Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories/Archive 2

Temperature Discrepancy

The part that talks about certain necessarry temperatures not being reached says, "Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100 °F (593 °C)," however, these temperatures could not have been reached in the towers themselves since air-aspirated open hydrocarbon fires typically cannot exceed 820 °C." This last figure is in celsius and is much higher than the 50% loss temperature that "could not have been reached?" Is this a typo or a big mistake?

probably the latter

Odigo and Skull and Bones

While the Odigo story is interesting, it says nothing of foreknowledge of the US government. I would like to rename this section to "Governmental Foreknowledge" to discourage material like this from being included in this section in the future. This story seems like it would be more appropriately placed in the "Other Points of Interest" section. How about it?

Also, I deleted the new addition about Bush and Kerry being Skull and Bones. This is also interesting, but it is not directly related to (or perhaps even indirectly related to) the events of 9/11. I probably should have consulted you all first but I think everyone can agree that this point had no place in this article. To be fair, I deleted my own point on the 2001 anthrax attacks.

Oh yeah Quasi, I added the source for the bit about Ashcroft not flying commercially, I think that was a good idea too, thanks for pointing that out.

Initium79

Hijackers' Identities

I had a problem with the information regarding the questionable identities of the hijackers that has been recently updated in the "Inconsistant Explanations" section and updated this accordingly.

The BBC has reported that the Waleed al-Shehri who came forward after the attacks is the same man to whom the FBI have been referring, this is not a question of mistaken identity, to say otherwise would be imposing a POV. I added the source for this information in order to clear up any misunderstanding (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm.)

As for the other hijackers, their identities have also "come into doubt" according to the BBC. This does not claim to prove anything one way or the other and I believe my contribution to this article reflects that. If after reading the source article there is still some misunderstanding, I would like to discuss it here to see if we can't reach a compromise, as opposed to deleting eachothers' posts.

Initium79

Hi Initium79. I just reverted your edit, I want to draw your attention to Waleed al-Shehri#Controversy. Please read this and see if it satisfies your questions about the mistaken identity. If not, please come back here and we can revert to the text you used or something similar. Cheers --Quasipalm 18:56, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Quasi, it seems that the FBI is still featuring the innocent man's picture on their website for the simple fact that the BBC used this same picture in their article while asserting that he is alive and "indeed the same Waleed Al Shehri to whom the FBI has been referring." However, the issue is more complex than I realized so I will need to do some more digging. Meanwhile, I think it should be clearly stated that it was the FBI who was mistaken and that they did not acknowledge or perhaps even become aware of their mistake until the suspect turned up alive, there should be no ambiguity here. I'd like to hear your response before I update this. Initium79

Could it be that the FBI has the correct picture, but that the BBC used it in error? That would be pretty sloppy of the BBC to interview person A, and then use person B's picture on the article thinking that they had made sure they were the same person. Of course, this article came out only days after 9/11 and things were moving pretty quickly.

I could see it happening if the BBC correspondant had turned in the story about the interview -- and then when publishing it the article they just used the picture from the FBI, convinced they were the same person.

"I think it should be clearly stated that it was the FBI who was mistaken and that they did not acknowledge or perhaps even become aware of their mistake until the suspect turned up alive"

Ok, my head is starting to spin, but I think this is backwards. My understanding is that the FBI had the right (guilty-dead) Waleed al-Shehri to begin with. Afterwards, (innocent-alive) Waleed al-Shehri showed up and was interviewed; the BBC mistakenly used the FBI image with their story. Also possible is that the FBI is mistakenly using a photo of (innocent-alive) Waleed al-Shehri when they should be using a picture of (dead-guilty) Waleed al-Shehri instead. I don't know how we can confirm either version without more info. I can dig around online for more info at a later time. --Quasipalm 14:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah we can speculate all day and still not get anywhere. I will completely remove all references to this issue and we can come back to it when we get more information.

Initium79

Message to Raul

Raul, I don't have time to sort through your post to separate any relevent information from stuff about osama standing next to bert or smoke demons coming out of the rubble, so I have removed it all. If you want to add a few things that are on topic (see title and introduction), please do so under the appropriate section. Initium79

Initium79 - I'm in the process of merging all the other 9/11 conspiracy theory articles into this one (as well as fixing the *NUMEROUS* double redirects). Right now, I'm just copying and pasting. Admittedly, that means this article is, at the present, a complete mess. However, all the relavant information is now available in this version of the article. Someone needs to go through and do a very hefty copyedit (mosly involving deleting the really outlandish stuff and pruning down on the tin-foil hattery) to put it into a reasonable shape. →Raul654 02:27, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

I do have one problem with this approach. All of the prior discussion is lost. I went through my contributions and all my links now direct to the top of the article page. I don't have a problem with having this page replace all the others, but the other pages including the talk page should be preserved somehow, like when vfd are completed and preserved. --Noitall 04:05, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

We had multiple disparate articles (that really should never have been created). The best thing we can do now is to clean it up as best we can, which means merging them into a single article. Unfortunatly, there's no easy (or good) way of handling the user-contributions problem; ditto for the talk pages (other than cutting and pasting them here too) →Raul654 04:10, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea what can be done on Wiki? Do the old talk and other pages exist somewhere that can be preserved as a record? Should I ask the Admin board? --Noitall 05:13, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

It's worth keeping an eye on some of the old articles, such as 9/11 U.S. complicity theories, where a few editors have been claiming title disputes (they don't like the term "conspiracy theory") for an extended period of time. I've restored some redirects but I'm not sure how long they'll last. Carbonite | Talk 16:06, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• Raul, I do like the idea of merging all information into one convenient location but this particular article deals only with popular claims of negligence, cover-up, and complicity of the US government. If someone is to do a hefty copyedit, I propose it should be you since this is your project. I would love to help but unfortunately I have no time right now. I'm sorry but I'm going to have to revert this page again.

Initium79

If you don't have time to fix the page, then don't mess with it please. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:01, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry but it is up to the person updating the article (that would be you) to ensure that the new material is relevent and in its proper place. Aliens, smoke demons and the like have no place in an article documenting popular theories of US negligence, cover-up and complicity. One thing I would be willing to consider is putting the content of this page into a new article with a more specific title. I am also open to other ideas, so long as the material here remains separate from the many obscure and less substantial theories. - Initium79

Ititium - you don't seem to understand that by removing the merged material from this article, you are creating two seperate version that will have to be manually put together. So instead of one big copyedit to prune down information, it essentially becomes a interlacing process which it MUCH harder to do correctly. If you don't want to do it, fine, but don't make it harder for the ones who want to. Stop reverting. →Raul654 23:38, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

No I'm afraid I don't understand. I see a lot of material that I personally have spend many hours sourcing and editing now being lumped in with complete garbage about aliens, smoke demons, evil bert, and such. This is admittedly the first an only page I have ever worked on here at wikipedia so I would appreciate it if you would fill me in. Thanks. - Initium79

I've gone through and given it a very hefty copyedit. This included removing the redundancy and the more outlandish claims (involvement by UFOs was my favorite). It's quite a bit better now, especially after losing a lot of pointless lists (because lists are a degenerate form of prose) →Raul654 00:37, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

That's good but I still don't understand why this article should contain anything about Israel or Saddam, aside from a brief note in the section dealing with less common theories. I believe the conspiracy that professors, members of congress, the mainstream press, and FBI assets are discussing should be distinguished from those made by lesser known, and even anonymous sources. So again, please explain. - Initium79

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion; however, just because you don't necessarily think they are worth mentioning doesn't mean that everyone agrees with you. Someone obviously took the time to write those sections. I've included in the merged versions the major theories (e.g, the ones I've heard of prior to reading this article) and excluded the ones that didn't pass the laugh test (UFOs, Osama and Bert, Osama and snapple, 'etc) I think that's a reasonable standard. →Raul654 01:01, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say other theories weren't worth mentioning, rather that they be separate from the material here which has a single, coherent focus. The conspiracy theory documented here is what the London Times and the LA Times just wrote articles on, what Popular Mechanics dedicated an article to debunking, what was the subject of multiple books featured on CSPAN's Book TV, and the subject of a recent capital hill meeting with representative Cynthia McKinney. I understand why it would be desirable to have all theories documented in one convenient location but in light of the massive attention this particular theory has been given, I think it is unreasonable not to distinguish it from so many other theories.

