Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Witness statements

We only have one witness to the sounds of explosions, but we have several witnesses saying that the fires were raging in WTC7, and no images to support those except the one photo which shows smoke but no flames and from which the origin of the smoke cannot be determined. This seems like a bias towards the official account. There should be an equal number of accounts for both the official story and those questioning the official story. We should get a photo of the WTC towers squibs as well, since the one for WTC7 is so small 198.207.168.65 00:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I noticed the same thing about the witness statements and agree that some should probably either be added or removed. Maybe removed would be better because we could pile up statements a mile long. SkeenaR 01:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I took out some statements so that there are now equal numbers supporting and against the official story. Bov 17:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The word "Claims" is not POV

The word "claims" is used throughout the article. In my mind, using it implies that the statement is incorrect. For example, there's a distint difference in tone between "MisterHand stated that he didn't know who ate the last donut" and "MisterHand claimed that he didn't know who ate the last donut." Maybe I'm way off here, but if we could I'd like to come up with a reasonable substitution. -- MisterHand 04:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Problem is, many of the 'claims' are headings, such as: 4.1 Claims regarding the actual collapse. Headings can't be changed to 4.1 Statements regarding the actual collapse because that gives them undue credit. However, as long as a specific person is quote, "said" or "stated" is indeed better. But, in terms of a non-defined group of people, "claims" may still be preferable. -Quasipalm 14:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Inconsistent explanations

If I could remark on some of the things in this section, it's not clear to me that everything here is "inconsistent". The last in particular is striking; if I understand the current version's claim, it seems that an editor is claiming that it is inconsistent for US officials to say that flying planes into buildings was unthinkable, but yet there were a couple of scattered reports and a Tom Clancy novel suggesting it could happen. Forgive me, but that's a bit thin. I'm sure that some crazy stuff shows up in those intelligence reports, and surely noone is claiming that the administration should base security policy on Tom Clancy's analysis. I think, in all fairness, before 9/11 the idea was pretty much inconceivable.

On the other hand, there are some true inconsistencies reported in this section, and these should stay. --Deville (Talk) 23:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

There are references all over and everywhere regarding contigency plans, war games etc.. that involved airliners being used as missiles in an attack like this. It's easy to find proof of that.[1] Actually I saw Peter Jennings talking about it. SkeenaR 06:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, if so, then why aren't the references from all over quoted in the text? As it stands, the only specific counterevidence to the government's claim is a Tom Clancy novel. Would you mind going ahead and adding all of these sources you have to the article? --Deville (Talk) 23:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't see this post until today. Sure I'll find some sources for the article. In the meantime, if you would rather not take my word for it, look it up for yourself. Like I said, I saw Peter Jennings talking about it and it was in a special report. I'll find something in the next day or two if you don't get to it first. SkeenaR 00:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is something. FRom Bov actually.

"FBI agents acknowledged under cross-examination that the bureau knew years before Sept. 11 that al-Qaida had plans to use planes as missiles to destroy prominent buildings. They also acknowledged numerous missed opportunities in the months before Sept. 11 to catch two of the hijackers with terrorist links known to the government, even though the pair frequently used their own names in the U.S. to rent cars, buy plane tickets and even, once, to file a police report after one got mugged." [2]

SkeenaR 00:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

An article on rogerebert.com mentions the Columbine shooters fantasized in 1998 about crashing a plane into NYC.Emerson, Jim "911, or Dial V for Columbine" RogerEbert.com April 5, 2006 Шизомби 02:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Well the article where cites that from is [3] it is interesting, but I don't think it should necescarily go in this article as it is not really a conspiracy theory. Can anyone suggest a more appropriate 9/11 page?--DCAnderson 02:59, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it should got in unless the part where the claim "that prior to 9/11, it was unimaginable that hijacked planes would be used as suicide weapons" is expanded, and the article is so long, I wouldn't recommend it. The direct link for the page is [4], the one above requires picking it from a menu. Шизомби 17:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Startling new evidence! :-)

