenon in the first place. It would be better to clearly identify the subject matter before considering renaming. Peter Grey (talk) 01:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: MMM, thoughtful and quite well said. Of course, once retitled it would require minor rewriting/reprefacing to focus descriptions as manifestations of denialism, rather than as components of a 'truth Movement'. You can put me down as being committed, in consultation, to seeing through that task. Knowing that, can I therefore now put you down as a Support, on the question, Peter?66.29.115.69 (talk) 03:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - you're absolutely right. There's no 'Movement'. The only things there's singleness about and commonality in is the denialism. Therefore the article titling will be changed to reflect that. We know enough that Holocaust denial isn't as much as Holocaust revisionism despite what those people may call themselves, and we certainly know that we mustn't insult and outrage and demean the credibility of this encyclopaedia by in any way dignifying them as a Holocaust 'truth movement'. The same ceteris paribus quite obviously applies to the case of 9/11-denialists and denialist organisations. I'd say that overall this one doesn't require much debate and we should just go ahead and get on with it. Any problem with that?66.29.115.69 (talk) 03:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - I agree per 66.29.115.69's post. Kevin (talk) 03:52, 3 January 2008 (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.


why wasnt this article changed as per the vote? Cdynas (talk) 22:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Polling data

I took out some Polling data as it doesn't have anything to do with 9/11 TM's reception. It belongs on other 9/11 pages but the polls don't speak to 9/11 TM. I also added a sentence from the Time article cited in the article to balance it out...if you have a issue please discuss. RxS (talk) 04:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I should also say that when you reverted edits like you did, you took out other changes I had made. RxS (talk) 04:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

i think you should discuss it before deleting, not after ... the Zogby poll was the first poll that came out on the issue and deserves to be somewhere in the article, imho - not sure where exactly. Apologies for the other changes - Mblaxill (talk) 17:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

What's with the reverts here? The poll was used to judge the publics views on 9/11....not a judge of the reception the public gave to 9/11 TM....I'm going to remove it unless someone tells me how the poll reflects the publics reception of 911 TM....RxS (talk) 19:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

my point is that it deserves to be in the article, maybe not where it is currently, and that there should be discussion about before hitting the delete button. Let other people weigh in. What's the hurry? -- Mblaxill (talk) 20:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, "deserves" isn't an inclusion criteria...but I wasn't talking specifically to you. There was several editors insisting on including that polling data in the reception section. RxS (talk) 20:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
this poll was the first to come out about 911 Truth, was commisioned by the various 911 Truth activist organizations, and is part of the story of the "911 Truth Movement" be it in Wikipedia or elsewhere (again, imho). I agree that "reception" is a little vague and there is probably a better placing for it within the article. Also, you say "but I wasn't talking specifically to you"... When you communicate on forums like this sometimes you convey an unintended tone - Your comment seems a little hostile. Maybe I'm reading it wrong and this was unintended on your part :) This is, after all, an emotional subject -- Mblaxill (talk) 23:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
The polling data is appropriately included because it shows the size of the population in alignment with the 9/11 Truth Movement -- about 100 million Americans right now. About 1,000 Americans (my estimate, OR not appropriate for an actual Wikipedia arcicle) actively oppose it, while the other 200 million haven't given it a thought. All they care about is how the three magical witches will vanquish all of those demons after the next commercial break. The Romans had free bread and circus. We have food stamps, television sit-coms and Fox news. Not much difference. Wowest (talk) 09:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Apologies if it seemed hostile, it wasn't meant that way. I was trying to say that I was responding to points made by several people and so was making more general points then you specifically made. When I'm saying it doesn't belong in the reception section, I'm saying that the poll isn't judging or examining 911 TM's public reception. It's reporting it's data on the attitudes of the people it polled on certain 911 issues. That has very little to do with the 911 TM....
Wowest, Yikes, talk about original reseach....there's nothing in that poll that says anything about "alignment with the 9/11 Truth Movement". The 911 TM doesn't claim 100 million members, and a very tiny segement of the population aligns itself with 911 TM. Unless you can read all those minds and know something different...RxS (talk) 23:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 9/11 Denialism

This is clearly a bone of contention and, if I had any sense at all, I would probably steer clear of this one instead of getting involved. However, there does seem to be a valid issue here so I will plunge on.