Initium79

I'm not quite sure which one you are referring to. I must have removed 2 dozen conspiracy theories. Can you be more specific as to which one oyu are referring to? →Raul654 02:43, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

At least for me, part of the problem is solved. Talk page discussion is preserved at Talk:9/11 Bush Administration complicity theory. I suppose that it is too much to hope that the old edit history was preserved somewhere. --Noitall 03:35, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Update, it's all there. I am happy :) I don't mind if someone wants to lock that page and preserve it. I agree that there should not be 20 million articles on this subject. --Noitall 03:38, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

The theory I'm referring to specifically deals with cover-up, negligence, and complicity on the part of the US federal government. Again, given the mainstream discussion of this theory, I think its only fair for it to be distinguished from the others. Actually the title of the article was never really accurate. The information here mostly presented inconsistancies in the official story, corrected common misinforation, and highlighted details supportive of some sort of conspiracy. Several possibilities were mentioned but the exact nature of conspiracy was never elaborated on. Maybe this article is better suited for your purposes but I would atleast like to relocate the material to another article.

Initium79

Merging 9/11 domestic complicity conspiracy theories

I'm interested in reasons why 9/11 domestic complicity conspiracy theories should or should not be merged into the main article. Are there any reasons why that article should be stand-alone? In my opinion, it's much better to have all 9/11 conspiracy theories included in the main article. It's simpler for readers to have one article and also allows editors to concentrate their efforts rather than on articles spread all across Wikipedia. Thoughts? Carbonite | Talk 05:17, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

The theory I'm referring to specifically deals with cover-up, negligence, and complicity on the part of the US federal government. Again, given the mainstream discussion of this theory, I think its only fair for it to be distinguished from the others. Actually the title of the article was never really accurate. The information here mostly presented inconsistancies in the official story, corrected common misinforation, and highlighted details supportive of some sort of conspiracy. Several possibilities were mentioned but the exact nature of conspiracy was never elaborated on. Maybe this article is better suited for your purposes but I would atleast like to relocate the material to another article.

Initium79

Agreed; put them all together. Partisans for various conspiracy theories always think their conspiracy theory is the legitimate one, but Wikipedia shouldn't decide that some are "special". Jayjg ^(talk) 16:53, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok I guess you're not reading anything I'm writing here Jayig. I don't think it's special, the LA Times, Guardian, London Times, and Popular Mechanics do. Atleast 3 former members of the Bush administration also think its special and Rep. Cythia McKinney thought it was special enough for a congressional briefing. Do what you want but I honestly think this is a disservice to wikipedia. I will be creating a new article, that does not deal with conspiracy, documenting the cover-ups and misinformation surrounding 9/11.

Initium79

"Partisans for various conspiracy theories always think their conspiracy theory is the legitimate one" - firstly, not neccessarily true, and certainly not valid after first applying ad hominem fallacy with the word "partisan" If indeed this first word applied indefininetly then this whole collection of articles should be deleted. Furthermore, if this were a valid a priori assumption then any article which may or may not be legitimate, because some people will neccessarily believ that article to be the more probable explanation (and everyone will neccessarily, ofcourse, choose one over the others), they are therefore, "partisan", and those articles, should, as well, be deleted, under this logic.

and if wikipedia shouldnt' decide that certain articles are "special", than indeed wikipedia should not decide that the article on "George W. Bush" is special, simply because he is the president of the United States. There is certainly an article about George W. Bush and not one about my mother because George W. Bush, as the president is in some respect that my mother isn't "special", specifically in that he holds a position of great executive power. But you suggest that this is wrong - that wikipedia shouldn't decide that certain subjects are "special". i disagree. As much as I love my mother, I would sooner write about George W. Bush in an encyclopedia than her. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 02:01, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

I strongly object to the merge. Really bad move. The Domestic Foreknowledge/Complicity theory is the only credible one. By dumping it in with the silly "Jewish Connection" theory, what is actually a credible, plausible theory of 9/11 as a Reichstag Fire gets tarred as anti-semitic-by-association. Classic disinformation. It's the same trick pulled with the Kennedy assassination: by giving equal time to wild, loony theories about freemasons and Soviet spies, the actual, plausible theory -- a CIA coup d'etat -- gets mixed in with all the crazy stuff. I do have to hand it to the disinfo artists: brilliantly cynical.

I suggest that the articles be unmerged. -- James

Interesting observation: the "conspiracy theories" [pejorative] get lumped together so as to make them all look crazy as a whole. Meanwhile, the conspiracies themselves are kept separate from the main "official" article, like the lunatic relative being locked in the attic during dinner. This is the case for articles on 9/11 and all the Kennedy assassinations. Again, a brilliantly cynical tactic puts up a wall with the "decent" version of history on one side, and an incongruous, contradictory mish-mash of theories -- including the plausible, credible one -- lumped together on the other side. This is simply not fair. -- James

Cleanup / Copyedit

After substantial changes, this article has become a bit of a mess. I added the clean up and copyedit tags in hopes that it'll draw more attention to this article. I will help with these tasks when I have the time. --Quasipalm 13:57, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah this edit essentially amounts to vandalism, I'll be moving elsewhere. Initium79

Quasipalm seems to be misunderstanding what the purpose of the cleanup and copyedit tags are. Clean up is used to tag content that is badly formatted, totally unwikified 'etc. They are added to an article that is copied and pasted from public domain source. They are not appropriate on this article. →Raul654 19:52, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Nonesense. Wikifty Template:Wikify is used for articles that need wikified. (That's pretty obvious.) Cleanup is general purpose and used for cases in which an article has problems that need more general attention. This is one of those articles. Copyedit is used for gramatical problems, of which I've noticed quite a few. I'll have more time to work on these issues later. --Quasipalm 20:34, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

War Games

The recent merge/vandalism decimated the information in the former 9/11 domestic complicity conspiracy theories article relating to the war games and disaster drills that "coincidentally" took place on the morning of 9/11, as well as the stand-down order. The article as-is is heavily skewed towards the Israeli/Jewish involvement theories, which amount to a red herring. Also missing is Mike Ruppert's indictment of Dick Cheney as the man in charge of the coincidental war games on 9/11.

This article has been ruined.