All other conspiracy theories can step aside. Apparently there were really no planes at all. [5] --Zero 03:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for providing me my entertainment of the day. I guess me and the other millions of Americans watching TV that morning can't trust our own eyes. I am wondering how many thousands of people had to be in on that television conspiracy to make it work -- please tell me Mr. Morgan Reynolds, I can't breath (our stop laughing), until you enlighten me. Thank you for reminding me just how ridiculous all of this alternate reality stuff really is. Cheers. Morton devonshire 22:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Morton, Reynolds was a former chief economist in the administration of George Herbert Walker Bush. Do you really think that a person charged with the position of chief economists of the United States of Amercia really might think that the commercial jets didn't hit the buildings? Does he simply have undiagnosed alzheimers? Or could you imagine that he might have an agenda to make others in the 9/11 Truth Movement look idiotic? Why on earth would he do that? Can't imagine . . . 69.226.245.245 04:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
There were no ground eyewitnesses in Pennsylvania. There were eyewitness accounts of a plane hitting the Pentagon although the object was moving very fast and very low so conceivably the witnesses could be open to suggestion. But this was not the case in Manhattan especially for the second plane. After the first hit many were lining the streets around the WTC looking up wide-eyed at the tower burning. So somehow the memories of thousands would have to be erased and dozens if not hundreds of videos altered. 11:48, 14 March 2006 (Ed Kollin)
All due respect, but the theory that the were no planes at all is only slightly more "enhanced" than the much more commonly believed theories that there was no plane at the Pentagon or in Pennsylvania, but there were planes in Manhattan. --Deville (Talk) 23:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Someone might consider linking to 'Loose Change' at video.google.com. Although it is by no means rigorous, it engages in much less stretching than most documentaries on the subject. It clearly acknowledges the planes in Manhattan. However, the photo it uses of the pre-collapse, perfectly round, 16' singular hole in the side of the pentagon makes pretty clear that no wings had entered the building. Additionally, the fact that there were no pieces of wing on the lawn (nor skid marks) and that the only identifiable piece of wreckage was publicly denied by both manufacturers of the plane's engines to be anything that they have produced, makes the planeless pentagon expolosion scenario one of the most verifiable theories. 67.170.150.36 00:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)JimM

Some claim...

"Some claim this is because the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania was actually not Flight 93, but a different airplane entirely. As support, they note that Flight 93 was reported to have landed only hours after it had reportedly crashed."

First, who exactly claims this? I think this requires citation.

Second, Words to avoid supports my position that 'note' is inappropriate here:

Point out, note, observe
These words are often used to elevate one side in a dispute by bestowing extra weight on its arguments. Sometimes these words are used to give unproven, unprovable, or subjective statements a gloss of authority:
  • "Critics of contingent fees point out that many lawsuits seem to be brought only to generate fees for lawyers without giving any benefit to the vast majority of clients."
At other times, they are used to introduce statements that may indeed be factual, but which opponents may not consider important or relevant:
  • "Opponents note that a requirement to carry an identity card at all times can lead to arbitrary requests from the police."
Observe (as in "Critics observe...") is also sometimes used to the same effect.

Please let me know what you think. Tom Harrison Talk 16:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The particular wording "They note..." is mine, but the assertion is not. I agree that a citation is in order and the wording was not intended to indicate that the claim is well-supported. Phiwum 19:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


READ THIS [6]

ILovEPlankton 19:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

also note is not NPOV either but instead of putting say, which also is not NPOV, we need to find the right wording for it. ILovEPlankton 19:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you; I'm not unfamiliar with words to avoid, as you can see by looking through the page history. Clearly I have read it, since I quoted it directly above. What wording do you suggest we use? Tom Harrison Talk 20:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
First, sorry for getting argry at you, second, what do you think about this? "There are reports that flight 93 landed only hours after it had reportedly crashed." ILovEPlankton 20:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Don't mention it, I can be kind of snippy myself:) I think that sentence is fine, as long as it is supported by citation, as "According to the Washington Post (or whatreallyhappened.com), there are reports that..." Tom Harrison Talk 20:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
But so far it is unsupported right? If it is unsupported (and we can't find anything) should we delete it for the time being? ILovEPlankton 20:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
It could be removed, but I think someone will probably produce a citation. It doesn't seem to me that controversial (that is, that someone has claimed that; I think reports of flight 93 landing are evidence of confusion, not conspiracy). I'm content to let it stay through the weekend, but if you want to take it out pending citation that's perfectly correct. It's easy enough to restore from the history if a cite is provided. Tom Harrison Talk 21:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
From the links provided, I think I found the original news reports they were all based on. I have updated it from those. If I missed anything, please add it back in. Tom Harrison Talk 14:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Apollo moon landing hoax accusations