Dekisugi redirected 9/11 denialism here but the title was later deleted by Arthur Rubin. I have re-created both 9/11 denialism and 9/11 denial as redirects to this article. I think this is the proper NPOV treatment assuming that there are reliable sources which can be found to support the uses of the phrases "9/11 denial(ism)". If not, there is an argument for deleting the redirects.

I understand Uncle G's closing of the Requested Move discussion above on procedural grounds (edits by a sock of a banned user should be reverted). However, I think the Proposed Move is based on a valid point and will re-open it below. My reasoning here is that despite the involvement of socks, the proposal has merit and there seems to be one possible valid other vote (User:Kevin) although I grant that this might also be a sock or meat puppet. Unless we can find evidence of such misbehavior, I urge that assume good faith and consider Kevin to be a separate opinion.

I think the Requested Move deserves a fuller discussion than has been possible given Uncle G's speedy closing of it. Shutting off discussion is unhealthy. Even if consensus turns out to go against the Requested Move, it deserves its day in court. In particular, I conceded the speedy of 9/11 denial in large part because of the existence of the Requested Move discussion. If this issue is denied a forum in both the AFD and in the Requested Move, then it will have been buried inappropriately.

--Richard (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Rather than "assuming that there are reliable sources which can be found to support the uses of the phrases "9/11 denial(ism)"", could you please provide some? Corleonebrother (talk) 18:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
If no such sources are apparent, the proper thing to do is propose the redirects for deletion. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Nah, don't waste your time. I did a Google search and couldn't find much use of the phrase outside of the blogosphere. Let's let this stand for the rest of the day and, if no one makes a good case for keeping the redirects, I'll delete them myself.
--Richard (talk) 20:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

OK... how many sources are required for something to not be a neologism? Here are two sources that I consider to be reliable (at least they are not just blog entries by unknown authors)

http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins040902.asp
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2006/07/teaching-911-denial-at-uw-madison.html

Is this enough to qualify 9/11 denial and 9/11 denialism to be kept? I confess that these are the top two entries when you Google "9/11 denial". The next few pages of Ghits are blog entries or otherwise non-notable webpages.

--Richard (talk) 07:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course not. The National Review isn't a valid source of factual information on anything at all. It's a right-wing extremist opinion rag. Hmm. I have to correct that. It can be used to document right-wing extremist beliefs. That isn't the topic of this article. I miss William F. Buckley, though. He sounded quite learned when he spoke, unless he said too much. Richard Lowery just seems to argue to hear himself heard. The other site is a blog. Blogs are listed as excluded sources.
Uh, no. National Review is longstanding (since 1955), respected and reliable. Firstly, it's notable enough to have it's own quite thorough WP article. Second, when you visit that article you see there are quite long lists of it's established and respected current and former commentating contributors who are notable enough to have their own wikipedia articles. Compare it to certain 9/11-denialist publications which would certainly struggle to do the same. Thus the attempt to characterise it as a 'rag' and 'extremist' and by implication the list of notable people who have written for it as 'extremists' is laughable; it's garbage. Neither is it owned by an organisation than can be fairly characterised as 'extremist' (eg. Stormfront.org, Nation of Islam). Because of the occurrence of the term '9/11 denial' in WP:RS publications and in university curricula we have sufficient justification to establish a WP article on the subject of it.TruthDestroyer (talk) 05:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
There is nothing NPOV about the term "9/11 Denialism." Nobody in the 9/11 Truth Movement denies that buildings fell down on 9/11. We simply point out a few obvious facts, like the fact that three buildings totally collapsed that day, not two, as reported in mainstream corporate media, like the fact that numerous credible eye-witnesses observed tons of molten metal in the basements of the three structures after they collapsed, like the fact that no Arab-sounding names appeared on any of the passenger manifests released by the airlines, like the fact no video shows any of the "hijackers" entering any of the airplanes reported as hijacked, like the fact that 2/3 of the questions raised by the Family Steering Committee were ignored and like the fact that every member of the 9/11 Commission who did not resign in disgust had a conflict of interest in being on the Commission. Wowest (talk) 09:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
The denialism in Holocaust denial is frequently and that about the extent of the culpability of the Nazis, not necessary about the fact of executions or the number of them. The 9/11 denialists seek, in defiance of objective fact recognised by the wide preponderance of informed scholars, to deny the complete responsibility of Al Qaeda and to shift some of it off (presumably) to the US Government. Thus, the 9/11 'Truth Movement' as a whole is infected with denialism which the greater part of the public can recognise. On that part your reasoning falls down.TruthDestroyer (talk) 05:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Holocaust denial refers to people who deny the holocaust even happened. What you're describing is Holocaust revisionism. Two different things. The redirects should be removed per discussion further up the page. --Pwnage8 (talk) 05:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 9/11 Families Movement?