Sounds like sour grapes -- you're upset because your pet theories aren't placed on a higher level than the others presented here. Is that what you're saying? --Quasipalm 01:40, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Sour grapes? The work that guy contributed is gone, that sounds like a legitimate gripe to me Quasi. You guys are shameless; you come in here without consulting anyone, turn the page into a incoherent mess, make mass deletions of sourced material, add a wealth of unfounded bs, then you have the audacity to say "sounds like sour grapes"? You know, it seems to me that your own POV is undermining your ability to objectively edit this article, and it's turned you into a bit of a prick as well. Initium79

Quasi, no, it isn't sour grapes; "sour grapes" is when someone fails to achieve something and then decides after the fact that the goal was not worthy in the first place, to cover up their failure. Get the fable right before you use it in a clumsy attempt at mockery. You have deliberately ruined an article on an alternative position on 9/11. All the talk and sources and research have been jumbled in with the "Israeli Connection" fairy tale. My point stands -- you're attempting to make the plausible, credible 9/11 conspiracy look loony by putting it next to anti-semitic theories. Cheap shot. Real cheap. Plus you took out all references to Michael Ruppert, Cynthia McKinney and their investigation into the 9/11 war games, which is the most damning evidence against the official story. -- James

Might I point out that I'm not the one that merged the articles? And for christ's sake, calm down, I make one comment and you are all over me. Before calling me a prick, Initium79, make sure that I'm actually the one that changed the article. (And to make it very clear, I wasn't.) All I did was copyedit the post-merge page. Jerks. --Quasipalm 17:15, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, I wasn't aware that someone's additions were gone, which of course changes my opinion about the merge. Still, you might want to find out who actually did the merging before you jump all over me about it. --Quasipalm 17:19, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

This isn't about you Quasi, if you didn't know what you were saying, then obviously scratch what I said. I'm going to say what the other guy said: the work here is being sabotaged, either by intention or ignorance of the subject. It is true that there are many alternative views on 9/11, and it is true that each view should be represented here. However, a POV must be reprented proportionlly. For example, I agree that the official 9/11 story should have precedence over all alternative views. Further, I believe that more prominant theories with contiguous supporting information should have precedence over more obscure ideas. What has happened here is the reverse; obscure and unsourced material has taken precidence over well documented inconsistancies in the official story and this is unacceptable. Let the chips fall where they may, but don't count on my cooperation. Initium79

I agree, not all theories are created equal. What I was originally saying is that a singal user can't expect everyone to agree that their single pet theory should be held above all others. Perhaps I didn't make that clear. As for the merge, yes, I can see why you aren't happy about it. Perhaps someone can wade through the history and find out who did it so we can ask them why. --Quasipalm 18:08, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Un-Merge

Is it possible to unmerge this disaster of a hodgepodge? Alternately, can a complaint be issued?

I would suggest putting up a RFC. --Quasipalm 17:20, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Claim added by anon ip

The following was added by an anon IP user in this: [1]

The person who actually said this was the WTC Construction and Project Manager, Frank A. DeMartini, and he said: The building was designed to have a fully loaded Boeing 707 crash into it (note that a Boeing 707 is about the same size as the Boeing 767s that hit the towers). That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain MULTIPLE IMPACTS OF JETLINERS because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door,... this intense grid,... and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. IT REALLY DOES NOTHING TO THE SCREEN NETTING.

I moved it here to address some issues. First, the latter half has tone problems. Please remember that this is an encyclopedia, and shouting is best left off. Also, the conversational delivery is not the best way to provide factual, unbiased reporting. Second, the claim that a 707 is equivalent to a 767 is not quite accurate. The gross weight of the 707 is 160,000lbs according to this. The 767 has a gross weight of 450,000 lbs according to this. Please cite your sources and reword your addition to meet wiki writing style, POV, and accuracy. Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:10, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

New Merge

I want the old material from this page to be merged with the material from the domestic conspiracy article. There is no reason that these two articles should remain separate. If the israeli/saddam/smoke demon/alien theories must be added to this article as well, then they need to be briefly summarized at the end of the article. Initium79

you are entitled to your own opinion, but the discussion is on the talk page for said article, in which you msut discuss facts and reasons regarding merge, and in which the consensus will determine the course of action. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 14:57, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

The vast majority of people on this page have already expressed a desire to see the artilces merged, despite Kevin's sneaky tactics. →Raul654 16:20, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea what your refering to as "the vast majority", nor have I slightest clue what you mean to refer to by "sneaky tactics" in regards me. I have been perfectly out in the open, soliciting people for their positions and reasoning on multiple discussion pages, explaining the need for due process (due process is completely antithetical to "sneaky tactics"), explaing my actions clearly on summaries, etc, etc. I can't fathom how any of my actions can be construed to be "sneaky", or even "tactics" for that matter: enforcing due process and working towards consensus is certainly no way to push an agenda of any sort. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 16:33, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Not so much an opinion as a proposal. If people want to see a merge, we should merge the domestic theory article with this one. After that is done we can discuss how best to deal with the remaining articles. Does anyone object to this idea? Is the domestic theory article recoverable? Lets discuss, that's what I've been promoting from the beginning.Initium79

Good. I agree. Traditionally, the discussion takes place on the talk page of the page to be merged, in this case Talk:9/11 domestic complicity conspiracy theories, which really needs a shorter, more direct name, IMHO. I've been trying to get a discussion there, but there are a few contributors who haven't been discussing it, but rather have been orphaning the discussion page, even removing the content and redirecting it to the page to be merged to. - And also blanking the content of the article. Obviously one can't merge the content if it's not there anymore.

So ya, I stand corrected: proposal. We're promoting the same thing: discussion. :) Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 04:54, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

The discussion has concluded, and the article been merged. There's no patience for hostage-taken articles any more, Kevin, this has been going on for months now. And please stop pretending the article has been "deleted" or the content has been "removed", as it was merged here, and is always available in history anyway. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:22, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Nobody discussed anything with me, nobody discussed anything on this page at all. There are a number of people who have issues with the way your "consensus" is being implemented Jay. Lets be reasonable here and merge the domestic conspiracy article into this one while we continue to discuss the legitimacy and nature of your consensus, its a nice compromise and will get things moving forward. Unfortunately I can't seem to locate the old material from the domestic theory article. We need to recover everything from that article regardless of how we will proceed. Whoever was attempting to merge it left out a few things so we can't simply grab the text from the history of this article. Initium79

The information from page has been merged, and you can find anything else in the history of that page. Jayjg ^(talk) 09:24, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Zionist Conspiracy

I have information for the theory that Zionists were behind the attacks. Here is the full transcript of the show on BBC 4 Storyville "House of Saud" [2]

These words in particular should be pointed out:

ADEL AL JUBEIR: As soon as the Bush administration came into office, we had discussions with them about the American policy in the region. We were urging the United States to get engaged in the peace process. And when there was an escalation of violence and the president was asked about Sharon's actions, his response was perceived in the region as a signal to Sharon that he could do whatever he wanted.

Pres. GEORGE W. BUSH: The Israelis will not negotiate under terrorist threats! It's as simple as that. And if the Palestinians are interested in a dialogue, then I strongly urge Mr. Arafat to put 100 percent effort into solving the terrorist activity, into stopping the terrorist activity. And I believe he can do a better job of doing that.

ADEL AL JUBEIR: And at that point, the crown prince sent a very powerful message to the president, "It is obvious that you have decided to support Sharon, irrespective of what the consequences are to American policy or to your interests or to the interests of your friends. You're a sovereign country. You can do whatever you want. We are now in a position where we have to take actions that serve our interests without any regard to how they may affect your interests."