While this article presents many theories and support for those theories, what it lacks is a balanced view to make it NPOV. I suggest that we follow the Claims and Rebuttals approach used in the Apollo moon landing hoax accusations article to balance the content. Thoughts? Morton devonshire 06:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

37 years (for Apollo conspiracies) is a semi-long time... both the claims, and rebuttals, on this recent issue, are still (apparently) just figuring out their positions. Take the "missile pod" argument: Some folks are still claiming that there was a missle pod on the bottom of a WTC plane, other folks are claiming that the "pod" argument is an operation to show that the conspiracy theorists are deluded. I suspect it'll take as long (if not longer) to sort out than the JFK assassination issues (where some of the "whackos" turned out to be right, oddly enough) or other significant events that spawned no lasting end to debate. Ronabop 09:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Please tell us where is the unbalanced view? ILovEPlankton 13:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment: we shouldn't be striving for a balanced article, we should be striving for one with a neutral point of view. There's a subtle, but important distinction. -- MisterHand 15:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I'm for it if it's done well. I think the moon landing hoax is a great page and we could do worse than to emulate it. Moreover, it would help to separate the reasonable conspiracy theories out from the not-so-reasonable ones. --Deville (Talk) 14:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

A simple but incomplete example: Claim: There were no planes . . . etc. Rebuttal: According to the NY Times, 10,000 people witnessed the second plane flying into the WTC . . . . etc. Morton devonshire 18:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

You are the one who said , and i qoute, I suggest that we follow the Claims and Rebuttals approach used in the Apollo moon landing hoax accusations article to balance the content. ILovEPlankton 19:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

That would be a Strawman argument. The issue here is that the article is POV. To help make it NPOV a Cause and Rebuttal format would assist. BTW, this article is edited by lots of people, so don't bother trying to stake it out as your own. Morton devonshire 20:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Ha! 9/11 traditionalists declare it's POV, so their rebuttals get the last word? When do we get to see your "claims and rebuttals" format in the main 9/11 page? Not likely, huh? Because it embedgs a prejudice for the "sensible" rebutting side. -- James

First, when did i say it was my own? Second, it would be much easier if you tell us (notice the word us, not me) what parts specifically are not NPOV, or is it everything, in which case go ahead and rewrite the whole article your self. ILovEPlankton 20:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

That's not the way it works around here -- Wikipedia is a collaborative process! Cheers. Morton devonshire 20:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Are you going to answer my questions? ILovEPlankton 20:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Badgering me will not make me go away. I'm here to edit Wikipedia, which is a collaborative process. I'm looking for a collaborative answer. Peace. Morton devonshire 21:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not badgering you this is how it works on wikipedia we get a consensus, and also we can help you make NPOV if you tell us where there is something wrong. This is your collaborative answer. ILovEPlankton 23:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
You continue to ignore my question the same question everyone else is going to be asking What part do you think is not NPOV ILovEPlankton 02:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, but I'm not here to satisfy your needs. I'm here to edit Wikipedia. Morton devonshire 05:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone else have thoughts about use of the Claims and Rebuttals approach? Thanks. Morton devonshire 01:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I never wanted to "satisfy my needs", no thanks i'm straight. And i think it is a bad idea. ILovEPlankton 15:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
And the thing is this is wikipedia you are going to have to compromise with other users or you'll never get anywhere. ILovEPlankton 15:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone else have thoughts about use of the Claims and Rebuttals approach? Thanks. Morton devonshire 19:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I don't think it is a very good idea. It seems unencyclopedic somehow. It would give the article the appearance of a debate. Also, the article could easily end up five miles long with countless rebuttals for each side. I think that the kind of overview in the article the way it is now is more suitable for this topic. SkeenaR 23:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. That's the sort of helpful input I was looking for. Morton devonshire 23:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Glad I could help. SkeenaR 00:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I took a look at the Apollo Moon Landing Hoax Accusations article, and it does have a much better flow and ease of navigation for the reader. There are difficulties involved in simply applying the same format to this article, mostly in the foreknowledge section.

Perhaps what the article needs is a clearer picture of exactly what it is the conspiracy theorists are suggesting and how those claims or suggestions fit into the bigger conspiracy picture. In other words, the article could use some organization editing. There are plenty of statements that are presented to the reader without any reference to its meaning. For example, the witness testimony point in regards to the collapse tells the reader that some of the people at the scene said the word bomb or explosion, and simply leaves it at that. Further explanation could be provided to inform the reader how conspiracy theorist generate their ideas based on these statements as well as providing sources to the reader for evidence on how these statements are not as unique to this particular event as some theorists would have them believe.