I'm disturbed by a couple aspects of this section.

First of all, what evidence do we have that there is anything called a "9/11 Families Movement"? A Google search yields one of the shortest results lists I've ever seen. This phrase does not seem to be used by anyone, not even the bloggers or the 9/11 Truth Movement sites. It seems to be a "Wikilogism" (i.e. a phrase that was concocted by Wikipedians) rather than a phrase that is actually in use out there in the real world. Now, I readily grant that there is a movement of 9/11 families. I'm only challenging whether it is called that by anyone in that movement, in the media or in the academic community. If we can't find evidence to support the use of this term, we should change this section so as not to suggest that there is the phrase "9/11 Families Movement" that has the same currency as "9/11 Truth Movement". Do a Google search on both phrases to see what I mean.

Secondly, I'm disturbed by the juxtaposition of the "9/11 Families Movement" and "9/11 Truth Movement" in such a way to imply that the ""9/11 Truth Movement" grew out of the "9/11 Families Movement". Just because some of the questions of the 9/11 families led to conspiracy theories espoused by the "9/11 Truth Movement" doesn't mean there was any direct evolution from one to the other.

Are there significant numbers of 9/11 families in the "9/11 Truth Movement"? If so, please provide reliable sources to document this.

If not, this section needs to be rewritten to make it clear that there is no direct connection between the "9/11 Families Movement" and "9/11 Truth Movement". I know the article doesn't say that there is but the juxtaposition especially with two section headings in direct sequence could cause a reader to draw that inference.

It may well be that many of the questions and theories of the "9/11 Truth Movement" were inspired by questions that were being asked by the 9/11 families. The article should say this but it should say it without suggesting any linkage between the two.

I would imagine that quite a number of 9/11 families would be outraged at having their questions cast as being similar to those raised by the 9/11 Truth Movement.

Put it another way, if the 9/11 families had never formed a movement for a public investigation, would the 9/11 Truth Movement still have arisen? Of course, it would have. We should make this clear. At best, the two groups are "fellow travellers".

--Richard (talk) 18:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow! And if the Queen of England really had balls, she'd be the king. Wowest (talk) 09:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
O.K. -- lookie -- There are no significant numbers of 9/11 family members anywhere in the known universe. However a fairly significant percentage of them are involved in 9/11 Truth, and when a family member is assaulted by a media spokesman, such as a news anchor, for speaking his mind in a public place, someone in the Truth movement will be sure to point it out.
However, there is something for which there is no better term than "families movement:" -- a loose coalition of fifteen separate family organizations that occasionally come together for some agreed-upon common purpose, such as preventing ground zero from being hijacked for some kind of "International Freedom" memorial. They are generally outraged by that. Wowest (talk) 02:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, "a fairly significant percentage" in this case seems to be the 3 or 4 New Jersey widows who have been pushing the "Bush did it!" accusations since day 1. If you've got any sort of statistics to share, I suggest you do so now, otherwise retract your statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.184.246 (talk) 19:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
"a fairly significant percentage of them are involved in 9/11 Truth" - um, care to put some numbers and citations to reliable sources behind that assertion? --Richard (talk) 04:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I too am concerned about the unfortunate and potentially misleading juxtaposition. The concerns about 9/11 families for '9/11 Truth' ended with the disbandment of the 9/11 Families Steering Committe in early 2005 after they had benefited from the review published by the 9/11 Commission. The group disbanded because they decided they no longer had any concerns to push, the Commission which they advocated for had finished it job, and the time had come for them to get on with their lives. Also stop and think how insulting it is to associate '9/11 families' with a bunch of folks who are out to suggest that all their relatives, every one of them, died for a lie. Most unfortunate if not deplorable. That why it's my view that in the article we should take pains to point out that the Families move was overwhelmingly non-denialist in nature and made the active decision to retire itself several years ago rather than continuing as anything someone could claim to be part of the denialist 'movement'.TruthDestroyer (talk) 05:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
If you can back this up with a citation to a reliable source, it would be wonderful to put this in the article. --Richard (talk) 07:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
This comes back to a long-standing issue, both in Wikipedia and within the so-called Truth Movement, as to whether or not 'truth' means people seeking actual truth, because there were at the time genuinely unanswered questions, or all people rejecting the mainstream media version, whether in good faith or not. (Regarding "Families movement", it sounds like an outright fabrication to me, but that's a personal opinion that I have no sources for.) Peter Grey (talk) 05:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Peter, I would leave "good faith" out of the discussion, please. Let us assume that the 9/11 Truth Movement consists of people who honestly believe that the truth about 9/11 has not been told. Otherwise, I agree with the thrust of what you wrote. I think that there were and maybe even still are legitimate unanswered questions. However, I doubt that the answers proposed by the 9/11 Truth Movement are plausible to many of the 9/11 families. Just because the 9/11 families ask some of the same questions as the 9/11 Truth Movement doesn't mean the 9/11 families accept the answers of the 9/11 Truth Movement. --Richard (talk) 07:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "9/11 Truth Movement" in Turkish?