Prince AMR AL FAISAL, Great-Grandson of King Abdul Aziz: And the letter to President Bush merely is a reflection of his character, of his willingness to challenge the United States. "We can't take this anymore. We have had it up to here. Either you be more fair, more equitable in your dealings with the Arab world, or we will simply find a different arrangement than the one we are having with the United States. We can no longer have the same kind of relationship that we have had for the last sixty years."

ADEL AL JUBEIR: And within 24 hours, we had a response from the president to the crown prince, in which the president laid out his vision for the Middle East: two states, shared Jerusalem, just settlement of the refugee issue, in very clear terms. And he said, "But we can only do that if we can stop the violence." The crown prince responded to the president and said, "This is a positive step, and you need to articulate this publicly." And the president agreed to do so two or three days before September 11th.

Hence anyone who knew this prace plan was to happen and was opposed to it could order the hijackers to attack and stop the peace plan.

It has also not been said that Larry Silverstein, the principal of Silverstein Properties (lessee of the World Trade Center) and friend of Rupert Murdock (right-wing media baron) for his aid commit a multi-billion dollar insurance fraud, redounding to Silverstein’s benefit; and two other pro-zionist figures Rupert Murdock and had bought the twin towers and insured them for $3.6 Billion Dollars. [3]

I cannot find the source but it is also mention that there was a the that Netanyahu, the former PM of Israel, was warned about the 7/7 attacks in London by Mossad. And of course some of the newspapers that Rupert Murdock owns coicedentally launched books about attack ons London on the day or week of the attack.

Please comment here why it was removed. I can understand that it can still be debated, but not why it can be removed without questionning.

The entire inclusion was POV, and the information that was actually properly sourced and NPOV is already mentioned here. Jayjg ^(talk) 09:28, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

NPOV is not there. The Article should at least say What the Zionist Conspiracy theory is. And the US case is a "Fact" not a theory! --Courageous 09:54, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Bring the suggested section here please, so the issues with it can be examined. Jayjg ^(talk) 09:53, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

What issues need examining? --Courageous 09:54, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Pretty much all of it; why don't you start a new section in Talk: with your proposed addition, and we'll go through all of it, showing the issues. Jayjg ^(talk) 10:01, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I found the link. I suggest to debate while the article is up.

"What is mentioned above"

According to sources in the Saudi Royal family Crown Prince (now King) Abdullah of Saudi Arabia had urged President Bush to do something about the Middle-east. After refusing and then being threatened by Abdullah Bush's cabinet proposed the Israel-Palestine Two-state solution. Abdullah welcomed this peace plan and asked that it be made public. Bush agreed and the press conference announcing the plan was set to a date shortly after 9/11 [4].

Powerful Zionists, who opposed this plan, which requires Israelis to give up control of large areas to Palestine, had knowledge of this press release. It has then been suggested that, wanting to stop the plan and gain sympathy for Israel, they ordered the hijackers to attack.

"The theory"

Larry Silverstein and Rupert Murdock, two prominent pro-Zionist figures, are accused in a court case filed in the US by William Rodriguez as having concealed the crimes involving WTC [5]. Larry Silverstein is further accused of committing multi-million dollar fraud.

There is a further report, and subsequent cover up, of five dancing Israelis on the day of 9/11. Who reportedly say "We are Israelis. We are not your problem. Your problems are our problems. The Palestinians are your problem." [6]

Another report by Associated Press in Jerusalem Benjamin Netanyahu, former PM of Israel, was forewarned by his embassy, of the coming 7/7 attacks on London and told not to attend a meeting at Liverpool Street. Israel denies knowing of the attacks and reports that British Intelligence services warned Netanyahu although British Intelligence also denies knowledge of the attacks and also of having forewarned Netanyahu. [7] [8].

Further proof of Conspiracy

It has also been reported that the day of the 7/7 attacks also coincided with the G8 summit held in the UK. One of the topics on this meeting was Three billion dollars of aid earmarked for Palestinians.

Courageous, you seem to be engaged in original research. If you want to make these claims, please find a reputable source that says precisely what you're saying, so that it can go in the article with no elaboration on our part; and without creating an original synthesis of material. See Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:15, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

I have links to reliable sites regarding what is desired. Break down your arguement. I quote Surah Al-A’rāf (The Heights) 7:29 from the Quran. “Say to them “My Lord enjoins justice: and that you set your faces aright at the time of every prayer; and that you call on him, exclusively dedicating your faith to him. You shall return to him as you were created.””

Okay, I'm afraid that's not what we call a reliable source. In addition to the above, please also see Wikipedia:Reliable sources. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:29, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

And please see your talk page: you've violated 3RR. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:31, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

You have not yet broken down your argument. BBC 4 Storyville and PBS are undeniable reliable sources. The US case is fact and is quoted from "William Rodriguez's" website and hence is also a reliable source. Larry Silverstein multi-million pound compenstation claim has been in the press for some time and is also a reliable source.

From what I saw of your edit, it seems you're adding a claim here and there, then joining the dots yourself. We're not allowed to do that. If you want to claim that Zionists were behind 9/11 (or whatever), you'll have to find a credible source (e.g. Washington Post) that says, precisely, "Zionists were behind 9/11," followed by a citation, with no elaboration on your part. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:42, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

I apologise for introducing something that is without good reference I did not realise these were WP rules. That does not explain why SlimVirgin and Jayjg have removed the legitimate quotes. The one of Silverstein deserves mention and is a fact. The one on the "House of Saud" program is a fact. BBC 4 Storyville and PBS are undeniable reliable sources. The one from India Daily is also a good source and is fact. SlimVirgin could have reworded the article instead of just removing it. I retract what I said before SlimVirgin is not a good arbitrator for Jayjg and I as he or she has ruled, in one way or another, on Palestine and Israel issues in the past, for instance he or she even confesses the Judea and Samaria. A good arbitrator would be one who has not previously ruled in favour of one side or the other.

What I suggest is going on here can be referened by the following in the Quran:

Surah Al A’raf (The Heights) 7: (159) "Among the people of Moses there is a party who guide others in the way of the truth and establish justice in its light."

-Also it says the following

(162) "Then the wrong-doers among them substituted another word in place of the one told them. So We sent upon them a scourge from the heaven as a punishment for their wrong-doing."

What I am suggesting here is that a party of Jews lie and a party tells the truth. The references I would site for proving these verses are Jews against Zionism Movement [9] and Norman Finkelstein.

Can SlimVirgin and Jayjg say in fairness that the other 9/11 conspiracy theories on this page require or have had the same sort of vetting as this article has--Courageous 17:47, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Can you provide an encyclopedic source which outlines this entire conspiracy theory? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:48, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

This is the strength of the Zionist media machine: "The Zionists demolished everything BUT deliberately left synagogues standing in Gaza knowing that the Palestinians have no use for them and that they will have to demolish them. Now the Media is beaming pictures all over the world of Palestinians destroying synagogues." --Courageous 14:06, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Rather than repeating your own personal conspiracy theories about Zionists, could you please provide encyclopedic sources which outlines the entire conspiracy theory you keep trying to insert onto the page? Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:21, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Removal (and RV) of War Games Section!

User:Jayjg removed the entire section on the War Games taking place on the morning of 9/11. The edit summary listed it as a minor edit that, "removed remaining POV." That's not fair, and it looks like an attempt to erase any reference to those drills. I've reverted this change. The War Games section is crucial to understanding many 9/11 theories. -- James

Yes and good work. Of course it must remain in the article and it is not open to debate. There is a lot of concern about Jayig's contributions on a whole number of articles currently, we may have to regretfully accept that Jimbo has made an error of judgement.