Another example is the point about the building falling in roughly 30 foot sections. What does this mean? Why is this here? Because conspiracy theorists believe it fell that way based on demolition charges spaced around the building to aid in the cleanup efforts. I suppose it could be that, or maybe it's because the longest beam around the building was 38 feet.

This wouldn’t exactly be a claim and rebuttal format, but would clearly state the point conspiracy theorist push followed by an examination of that particular point, including common misconceptions and misunderstandings. A good example currently in the article is the recent claim, “United 93 landed safely.” After a few revisions, it now points out a statement some conspiracy theorists have suggested followed by a few bullets on why that statement contains factual inaccuracies and lacks credibility.

I’ll take a look and see what I can come up with. If the consensus becomes, “We hate it! Revert!"...we can always go back to this format.--Doctor9 22:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Government Foreknowledge

The section titled "Government foreknowledge" could use some reference and/or "see also" link to PDB (Presidential Daily Brief) for August 6, 2001. 14:19, 18 March 2006

Kinetic energy

We need a citation to someone saying the kinetic energy was seven times what was designed for. Tom Harrison Talk 00:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

why

Why was this [7] removed? Its the biggest view that has been called a conspicracy theory, and it needs to be stated. --Striver 11:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Charlie Sheen is a notable celebrity and his statments regarding one 9/11 conspiracy theory are notable for the wide dissemination they have obtained in the mainstream media beyond its inital broadcast, and they are consistent with what is in the article. Why was it removed? Please do not remove verifiable content without a editing consensus to do so. patsw 20:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

No problem. But do you really think we need that much about Sheen? Especially cut and pasted from a newspaper? It has less to do with the section title than with a newspaper writer insinuating people have gone "bonkers" and act "bizarre". Current events gossip. Looks like a POV addition to me. Not worthy of an encyclopedia. SkeenaR 20:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed your newspaper article is from the gossip section. There must be something more appropriate than adding a gossip article. SkeenaR 21:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The last version I had was encompassing, concise, to the point, linked to the original interview, and non-POV. I would like an explanation as to the insistence of including a whole cut-and-paste garbage gossip article. SkeenaR 23:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I can't speak for Patsw, but I think it's important to include as much of Sheen's quote as we can. Just taking out the part that says, "I support controlled demolition" without including anything else, gives a distorted view. We need to be able to read, "Just show us how this particular plane pulled off these maneuvers . . ." to see what prompts his disblief, and "It is up to us to reveal the truth. It is up to us because we owe it to the families, we owe it to the victims..." to understand his motivation. Tom Harrison Talk 23:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Include his quotes than. Even better, a link to the interview as well, like the one deleted. But why cut-and-paste noxious refuse like this into the article? I think its ridiculous. I will wait for a response before reverting(and adding more quotes as per your statement). SkeenaR 23:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I didn't see the link to the interview. I support including that, but we need a transcript or some text of the quotes. We can't pick and choose what quotes to use, or produce a transcript ourselves. I think we need some news article to refer to. It doesn't have to be the Post. Tom Harrison Talk 23:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm kinda busy right now, but I'll find the transcript at Prisonplanet later unless someone else wants to do it in the meantime. There are lots of articles all over about it right now too. SkeenaR 00:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the way Doctor9 has it is adequate. SkeenaR 00:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. He does good work:) Tom Harrison Talk 00:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The Doctor is in. SkeenaR 02:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the doctor goes through and tries to refute every other sentence in the text buried amidst his many changes, with statements from the commission, etc. Look closely. It inspires me to continue to improve it all. 198.207.168.65 02:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I noticed what you are talking about. Good formatting and stuff though. This is helpful. SkeenaR 02:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I see some of the changes I made have been noticed. That didn’t take long. Now we’ll see if the edit war SkeenaR predicted will surface.

My goal in reworking a lot of the article was to provide a better flow and a better picture for the reader. It’s certainly not my intention to refute every sentence in the article. Likewise, the objective of validating these claims should not be a goal either. As mentioned in previous discussions, this is simply an article about conspiracy theories.

The idea I had in mind as I reworked the financial section was to outline there were elements of suspicious market activity followed with a description of what action and analysis had been done. The reader can clearly get the basis of the claim without reading “put options were purchased for AMR and UAL” two or three times. The Mindy Kleinberg quote forces the reader to take this same statement, which was the point of the section to begin with, and re-read the same points—there was suspicious trading activity; that’s not disputed. It is for this reason government investigators and private financial firms looked into it.