I want to translate the term "9/11 Truth Movement" into Turkish but it sounds bad, somthing like Tarzanish. "11 Eylül Doğruluk Hareketi" mi olsun, kulağa çok kötü geliyor. Önerisi olan var mı? Any suggestion from Turks or anybody who knows Turkish? --Ilhanli (talk) 12:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Try the reference desk. Peter Grey (talk) 05:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brought into Category:Cult

There is a compelling analysis here which informs as to why the subject matter of this article (ie. the "9/11 Truth Movement") has been appropriately so-categorised by experts in the field. With reference to the definition of Cults, all seven of the following behaviours/characteristics are seen with this group/movement and its key suborganisations. To whit:

  • 1. Rigid belief system
  • 2. Intense activism/aggressive proselytising
  • 3. Advancing non-falsifiable propositions
  • 4. Exclusivism
  • 5. Leadership deification/elitist decision-making
  • 6. Use of thought-terminating cliches
  • 7. Bizarre beliefs/conspiracist mind-set

Selforiented (talk) 08:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

This made me laugh. These same seven characteristics are true of people who are defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory. Should we add the main 9/11 article to the cult category? Hunter and Gatherer (talk) 11:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Those who respect the professionalism of the FBI, FEMA, NIST and the 9/11 Commission as investigators of the 9/11 events certainly don't possess #2 and #7.StopRonPaul (talk) 09:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
(3) Most of the propositions are not only falsifiable, but already falsified. (5) They have leadership? Really? Still, 5 out of 7 isn't bad. Peter Grey (talk) 00:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
'The Bush administration is suppressing information that it had foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks'. That is a nonfalsifiable proposition - because no matter how much information is disclosed which shows the contrary, these people always say 'but there's more, and they're just keeping it from us'. And they do have leaders Jim Fetzer and Alex Jones are the two puppetmasters of that 'Movement' that I'm aware of and who have received a fair degree of worship from the ordinary members.66.29.115.69 (talk) 12:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Nonfalsifiable, you mean like the proposition that the US has hard evidence Osama bin Laden was behind 9/11? Not even the FBI thinks so.[[32]] I guess that brings a lot more people into the cult.Oneismany (talk) 12:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List revert

This article has been tagged with a embedded lists note for months now. I took out some pretty non-notable content that was presented in a list format, while incorporating some of the content in the main article (as is suggested by the embedded lists tag). Of course I was reverted with no discussion...so I'm making a note here and replacing my edits. RxS (talk) 04:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why no mention of the word "Truther"?