"WTC leaseholder Larry Silverstein recalled telling firefighters to "pull" building 7"

Can someone explain the logic of this being categorized under "Demonstrably false claims and theories".

1) As Silverstein is not mentioned elsewhere on the page other than under that heading it is completely abstract which claim it is offering to debunk

2) It is not specific enough within any bounds of logic or argument what "Demonstrably false" means.

Other than an uncited denial put forward later by Silversteine, the paragraph demonstrates how it remains open to interpretation what 'pull' meant. It is does not for example, conclude or demonstrate that a demolition of WTC 7 never occured and it does not demonstrate that by 'pull' he meant evacuate.

It makes sense where it is because Silverstein himself clarified what he meant by 'pull.' As such, it is wrong to think that he meant pull as blow-up. --Quasipalm 13:17, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, firefighters often use the term "pull" as in "pull the firefighting crew from the building" when a building is considered unsafe. --Cberlet 13:31, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

That option doesn't make the claim demonstrably false, which is a logical rationalization to disprove something

Well can we change it to "demonstrably absurd" then? Think about what you're saying: you're saying that Larry Silverstien said to PBS in an interview that he told firefighters to destroy by way of explosives the WTC 7 building. How can that be reasonable in any way? Please, I'm sympathetic to a lot of conspiracy theorists, but to claim that he: 1) Would want to destroy his own (leased) buildings 2) Would talk about it on on an interview on PBS 3) Would hire NYFD to destroy the building (not to mention that they would play along, and above all other ridiculousness would send their own fire-fighters into a building that they were about to blow-up at the request of Silverstien). And last but not least: not a single person involved with this grand scheme ever became a whistle-blower, and no one was the wiser (until Silverstien talked about it on PBS of course). I'm sorry if I don't understand, but I don't know how much more absurd this nonsense could be.

I think there is too much space given to too much detail about Silverstein's pull-it relative to other facts on this page. While many people hear that statement and it *convinces* them that he ordered the demolition, that statement isn't scientific nor able to ever be proved to mean anything, and therefore cannot be used in either a court of law or a lab -- it's just something he said and only he really knows what it means. I continually move his 'section' to the bottom because the other evidence for demolition - the actual physical evidence - is far stronger in the long run in terms of anything *real*. Yes the pull-it remark is exciting and important. But what people who are mesmerized by the 'pull-it' remark need to understand is that this is how disinformation works: you can spend the rest of your life going round in circles saying 'But. . . but . . . he said it!', and you will be nowhere after 10 years of saying 'But. . . but . . . he said it!', especially when he himself can just refute it. This is what disinformation *is*, stuff to keep researchers treading water for the next 5 decades so no one looks at the strongest evidence, as Steven Jones is trying to expose.Bov 19:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

"Demonstrably false claims and theories" section

This section gives a good neutral overview - giving a fair hearing to both sides of the argument. But its title was very biased. I've retitled this section "contested claims and theories." That way, Wikipedia isn't stating from the outset that the claims are false. Instead, it's now stating from the outset that there's disagreement, presenting both sides of the argument, and allowing the readers to make up their own minds. Blackcats 04:41, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I've reverted the section title. There is such a thing as factual information. The fact that Larry Silverstein clarified his comment and the fact that Minoru Yamasaki was dead before 2001 are not things you can disagree with. These are facts, not POV. This section shows that these claims are by logic false. Saying "The Earth is round" in not pov. --69.44.116.57 14:43, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Incorrect and a bad analogy. A verbal denial does not demonstrate an event did not occur, moreover "The Earth is round" is a scientific demonstratable fact independently verifiable by maths, physics etc. The circumstances around 9/11 are way too complex and political to accept prima facie a post-event denial. This cannot be compared to "The Earth is round" at all and I agree with the original poster's criticism and with Blackcat's very sensible action. As far as I recall several experts such as Prof. David Ray Griffin don't accept the denial either and many have concluded the denial exacerbates the conspiracy theories. "Demonstrably false claims and theories" remains an incorrect heading and we need to revert back to Blackcat's edit.

I suspect a problem some are getting lost on is this: demonstrably false is a powerful sounding term if one is not familiar with it, yet with very small criteria to meet. It does not mean the same thing as false; indeed demonstrably false is not the same as provably false.

It is however thrown about in the media and an awful lot of blogs even to confront a particular political viewpoint or policy ambition. It suggests science and absolutes but really just means logic. And it is a somewhat misused term; when people say something is demonstrably false more often than not, it would be helpful to say I'm challenging this assertion with this data.

Equally, many alternative news sources can gather evidence and claim that the official story of 9/11 is demonstrably false based on that data, ironically that is exactly how it is being applied in the circumstances of Larry Silverstein's clarification/fudge thing within the article, which needs a link and context btw.

A better term, that doesn't rely on clichés, pseudo-science and logical argument posing as fact would be "Specific claims that have been rebutted".

In any event I feel that section needs work and explanation as it is just a blob of unstructured info at the moment.

I've changed it now so that the title is "Specific claims that others claim to have proven false." It's not the most eloquent to be sure, but at least it's an accurate discription. "Demonstrably false" is rhetoric, and there's no agreement that either of those two serious claims have been rebutted. Obviously nobody is still claiming (if they ever did claim) that Minoru Yamasaki was still alive on/after 9/11. But that doesn't negate that he did say "We designed the towers to take multiple 707 jet strikes." He simply said that several years before 9/11 happened. So any section whose title states that the claims are known to be false must restrict itself just to the claim that he was still alive on/after 9/11/01, and not try to through the baby out with the bath water or use a sleight of hand to give the impression that the more serious claimss have been rebutted when really only the straw man has been knocked down.

Likewise, with Larry Silverstien, its obvious that the fire department didn't wire building seven to be demolished in a matter of a few hours on 9/11. For one the FD doesn't do that sort of thing, and for two it takes much longer to set up. Nobody believes that the decision was made in consulation with the FD on that day. What 9/11 Truth people do believe is that the building was wired well in advance of 9/11 and that the FDNY had nothing to do with it, and that Silverstien accidently spilled the beans and admitted that it was a controlled demolition in the proccess of trying to make up an akward and lousy cover story. And then obviously he denyed that "pull" meant demolish, so he came up with another lousy cover story that it meant "pull the fire fighters out of the building," even though there weren't any in the building then. It's pretty clear when you take a look at the actual arguments and evidence, once you get past all the spin and obfuscation, but the "debunker" people lay a thick coat of primer by yelling "kook," "conspiracist," and the like a bunch of times, then knock down a few straw men, and people think they've rebutted the allegations.

At any rate though, other than the fact that Mr Yamasaki died before 9/11 and that the FDNY didn't wire building 7 at the spur of the moment on 9/11/01, none of the claims in that section is "demonstrably false." Blackcats 23:55, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, although I added the section and its contents, I agree. I don't much like the alternative title you have chosen, I'll see if I can't think of a better one. Initium79

Ok, I changed the title of the section to "potentially false claims." I also removed some redundant info covered in the wtc section about the nature of the the collapse of building 7. Also, instead of referring to Silverstein's claim as "somewhat ludicrous", I chose "highly ambiguous" for balance. Initium79

Wasn't satisfied with my change in the section title, hope this is better, this is a tough one. Initium79

Yamasaki

I removed a paragraph elaborating on the ability of the towers to withstand impact of planes. I can appreciate what the author was driving at, however any expert opinion contrary to the offical story would be more appropriately placed in the wtc section. Initium79

If the content should be moved, then move it, don't delete it! I'll try to properly reintegrate the text. Blackcats 21:18, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

"Less Common Theories" section

This section currently includes the theory of involvement by Iraq. But this theory is actually one of the most common ones, and has gotten much more attention from the mainstream media than most of the others on this page. I'm gonna move it up in the article to a new section on the official story as a "conspiracy theory." Blackcats 21:18, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

More thoughts on the "contested theories" section

I'm thinking now of moving the discussion of Yamasaki's comments out of this section and into the WTC section, and of course still including the note that any claims or rumors that he made those comments on or after 9/11 are obviously false. Because once it's established that Mr. Yamasaki wasn't alive on 9/11, I don't think his comments are really any more disputed than any of the others discussed in this article.