Part of the examination of these claims is to understand how officials responded to these suspicions. Clearly, if investigators say they traced the trades to non-criminal activities, conspiracy theorists will have a response; it’s why the claim still exists. This came with, “They provided no explanation for how trading on a worldwide basis could have been examined and determined to be innocuous.” & “Numerous Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11 express doubts that the Commission was actually able to explain worldwide trading patterns around the 9/11 attacks.” Yet, in the same addition, an article describing how the SEC sought the help of numerous security firms is highlighted. This could further be followed up with a review of privacy laws and public disclosure policies and how they relate to financial investors and their trading companies; instead we get sinister connotations attached to this as the reader is provided with Ruppert’s “expertise” on the issue. Of course, it doesn’t benefit Ruppert or Hoffman to have any of these trades to be discovered as innocuous…book sales depend on how well these theories hold up. It is naturally expected there will be a sinister, conspiratorial response in situations such as these. We find the same “unprecedented trading activity” surrounding the London bombings. [8] If the US were to be attacked again, we would see more claims of insider trading and suspicious market activity.

When I put part of the Commission’s response to the option market trades in the section, I merely cited an example. Brevity was one of my concerns. Part of the difficulty with a conspiracy page such as this is the constant desire to “get in the last word.” A never ending list of “however” followed by “however” followed by “however” forces itself into the article.

Just some thoughts. Although, I am glad I could inspire 198.207.168.65 to assist in improving the article and keeping these edits in check. --Doctor9 05:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

>>"Now we’ll see if the edit war SkeenaR predicted will surface." Guess it is. Reverting back to one version over and over won't be the solution here. Bov

Jet Fuel, etc.

What about the claim(s) that most of the jet fuel from the planes burned in the first few minutes after impact, and/or exploded out of the building? I've seen claims that FEMA's report stated that the jet fuel burned quickly, leaving only office debris to burn. Actually, The whole issue of jet fuel is completely avoided. I think that this is one of the most compelling arguments of these theories, but this page is more of an article about the 'debunkable' aspects of the theories. This article is very much unneutral, it should't contain counterarguments to the theories, but only the theories, with links to a separate page with that info. The main problem with the article is that the authors of it seem to pick and choose which arguments to write about, which happen those that are semi-explainable. This behaviour is ironically similar to a traditional conspiracy theorist's, in that 'rational arguments' are ignored, and only those which protect their theories are stated. Finally, I think that there is not enough diversity in the claims, which suggests that all theories are one big theory held by most claimants. This is not the case, and it isn't a good thing. I personally do not believe the official story, but I am certainly on the fringes of the theories. I simply belive that there are problems with the official account, mainly with the fanatical devotion to it by some.mpbx 10:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Building Seven Tumor

Just a few thoughts on the current edit regarding World Trade Center Seven. As previous discussions touched on not validating these claims, it appears this section is turning into a persuasion piece on the demolition theory.

Redundancy is fairly widespread given the size of the section:

“It is suggested below that this collapse was exclusively due to fire”
“…it is claimed that three steel framed skyscrapers collapsed mainly, or totally, due to fire…”
”...before September 11, no steel framed skyscraper had ever collapsed due to fire…”
“…the fact that steel frame building have no history of collapsing from fires,…”
“…which happen to be a world premiere for a steel frame structure (exception of WTC 1 and WTC 2)…”

The section lacks an introduction for the reader as to what direction it is headed, instead we jump right into a look at the FEMA report followed by an analysis from an anonymous commentator on the flaws with the report. I don’t have a problem with mentioning errors with a certain publication, but I’m sure we can find a better source, perhaps one with some credentials.

I suppose I could be way off base, but I doubt the reader needs a full understanding of these paragraphs to learn about World Trade Center Seven conspiracy theories. Let’s keep in mind the title of the article.

The editor touched on the pull comment by adding that “to pull” or “to pull down” meant to demolish. The dictionary reference provided simply refers to “pull down.” The quote in question doesn’t read as “pull down.”

And finally the edit sums up drawing the reader to the one and only conclusion with, “All these remarks lead to the supposition that Building Seven collapsed as the result of a controlled demolition.”