Last I checked, it was still the most common term used to describe the 9/11 Truth Movement. The fact that it's usually pejorative doesn't change the fact that it's in common usage. 76.123.216.96 (talk) 02:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It really isn't in common usage. This entire topic is outside the domain of mainstream media. Most people have never heard of it. The current statistics are, approximately as follows (to the nearest ten %):
  • 60% of Americans believe the government is hiding something about 9/11.
  • 50% of NYC residents believe the government was complicit.
  • 40% of Americans would be unsurprised if LIHOP or MIHOP was proven.
  • 20% of Americans believe in the Controlled Demolition hypothesis. [That's only about sixty million people, out of three hundred million.]
The only current mainstream media coverage is limited to extreme criticism from Bill Maher and Geraldo Rivera, including the accusation that "truthers" are really a pack of mad bombers. Wowest (talk) 09:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
That's sheer nonsense. The New York Times, The Guardian, The Washington Post, CBS, U.S. News and World Report, Rolling Stone, and others have all used the term. And stop reposting your precious opinion polls; they're both tendentiously interpreted and irrelevant anyway. <eleland/talkedits> 20:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but when I say "mainstream media," I mean media which mainstream Americans pay attention to: ABC, NBC, CBS and FOX television stations. Country radio stations. These days, maybe something on MSN or Yahoo. People don't read much anymore. Newspapers are going out of business or just getting rid of their reporters. When an advertiser pays per click on the internet, they have less money to spend on newspaper ads. Your precious Washington Post has a Sunday circulation under one million copies. That might be three million readers. Out of three hundred million Americans. As the circulation goes down, the advertising rates for the publication go down too. People who read are a fringe phenomenon in this country. Television personalities refer to Truthers as "anarchists," "bombers" or worse, if they refer to us at all. We are decidedly "not news." As far as I can tell from here, not only has no network news reporter or anchor ever used the word "Truther" on the air, but with the exception of C-SPAN, no network news program has reported on this movement at all. Someone asked a question. I gave an opinion. If someone wants to throw in the word "Truther" somewhere, use a nice neutral sentence, but be WP:BOLD about it. Personally, I'm not editing these articles anymore.
I'd suggest just adding the word "Truthers" to the second sentence. It currently reads "Movement members communicate primarily through the Internet...." You could just change that to '"Truthers" communicate primarily through the Internet...."' Personally, I don't care about that. I'm just trying to help you with your concern.
Wowest (talk) 05:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Incredibly Biased

I'm not saying that everything in this article is wrong, but writing about this issue without acknowledging some of the criticism of the movement is not good practice. "George Bush and his cronies/neoconservatives/fascist pigs" doesn't count as legitimate knowledge of detractors. For example, I write a page about Iguanas. In it I write that some people like iguanas, and then list why they like iguanas. But I don't explain why some people don't like iguanas. This leaves the whole article open to accusations of agenda and bias. A study of the 9/11 truth movement should be objective and clinical. 64.30.66.15 (talk) 02:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I've flagged this article with NPOV. Please discuss what can be changed to provide an unbiased point of view. --Vashir (talk) 06:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Where is the "9/11 Truth Movement against conpiracy theories"?

Imagine a person who sincerely believe in oficial conspiratory theory (OCT). This person would think: "The alternative conspirative theories are wrong. Twin Tower collapsed by airplanes and/or fire. We must know better about disasters and building collapses. Government must investigate much more about such a disaster. I will ask for new investigation." There would be a movement that ask for new investigation but believe in oficial conspiratory theory. Where is such a movement? If you believe in OCT, you should want more information and investigation about disasters and collapses.

PEOPLE WHO DO NOT WANT NEW INVESTIGATIONS HAS SOMETHING TO HIDE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.53.134.255 (talk) 20:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I really don't think a new investigation is necessary, although I have no objection to someone doing it. Some details may need further research, but the overall structure seems fairly clear. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The official report says too few about WTC7. We need investigations about disasters for improving security. 85.53.134.255 (talk) 21:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] In Spanish

Please, make a link to a Spanish item: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movimiento_por_la_verdad_del_11-S

85.53.134.255 (talk) 20:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Not until an article appears. (For what it's worth, the correct way to link to the article is es:Movimiento_por_la_verdad_del_11-S — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a article in Spanish. Please link it. I can not. Thank you. 85.53.148.23 (talk) 21:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] David Icke and 9/11 truth movement!?

What does a man supposing that 9/11 was done by big shape-shifting lizards have to do with a movement suspecting criminal elements within the US government?Mik1984 (talk) 22:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Clearly NOTHING, WHATSOVER! You're absolutely right (unless one hypothesizes that "shape-shifting lizards" is a "code word" for "treasonous creeps who work for the Department of Homeland Security," or something of the sort. Can you have conspiracy theories about conspiracy theories?)! Wowest (talk) 07:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Then I believe his name should be removed from the list...Mik1984 (talk) 23:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Icke, like others mentioned here, claims "the officiala version" is a cover up, and that the shapeshifting lizards include central persons in the US government - for instance George W. Bush. He clearly belongs.--Vindheim (talk) 11:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sibel Edmonds??