The remaining section would then deal exclusively with interpertations the "pull it" quote, and therefore could be retilted something like "Silverstien's 'pull it' comments." And this would avoid any npov issues with regard to the section title.

Blackcats 22:41, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Keep in mind that Alex Jones quotes a living Yamasaki in his new movie so apparently not everyone is aware of this guy's ...deadness. Initium79

I also agree this is a good idea. Yamasaki's quote could probably be just a few short sentences, I don't think this is a serious concern for most reasonable people. (Alex Jones is pretty extreme, I think.) The pull comments obviously are more of a hot-button issue, so it could be its own section. I think the current section title ("hotly contested ...") is absurd because almost everything on this page is "hotly contested." The whole idea of the original section was that these claims didn't hold much water even amongst conspiracy theorists, I believe. --Quasipalm 18:28, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I actually went back and watched the Martial Law DVD last night. At about 1:04 is where he mentions Mr. Yamasaki. I wrote down Jone's exact words: "The architecht of the World Trade Center towers, Minoru Yamasaki, told the press many times before 9/11 that he specifically designed the towers to take massive passenger jet linere impacts." (my emphasis) He in no way states that the man was alive on or after 9/11. In fact the only factual error I found in the film was where he noted a report that bin Laden had gone for treatment at a US hospital in "Dubai, Pakistan" (Dubai really in UAE). Blackcats 07:52, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Claims about Jews and Zionists section

The template at the top of this talk page states that "This is a controversial topic, which may be disputed. Please read this talk page discussion before making substantial changes."

Jayjg totally violated that by removing all the existing content regarding claims about jews (as a group)/zionists/israel, and replacing it with his own much expanded content. (He may have actually followed the letter of what the template said and read everything, but the spirit of what it means is clearly that major changes should be discussed here first.) I've gone ahead and restored the previous content, and moved all the new stuff to a different article.

The size of the discussion of theories about jews/israel in this main article shouldn't exceed its actual proportional prominence within the mainstream of the 9/11 Truth Movement. To do otherwise would be POV in trying to smear the movement as "antisemitic."

To use an analogy, lets say thirty people put forth 14 different theories as to how Martians were actually responsible for 9/11. If each of these 14 claims were individually discussed here, it would give the impression that Martian claims were just as prominent within the 9/11 Truth Movement as WTC demolition claims, which would clearly not be true. If anything, the Martian claims would be so insignificant that the main article should only discuss them all in a sentence or two - if at all.

While that's obviously a somewhat exagerated analogy, the fact remains that none of the major figures questioning the official story of 9/11 - David Ray Griffin, Alex Jones, Michael Ruppert, Jim Hoffman, Paul Thompson, Jared Israel, etc. - postulate that there was a Jewish, Zionist, or Israeli conspiracy behind 9/11. The latter, Mr. Jared Israel, who was one of the very first to publicly state that 9/11 was an inside job [10], is in fact a Zionist and strong supporter of Israel [11] - a fact which I noted and cited in the article, but which Jayjg removed without any prior discussion here.

Blackcats 08:20, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Right, so why was this information, which used to be in the article, deleted on September 9?[12] Anyway, you don't get to decide what the "major figures questioning the official story" are. The fact remains that at least a billion people think that Jews/Israel/Zionist were behind it, so this needs to be addressed in the main article, and your section was almost pure original research that didn't deal with the claims, used completely unencyclopedic sources, and poisoned the well regarding Jared Israel. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

A billion people? Where? Certainly not in the United States.

I appologize for the delay in my reply, I've been busy for the past several days. I find it quite ironic Jay that you accuse me and other editors here of "original research" and then rattle off the astounding "billion" figure, seemingly out of thin air, without citing any sources. Perhaps there's some study I haven't heard about... At any rate though, it's not me who has decided who the major figures are. It can be fairly objectively detirmined that someone like Michael Ruppert or David Ray Griffin, whose books have sold many thousands of copies, is much more of a major figure than some Joe Schmo who posts a blog on some website screaming that "the Jews did it!"

I also find it ironic that you accuse me of "poisoned the well" with regard to Jared Israel. Though I don't agree with all of his ideology, I have a lot of respect for him and his colleagues and their work. Perhaps you'd like to elaborate on that accusation. It's ironic that you would accuse me of "poisoning the well" though because that's precisely what it seems like you're trying to do here by wanting to give such promient coverage to the anti-Semitic fringe of the movement.

At any rate, I'm going to restore the section as a summary and move most of the other stuff back to the daughter article - where it belongs. Blackcats 03:26, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Right, not a billion in the United States. Of course, the U.S. is not the world, yet the article itself has become extremely U.S. centric, hasn't it? Wikipedia is supposed to be an international encyclopedia, but most people around the world have never heard of the people mentioned in this article, though they sure have heard "Jews did WTC" or similar claims. And please sign your comments. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:54, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay, first of all, "a billion" is a wild guess that attempts to capture the pervasiveness of that particular theory within parts of the Muslim world. Second, I don't think a theory, no matter how widely held, that is fueled by ethnic or religious hatred should be treated with the same critical patience as one arrived at by exhaustive research. For example, Cynthia McKinney held hearings on 9/11 "conspiracy theories" in Congress. The theories that were examined and scrutinized in those hearings were not the wild ravings about "the Jews" and "Israeli Connection," but the work of Michael Ruppert and other researchers whose careful, patient investigations led in an entirely different direction: domestic complicity. The theories about "the Jews" -- though widespread in the Muslim world -- are simply not as credible as the domestic complicity theory. If we are to include the theories about the involvement of "the Jews," then the section on such theories should clearly indicate that they are held primarily in the Muslim world, and not by most U.S. 9/11 researchers.

The annonomous/IP editor makes a really important point. Claims and evidence which are taken seriously by members of the US Congress are objectively more notable than biggotted bloggery or rummors published in some Arab newspaper shortly after 9/11. Blackcats 03:26, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

It's not all about what the U.S. Congress says or reviews; that is an incredibly U.S. centric view for what is supposed to be an international encyclopedia. In the real world outside Congress, the view that Jews did it is extremely popular, and has not gone away. An opinion poll commissioned by the Pakistani Web site, http://www.Paknews.com, reported that 71 percent of respondents thought it was a "possible fact" that 4,000 Jews failed to report to work on September 11 because they had advance warning of the terrorist attacks. The claims were published in all sorts of newspapers in many countries and transmitted on other official media, not just blogs.[13] And it hasn't stopped; for example, the deputy editor of Egyptian government daily published an article making these claims in mid-2004[14], imams making similar pronouncements in 2005[15], many leading Arab and Muslim papers making the same claims.[16]. And by the way, not that it's relevent, but designation Jared Israel as a "Zionist" is pure original research. If it ever becomes relevant in the future, please find some reputable source describing him that way, rather than deciding for yourself what his political views are based on some dubious website. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:41, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

The September 11th attack was made against the United States. Thus, U.S. perceptions of that event are more relevant to the article than perceptions that may prevail in other countries. For another example, whose perception of the recent London tube bombing is more relevant: that of Londoners or that of Chicagoans? Whose perception of the Battle of Stalingrad is more important: Russians or Brazilians? The perceptions of those whom the event primarily affected are more important than third party perceptions.