The current revision reads like a fifth grade book report.--Doctor9 00:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

of course you've noticed that I'm working on it, adding stuff, fixing stuff, rereading what I just done, fixing my previous edits, searching for better references, etc... this takes time, and the revision you're talking about is definitely not what I believe to be final.
I planned a total rewriting of this section to be as clearer, succinct and well organized as possible, when I'm finished dealing with it. Some parts, I'm thinking of the larry silverstein quote here, may even belong to a subarticle of their own, cause I feel details are needed due this quote popularity but they don't really belong in here.
to answer your points:
  • I'm aware of redundancy and it is planned to be gone when I'm finished working on this,
  • I'm aware it lacks an introduction which summarize contents, but this will come last as contents need to be written before being summarized.
  • your're sure you can find a better source, then just find it and add it
  • to pull. you may have noticed that I removed the dictionnary reference you're talking about, to replace it by a reference to "A History of Structural Demolition in America" [9] which contains all needed evidence of the use of the term pull in demolition industry. I also wrote building implosion to make things clearer for the who have no clue about what a building implosion is. "pull down" is cited as a common language synonym.
I can't emphasize more on this: the revision you're talking about was a work in progress, hence was not finished. I don't have time nor will to fight reverts of to explain further that wikipedia article are evolving and how reverting as you did is killing my work. Right now I'm about to give up, only reason I haven't yet is I don't like to leave an unfinished work, but I'm not gonna fight over it nor spend a lotta time explaining why this or why that to people who don't take time to read the references. IMHO readers may not read references and miss the point but editors can't afford to do so. izwalito

I understand that the purpose of this page and the section on building seven is to explain the theories other than the official explanation rather than being a debate about the validity of those theories. However, in the explanation of these theories, the official explanation is shown to be wrong or lacking in some way to convince the readers that an alternative theory is needed. I made recent edits to the building seven section that included ommitted information from the official explanation. The information I added was done to correct the assumptions being made in its absence. There was severe damage to building seven and there is firthand testimony of that (and photos). There is also testimony of the building being monitored for movement hours before its collapse and a collapse zone being created because of that monitoring. To me, it would be disingenuous to ignore those facts and thereby mislead people into buying into a theory that really doesn't make sense. Wikipedia should be a place where people can go to find the truth about these things and not be misled by theories that intentionally disregard important pieces of information - in fact, the theory depends upon that information being ignored. I think it's fair to show both sides of the story in a neutral point of view way. Until my additions, the section was very one-sided and ignored important facts to sell itself. Perhaps I'm being to idealistic, but I think the truth should win over a theory. Also, I believe it is relevant to include what people who oppose these theories have to say about them - this gives more credibility to the article and neutralize it's point of view. --Rcronk 16:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Silverstein could not have meant to pull out the firefighters. According to a NIST member, the FEMA report, and a New York Times article, there was no firefighting in Building 7. http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2006/050106silversteinanswers.htm

CB Brooklyn 03:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Thierry Meyssan

Lots of things have been refuted by lots of people, at least to my satisfaction. This page is about 9/11 conspiracy theories, not about only credible theories, or only 'mainstream-alternative' theories. Tom Harrison Talk 02:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

There is a problem with duplication in the WTC7 section. SkeenaR 02:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Thierry Meyssan is being given undue importance at the start of the article. Historically he played a role because his book was first, but he didn't 'start' the movement, by any means, and it is biased that everyone else is relegated to an external link in that section while his role is highlighted inappropriately. Ask any 9/11 researcher who the most important people are and have been in the movement and virtually NONE will say Meyssan -- most will say Griffin. Meyssan has never attended the multiple US or Canadian 9/11 conferences, has not done presentations in the US, has not done any significant radio interviews, has not had videos made of his talks, has not continued to even be active in 9/11 following his 2 books, has a minimal presence even on wikipedia . . . take a look at his listing on the 9/11 researchers page -- no one even bothers to refute the points that are written there because no one actually cares to defend someone who is not even active and hasn't been for years, and whose points are no longer even supported (truck bombs and missiles):

Thierry Meyssan

Thierry Meyssan a French political activist and author of the book L'Effroyable Imposture (The Frightening Fraud) ISBN 1592090265. He was one of the first to suggest a truck bomb or a missile—instead of a plane—hit the Pentagon, but he did not travel from Paris to Washington to interview any of the eyewitnesses. Many other researchers have come to the conclusion that this was an effort to distract from undisputed evidence such as the fact the Pentagon was struck in the mostly empty, under "reconstruction" part, which minimized casualties (thousands could have been killed if any other "wedge" had been hit).