The article has nothing about Sibel Edmonds and what she discovered! --Espoo (talk) 11:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Not Enough Criticism

Don't get me wrong, it was a total inside job. However the amount of criticism we receive is only helping our cause not hindering it. Faux News blames 9/11 truthers for the NY bomb, and claims that we are terrorists. Don't you see that they are scared and grasping at straws. The only mention of criticism is a quote from Bill Clinton... seriously. I forget who it was but I saw a clip on the internet of another talking head saying that he hoped we would all be tazed and sent to secret prisons in Eastern Europe. The fact is the word is getting out, and their absolutely terrified about it. Ismokeherbs (talk) 03:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you should be sent to secret prison, or that you are terrorists, but I think you should lay off the herbs you smoke. They cloud your judgement. Scott Adler (talk) 10:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
As a person who is very critical of the "9/11 truth movement" I can say that the tiny criticism section in this article makes me not take the rest of it seriously. It should definitely be expanded. There has been a ton of mainstream criticism of the claims presented here.68.59.244.149 (talk) 16:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
By the mainstream media that don't even have the courage to show the destruction of WTC 7? (cf., for example, Tucker Carlson's "interview" of Steven E. Jones) Or that prefer to pretend that that skyscraper didn't exist, or are not bothered at all by the fact that no one-site investigation was conducted and that by 15 March, 2002, a ridiculous total of 4 pieces of WTC 7 steel had been salvaged for investigation (and some of those pieces showed signs of "intergranular melting" - which was never further investigated, although such an investigation was called for)? http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_apndxD_sheet.htm In other words, the MSM for which it is ok if the report (if it is actually published some day) is based on pure *speculation* in which the obvious "alternative" scenarios are not even taken into consideration? Perscurator (talk) 21:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 9/11 page

It looks like Wikipedia editors think taht the sources are more important than the physic laws. Is it possible to add this pic somewhere: [33]. --Ilhanli (talk) 16:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Explain why it (commons:Image:DF-SD-04-12734.JPEG) is relevant for this article, please. It's on commons, so we should be able to include it in the appropriate articles. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
It appears to be a complete waste of disk space. It shows the Pentagon after the secondary roof collapse. It neither proves nor disproves the allegation that the original hole was too small to hold a 757. It provides no evidence that anything that large did or did not impact the Pentagon, as using this picture alone, there is no reason to suspect that what was left of the aircraft (if any) either is or is not completely covered by the fallen-in roof. Wowest (talk) 09:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Three Lines Allowed for Criticism?

Virtually all sane people believe this movement is a load of paranoid nonsense, from The Nation on the left to Little Green Footballs on the right. Yet there are only three lines of criticism, at the bottom. This entire article should be removed and replaced with a neutral article under a neutral title, perhaps under "9/11 Denial" with references to Holocaust Denial and conspiracy other fantasies. Frankly there is nothing professional or dignified or encyclopedic about an article that looks as though it was captured by nuts and turned into propaganda. Scott Adler (talk) 10:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I just read this article and find it INCREDIBLY biased. I mean, the only criticism is quote from Hillary Clinton? Oh come on. 134.159.163.135 (talk) 05:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Clearly someone has been "policing" this page so it "stays on message", which is typical of, frankly, a cult of miseducated paranoids. If you want to prove you aren't a cult, post the best arguments you can find against your conspiracy theory. Unless you can't bear to know your own madness. Which explains the complete lack of outside perspective on this wiki page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.126.32.229 (talk) 18:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Completly agree with the above comments. This page is totally biased and well below the standards of neutrality that Wikipedia claims to adhere to. Occam's razor states that the simplest way to explain an event trumps more complicated versions. Ergo - the person who advances a fantastical conspiracy theory has the burden of proof to be taken seriously - not the other way around. Stating this 'movement" without noting that in fact the great majority of their claims are paranoid delusions which are easily dismissed - see popular Mechanics for a start - distorts the reality of their fringe position and poor grasp of facts and scientific method. The comment about catagorizing this with holocaust denial is directly on point. < user: Dave Bueche > ````

Surely this article from popular mechanics[34] That takes an extremely in-depth look into what these 'truthers' believe and debunks a lot of their claims should be useful? I don't see why it wouldn't be. this whole article is littered with POV conspiracy propganda. Cdynas (talk) 01:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Loose Change

I have recently come across this movie that scientificly proves that what happened on 9/11, flat out isnt the truth. Now believe me when I say that I dont usually trust stuff like this, but after reasearcing it, youll find that this movie is probably the closest to the truth. Im not saying its all truth, or thatits neccesaril what happened. I am though, telling you that it is worth a look into.