First of all, stating that something is a "possible fact" isn't quite the same as believing that something is in fact the case based on (what at least one feels is) good evidence. With the current intensity (and intense media coverage) of the Palestine-Israel conflict, it's not that surprising that there would be a fair ammount of hostility towards Jews in general and Israelis in particular in the Arab and Muslim worlds - as unfortunate as that is. It's therefore not that surprising that you could do some poll where a large percentage of people would say that it's "possible" that "the Jews" did it, or at least had prior knowledge, without having any good reason to believe that that's actually the case.

Second, regarding Mr. Israel, tenc.net is his organization's website, so in no way is it a "dubious" means of detirmining his viewpoints on this or any other subject. I have replaced "zionist" with "a strong supporter of Israel" though, since the latter is less ambigous. Mr. Israel is the original source of much of the work of David Ray Griffin, Nafeez Mosadeq Ahmed, and other well known 9/11 researchers, so he certainly is relevant to this article, and it is noteworthy that he supports Israel, in contrast with other "9/11 conspiracy theorists" who oppose Israel.

Third, regarding the alleged American-centerism, the body of work that this article deals with is not primarilly American per-se, though it is mostly western in origin - North America and Europe. Nafeez Ahmed, whose The War On Freedom was one of the very first mass-distrubuted books opposing the official account of 9/11 and was a primary inspiration for David Ray Griffin's The New Pearl Harbor, lives in the UK. Other well known research has been done by Thierry Meyssan in France, Barry Zwicker in Canada, and Andreas von Bülow in Germany. There's nothing wrong with writing about the theories which are mostly predominant in the Arab and Muslim world, but it must be made clear in the article/s what their primary cultural and geographical context is. Care must also be taken to avoid (in your words) "poisoning the well" against the views of those in the 9/11 Truth Movement by conflating (intentionally or unintentionally) their beliefs with those of anti-semitic slanderers.

Ultimately, the best solution may be one where this article is entirely summary, and links to two separate articles. One would cover claims of US government complicity and/or coverup with regard to 9/11, which has been investigated by members of the US congress and has shown considerable support in polls conducted in New York, Canada,and Germany. The other would cover claims of complicity by Jews (as a group) and/or Israelis, which may have some widespread (though it seems mostly unsure and uninformed) support in the Arab and Muslim worlds but not so much support in the western world and rejection by leaders of the (mostly western) 9/11 Truth Movement.

Blackcats 23:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Considering that the U.S. response to 9/11 was to attack and overthrow the governments of Afghanistan and Iraq, I think world opinion, and particularly Arab and Muslim opinion would be relevant. Also, original research is original research - we don't decide what people are, we quote other people describing them that way. Finally, this page is not going to be an advertisement for your own organization, the 9/11 Truth Movement, and its views. I've ignored the fact that you've completely re-written the article to reflects the views of your organization, and attempted to take ownership of it. However, I do not accept your removing any relevant information simply because it is not of interest to your organizstion. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:13, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

To say that people are editing this article in favor of the 9/11 Truth Movement does not square with the reality of how this article has developed. Most of the relevant information removed has been stuff that actually supports the domestic complicity viewpoint favored by 9/11 Truth, and has had to be constantly reverted, like the war games on 9/11 and Cynthia McKinney's congressional briefing. Such links and sections are constantly vandalized, removed, watered down and/or removed on specious technicalities. And let's not forget that when the two articles were merged (against much protest) the domestic complicity angle lost a lot of information as it was jumbled in with the Israeli Connection sci-fi scenario. It actually seems like the editing bias is set on suppressing the 9/11 Truth viewpoint. -- James

And I'm not saying the Israeli Connection should not be included, as long as it's not dominant. But it should be clearly stated that many 9/11 researchers believe that the Israeli Connection theory is not credible and quite possibly deliberate disinformation designed to discredit the 9/11 Truth Movement by association with anti-semitism. -- James

On the topic of U.S. perceptions vs. world opinion, of course the opinions of the Muslim world should be included. But they should not be held on an equal footing with the domestic complicity theories supported by many American 9/11 researchers, for several reasons:

First, the "official" story of 9/11 is heavily U.S.-centric, for good reason: the victims, the survivors, the witnesses, the experts, the relatives, the rescuers, the architects, the eyewitness news reports and the government response were overwhelmingly in New York and Washington! 9/11 was a crime that took place on American soil. The investigations that matter the most, whether journalistic, criminal or intelligence investigations, are those that take place here. That's a fair practice that's taken for granted with the "official" story: the 9/11 Commision's Kean Report -- totally a U.S. government document released by a special U.S. government commission -- is so sacred in the "official" 9/11 story that it is regarded as certified, scientific, even biblical fact. But when it comes to the "conspiracy theories," we're supposed to suddenly drop the preference for U.S. sources. Sorry, that's bad scholarship. You wouldn't go to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution for the most relevant information on the Chernobyl disaster. Neither should anti-semitic rantings prevalent in the Muslim world be used as the standard of 9/11 dissent.

Second, we all know that the U.S. response to 9/11 was to invade Afghanistan and then Iraq. It is widely agreed that the latter had no actual connection to 9/11. The point is that it is still under debate whether there is any connection between 9/11 and the Muslim world at all, beyond the U.S. intelligence community's "evidence" and/or disinformation. Indeed, the main thrust of 9/11 research, which many editors of this article are attempting to hide or water down, is that 9/11 was perpetrated in order to scapegoat, villify, attack and occupy Afghanistan and Iraq. -- James

Is it just me or does the "Claims related to Jews and Israel" section make absolutely no logical or mathematical sense? If the death toll for Jewish/Israli victims was supposed to be (calculated) 7, and 5 were actually victims, then why all the fuss about it? Or am I completely missing something, even if I've read the section three times? -- Gtabmx (Nov 17 2005)

NPOV edits

When I see the phrase "one could reasonable conclude" in any article, I usually rewrite it to conform to Wiki guidlines to something like "some say." Many skeptics of the majority 9/11 explanation consider Alex Jones to be marginal and unreliable as an information source. I do not think I need permission to make changes such as these; but if folks want to dicuss every edit, then let's discuss them in a resonable manner--not by just reverting any edit authomatically.--Cberlet 18:29, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Again, my appologies for the delayed response. I would appreciate, and feel that it would be much more conducive to the collaborative and compromise-based editing and discussion, if you would edit by section. That way each section's changes can be evaluated and discussed separately. Thank you. Blackcats 03:49, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Deleted this from "fourth plane" section: "However, critics of Alex Jones suggest that many of his claims regarding conspiracies are dubious at best." It's not particuarly notable that somebody's critics might find their claims dubious. I'm sure many of your critics have such feelings about your claims, Mr Berlet. At any rate, this is neither the place for original research, nor general criticism of Alex Jones. If some specific notable person has specifically criticised Alex Jones's claims regarding flight 93, then by all means include and cite that. Blackcats 04:27, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

External Links Censored

Restored From the Wilderness and Centre for Research on Globalization to the links, along with the [17] article on Bogus 9/11 theories (disinformation). Why were they removed?