So to then have an entire paragraph devoted to him and his book at the start of the page is simply misrepresentative of the relevance of his work in the movement -- it should be mentioned in a historical area, not at the front of the article. Griffins books, DVDs and essays are far more widely known and circulated in the movement.

I suggest that the Meyssan paragraph be significantly revised or removed. Bov 19:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

We are not describing the 9/11 truth movement, or researchers questioning the official account, or "what really happened". We are describing 9/11 conspiracy theories. Meyssan's work is the seminal piece of conspiracist literature relating to 9/11. Tom Harrison Talk 20:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
But that doesn't mean he should have a whole paragraph -- other articles on conspiracies do not give so much coverage to people who were seminal just because they were seminal. They get about 2 lines. I also think that it is appropriate to put it in context on modern day rather than promoting an illusion that he is still a central figure (if ever) -- Meyssan is no longer active and his theory about a truck bomb is embraced by almost no one. Bov 23:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Bov that this paragraph gives undue weight to Meysann. I've been reading about this stuff since it happened and I can honestly say that I've hardly ever ran into anything about him. I didn't even remember who he was until I saw him in that CBC documentary and I haven't seen or heard anything about him since. SkeenaR 23:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Eliminating the Meyssan portion of the article doesn’t mean his book was never published. It was a major first step in the conspiracy movement; the book was a best seller in France as well as around the globe. Simply because Griffin is the more well known American in the movement does not negate the rhetoric of Meyssan. His views may be controversial, but the whole article is controversial. Bov mentioned other similar individuals in regards to other theories receiving about two lines of attention; Meyssan has been given the same here.--Doctor9 02:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Popular Mechanics

are the editors of this page aware of this article by Popular Mechanics [10]. it could be useful if this site moves into a Claims and Rebuttal format. Anthonymendoza 17:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Soapbox

I have to challange the neutrality of this article. I feel that the conspiracy theories are given too much weight to the point of it becoming a Soapbox.The Policy States:

Wikipedia is not a soapbox
Wikipedia is not a soapbox, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not:
1. Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views. You can also use Wikinfo which promotes a "sympathetic point of view" for every article.
2. Self-promotion. The arbitration committee ruled on February 17, 2006 that: "Editors should avoid contributing to articles about themselves or subjects in which they are personally involved, as it is difficult to maintain NPOV while doing so." [1] Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles, or to articles in which you have a personal stake, is similarly unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Notability.
3. Advertising. Articles about companies and products are fine if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. Furthermore, all article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" companies are not likely to be acceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they can serve to identify major corporations associated with a topic (see finishing school for an example). Please note Wikipedia does not endorse any businesses and it does not set up affiliate programs. See also WP:CORP for a proposal on corporate notability.

This sounds like one more vote for a claim-rebuttal format. Rcronk 18:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


The article as it stands is not neutral. It goes beyond describing the theories and tries to present evidence to support them. This page should just be a description of the most notable alternative theories. We should not include our 'analysis of the anomalies of that day;' That's for others to make, and for us to describe.
I think too that enough time has passed that we could have a brief section on the history of these theories and how they have changed over time, if we can find references to support that. Even a time line of conspiracy theories could be useful.
Finally, I share the concerns expressed above about self-promotion and advertising. I'm concerned that the selection of external links, and even of the theories presented, is driven more by some of the promoters' marketing skills than the notability of their theories. Partly I think this comes from our (I include myself) over-reliance on the web. This page favors theories that seem plausible to the educated and computer-literate. I think we overlook what we regard as kooky or creepy (I'm thinking of the overtly anti-semitic stuff), without regard to how influential those theories may be among people who don't use the internet. Given the problems of citation, I don't have a good solution to offer, except maybe to broaden our coverage to the extent that we can and still be encyclopedic. If anyone knows of scholarly articles that have been written examining recent 9/11 conspiracy theories, that might be a place to start. Tom Harrison Talk 00:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
there lies the problem. there are no scholarly articles that have been written on this topic. it's a theory that exists primarily on the web, based on the assumption that the whole thing was one big coverup. perhaps as more time passes, and the more implausible the theories become, this site will improve and rational editors can redo it. Anthonymendoza 16:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I still believe that something should be done about this article despite the fact that there are no scholarly articles. I will cotinue to think of methiods to improve this article and will write them here as I come up with them.TCPWIKI 23:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
There does seem to be some scholarship in this area.[11] This could change the way we do things here. If there are legitimate academic papers, we need to find, read, and cite them, and not do our own guessing and original research. Tom Harrison Talk 00:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
A balance needs to be struck between describing the theory (i.e. were the 19 named hijackers: agents of bin Laden, the United States, themselves alone, dupes, all of the above, none of the above) and detailing what facts and opinions support this theory as the truthful explanation of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. That's an editorial judgment, not a policy. patsw 00:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
How about simply stating the various theories, and giving the evidence supporting, and the evidence debunking them? Orville Eastland