                          Thank You   76.100.121.229 (talk) 02:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
The "documentary" has an article. Whether it's worth looking at may be another matter. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pilots for 911 Truth

I recently heard a radio interview of a pilot and air traffic controller now involved with another "911 truth" organization. (www.pilotsfor911truth.org) Many points were made including one about how emergency air control procedures were changed in June of 2001. That procedure change delayed a response by the air force to send up interceptors that may have been able to force down the planes that hit the towers. The procedure was changed back on 9/12/2001 when the flaw was obvious. He suggests that the procedure change was initiated by Rumsfeld. Someone may want to follow-up on this and add info to wiki. Mike172.162.114.101 (talk) 04:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV Tag

Please do not remove the NPOV tag until a discussion has been had regarding the article's current biased feel. The majority of the article shows only one viewpoint, and does not lend itself to an encyclopedic feel. Please discuss possible changes before removing the tag. --Vashir (talk) 09:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be removed. And you don't cite any particular reason for the "biased feel." If I went around adding POV tags to everything on here that "felt" biased, without needing to justify that in any way, I'd probably be blocked pretty soon.152.131.10.133 (talk) 22:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Alright, how's "lack of criticism" for a reason? It's been brought up several times in the past on this talk page, and hasn't been adequately addressed. --Vashir (talk) 05:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A Radical Proposal

From the article content, it appears to me that there is no single "truth movement", and there are many rival explanations for the events of 9/11 involved, which are not consistent with each other. It seems to me that this page would be better split, with pages giving more specific details about the different approaches and identifiable groups. Also, it is quite possible that new evidence will emerge, destroying the credibility of some explanations. How could that be fairly handled on a single page such as this one? 88.110.247.151 (talk) 22:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Where is the criticism?

This movement's theories have been thoroughly debunked over and over and over. Yet the only section of criticism is Bill Clinton shouting "it wasn't an inside job!" Absolutely ridiculous, I doubt the section would last long as the truthers are probably watching this page like a hawk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.71.3.253 (talk) 23:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Hilarious! You've made my day. 152.131.10.133 (talk) 00:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
If you think there's verifiable, scientifically-sound criticism to add to this page that isn't here, why don't YOU do the work? Besides, there isn't any criticism on the wiki article about Gravity... does that mean it's biased, and should be marked POV? Just because you disagree, doesn't mean anything or everything is wrong. My only comfort is that ultimately, neither you or I are really that important in the end. 207.88.131.228 (talk) 16:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
If there were some verifiable, scientifically-sound substance to the article, we'd need the criticism to be verifiable and scientifically sound. However, .... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so you're comparing a conspiracy theory, which has no evidence to back it up besides anecdotal stories to GRAVITY? Let me just re-read that, yep, GRAVITY. Wow, just wow. I am truly amazed by your lack of common sense & inanity. I think this is a perfect example of the extremity's these 'truther's' go too to enforce their POV. Cdynas (talk) 22:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I assume you were speaking to mr. 207, not to me. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] add of popular mechanics link referenced in article

This article is referenced in the body of this page: http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

Please add it. I don't have edit permissions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eydaimon (talk • contribs) 06:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Participants

Marion Cotillard as a participant of the 9/11 Truth Movement... is that a joke? She's a french actress who happened to say one day that she more or less believed the "9/11 conspiracy theories". But i don't have edit permission to remove this! BTW, who has edit permissions ? Ahhhh, Wikipedia sometimes just isn't Wikipedia. There are articles you cannot edit, but it's so easy to put somebody in the "conspiracy theorist" category. People like Aaron Russo. Do you think about inventing conspiracy theories when you're about to die? makes me sick. [| NassWiki] 20:27, 03 june 2008 (UTC)

Good point, I removed her. There's probably others that don't belong. RxS (talk) 20:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Another one to eradicate is Sean Penn. No reference anywhere in this article or his about his views on 9/11. Someone has clearly just added him for the sake of populating the list with more celebrities. It's rather sad. Cdynas (talk) 23:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)