cell phones vs. wireless email at cruising altitude

I don't know if this means anything, but I clearly remember sending and receiving email messages via palm.net while flying between the east and west coasts less than a year after 9/11. It was at night, and I noticed that if I could see the lights of a large city, I could usually get a pretty good signal. Other experience suggests that palm.net's tower network was less extensive than the cell phone network at that time, so cellphones arguably could have worked at least as well if the plane was within eyeshot of a city or metro area. (Yes, I was bad and disregarded the "please turn off all electronic devices" signs. I figured that if the transmissions were causing issues, there would be some kind of re-emphasis on the PA about turning off all electronic devices – but there never was.) --Woozle 12:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

scholar.google

That's a pretty useful google page Tom. Interestingly, there are studies that seem to support both sides of the issue too.[12] SkeenaR 01:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Meaningless phrase

Am I the only one that thinks the following phrase lacks meaning, and should be removed:

  • "Professor of philosophy of religion and theology David Ray Griffin has written, "we can say that we accept all those conspiracy theories that we believe to be true, while we reject all those that we believe to be false."

--Morton devonshire 01:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

  • No, you're not the only one.--Doctor9 17:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • No idea why that's in there. gloushire 15:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't find it meaningless - the point is that the official story is also a conspriacy theory, so I'll fix this and add it back with more context. I see primarily that MD has an issue with DRG and tries to either attach pejorative labels to his writings at every opportunity or delete them altogether. Bov 20:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

My issue with Griffin is that he is not an expert in this field, has no academic training to render opinions on these subjects, and has no qualifying experience. According to WP:RS, that means he's not a reliable source. Plus the phrase that you're attached to is the kind of thing an Eighth Grader writes when he wants to sound sophisticated -- meaningless and verbose. Morton devonshire 01:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Griffin's famous quote is utterly vacuous; on the other hand, it will be pretty obvious to most people that it is vacuous, and so it will tell them something useful about the Professor. I maintain that the only people who find this quotation meaningful are not likely to reasoned out of their convictions anyway. I support the quote's prominent inclusion. Tom Harrison Talk 01:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know much about Griffin. I looked at some of his debate with Cberlet. What have you got against him, seriously. It's not like he sounds retarded as you two insinuate. SkeenaR 05:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Bush Family/Bin Ladin Family

In the first several years after the attacks the business relationship between the two families and the fact that members of the Bin Ladin Family were allowed to leave shortly after the attacks were discussed often. This discussion has just about evaporated these days both in Wikipedia and elsewhere. It seems the “controlled explosion” theory is taking up most of the mental energy of people these days. I am not at all saying that the controlled explosion theory should not be discussed but it should not be at the expense of other topics. Like the controlled explosion theory there is controversy about this topic. We do have a claims against the Saudi’s and a Motives section that might be used to discuss this topic. 19:23, 2 April 2006 (EK)

Rampant formatting problems with the article

This article is messy beyond belief. All the internet citations need to be moved to their proper places directly next to the relevant sentences instead of being referenced at the bottom. More subsections need to be created. Any deleted/copyrighted images must be removed. I've never seen an article with so many problems of this nature. I don't know how much time I'll have in the coming month; can someone else help fix these issues?? Grandmasterka 09:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

>>All the internet citations need to be moved to their proper places directly next to the relevant sentences instead of being referenced at the bottom.

I wasn't aware of this, but I suspect that those who keep changing the entire page, such as Doctor9, would like to help make the actual sources as difficult to discern as possible.

>>I've never seen an article with so many problems of this nature.

Because there is an information war going on on here. Everytime one person writes something, others like Doctor9 come along and completely reformat the entire page, in the process making select pov changes to try to debunk those questioning the official story. Bov 20:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Rebuttals Push the POV of the Rebutters

There is an inherent bias in the new allegation/rebuttal format in favor of the rebuttals. The official mainstream POV always gets the last word in response to an allegation under this version. -- James