==Anti-Semetism== THERE IS NO SUCH THING IS ANTI-SEMITISM. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH WITH LIQURITIVE HOAX.

TO BE A SEMITE, IS TO BE AN ARAB, REGARDLESS OF BEING JEWISH, MUSLIM OR CHRISTIAN. ALL ARABS ARE SEMITICS AND SEMITISM IS NOT LIMITED TO JEWISH, PERIOD.

PLUS, ONLY .07% OF TODAY'S JEWS ARE SEMITIES, WHILE THE REST ARE ASHKINAZ FROM A KHAZARI SIBLING WHERE THEIR GREAT GRAND FATHERS HAD CONVERTED TO "TALMUDISM" AND A HUGE CHUNK OF NEWER CONVERTS FROM EUROP, THOSE WHO WERE BOARD OF CHRISTIANITY AND THE WRONG DOING OF THEIR ELDER PRIESTS. THIS A DOCUMENTED HISTORY, JUST BECAUSE NO ONE READS ANYMORE DOES NOT MAKE SUCH HISTORY IN NONE EXISTENCE.

I also am a bit concerned that the section relating to jews/israel is being over-represented. However, there is a simple solution to this: simply add information about the foreknowledge of other states/peoples. This shouldn't be difficult at all. You can start with Russia and Pakistan. Israel did have foreknowledge, just like everyone else. If nobody else wants to do this, I'm sure I'll get around to it eventually.

Initium79

good dummies page but im missing ..

• a lot , but the main thing : what about the millions of dollars worth of extra transactions on 9/11 and the absurd increase in options in the week prior to 9/11 .. --Bverveen 09:06, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Check out the 'governmental foreknowledge' section.

This page is a disgrace

I added the Totally Disputed flag for several reasons.

One is that the page has been hijacked by proponents of only one POV, that of the 9/11 Truth Movement. Conspiracy theories put forward by other factions are being systematically eliminated or deprecated.

Second, a number of claims that debunk many of these conspiracy theories have simply been eliminated. The quote about "pulling" Building 7 is a good example. A straw argument is created and then debunked. "Pull" can also mean pulling firefighters out of a building to avoid injury due to potential collapse or other threats to life and limb.

Even for a page devoted to explaining conspiracy allegations, this is substandard work.--Cberlet 13:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Exactly so; the page has been hijacked by proponents of the 9/11 Truth Movement, who insist only the theories they promote are "credible" or "significant", and all other theories must be removed. There is a good, NPOV version of this article created by Raul654 about three weeks ago; I suggest we restore that one. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I think that proposal has real merit. --Cberlet 13:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I concur with Jay and Cberlet. →Raul654 00:42, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Raul's edit was sloppy, incoherent, and delt with views that are extremely obscure to say the least. There is nothing preventing anyone from adding new material to this article, but I think we can all agree that it is neither possible nor desirable to include the unique beliefs of every member of this community. This is an encyclopedia, not a personal web page. Initium79

Aside from your POV about the literary merits of Raul's edit (with which I strongly disagree), the conspiracies listed in it were no more "obscure" than the ones you have here, except according to members of the "9/11 Truth Movement". I would argue that the theories that Jews/Zionists were behind it are possibly the most well-known worldwide (i.e. outside the small number of members of the "9/11 Truth Movement"). Jayjg ^(talk) 06:05, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

One more message to you Cberlet. I actually tend to agree on the point of Silverstein's comment. I created a section entitled demonstrably false claims where I included that piece of info. However, it was relocated as the majority seemed to find it appropriate. That is how wikipedia works and it is imperfect by nature. Initium79

Disgrace? Nonsense. The argument that American 9/11 researchers should be held in higher regard than the anti-semitic rantings of the Muslim world, originating halfway across the globe from the attacks, is just a few clicks above this section and has not been rebutted. And keep in mind that the two separate articles on 9/11 domestic complicity conspiracy theories and 9/11 conspiracy theories regarding Jews or Israel were merged against the will of many contributors, probably in order to libel the entire movement as anti-semitic. But go ahead, include it all, I say, as long as you clearly state that the 9/11 truth movement holds the anti-semitic stuff to be ludicrous and probably deliberate disinformation. And preference (i.e. earlier mention) should be given to 9/11 researchers like Ruppert, McKinney, Griffin, Chossudovsky and others whose research begins at the inconsistencies and impossibilities within the predominant mainstream U.S. reports of the attacks, as opposed to conjectured, evidence-free allegations of a "Jewish conspiracy."-- James

I've got an important question for you guys who keep pushing the Israeli-Jewish Connection theories: are you actually in favor of these anti-semitic theories, or are you just trying to tar the entire 9/11 Truth Movement as anti-semitic? -- James User:66.27.196.167Contributions

I've got a question too -- how are we supposed to balance these different theories. Since the page is about conspiracy theories, it could theoretically have a theory held only by one. Most articles are de facto about the majority of facts as viewed by the majority of knowledgeable (sourced) people (such as the main 9/11 article) however, this article is about the un-proven views of a tiny fraction of the world's population (very few of which can be sourced). So how can we come about figuring out what theories should be included and disincluded? Perhaps we should come up with some non-biased inclusion criteria for conspiracy theories (say, like x number of google hits or something -- I'm not sure.) --Quasipalm 16:10, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Ha -- tiny fraction of the population. What about 50% of New Yorkers? And remember, the Kean Commission is the only "proof" of the official story, and it's far from conclusive. -- James User:66.27.196.167 Contributions

49% of New Yorkers said that they thought that someone in the Federal Government had foreknowledge about the attacks. I, also a New Yorker, don't think it's a stretch to believe this after all of the failures at the CIA and the White House. However, this doesn't mean I believe these nonsense conspiracy theories, it means I believe in the incompetence of our current government. To say that 50% of New Yorkers believe 9/11 was a conspiracy is to rape those poll results. --Quasipalm 15:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

The information was merged because segregation of conspiracy theories into different articles made no sense, and was not helpful for the reader. It had nothing to do with your wild allegation that it was somehow intended to "libel the entire movement as anti-semitic". And your contention that members of your "Truth movement" are inherently more credible than anyone else who has a conspiracy theory about this subject is pure (though unsurprising) POV. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Yawn. No, it's not POV. Rationale for privileging domestic 9/11 researchers over wild claims prevalent in the Muslim world has been addressed exhaustively -- and without response -- in previous sections on this page. -- James User:66.27.196.167 Contributions

Of course it's a POV; it just happens to be the POV you agree with. Previous sections on this page failed to address that. Sorry to see you are sleepy, perhaps more rest would help. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Jay talking more will not change popular opinion of the community here. We've been though this already. If you want to include Raul's edits, the only way you might be able to pull it off is by putting it in a separate section with an appropriate title like "Obscure Theories." Raul's edits were ALL over the board, they had NO depth, or supporting evidence/opinion. They were like "well little Timmy in New Jersey saw a smoke demon. And on a completely unrelated note the Jews did everything. And on a completely unrelated note Bobby Joe says the Aliens did it. And on a completely unrelated note.........."

The "community here" consists of Raul654, Cberlet, and me, all long-time Wikipedia editors, not a couple of IP addresses and one-topic editors. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:23, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

LOL so the community consists of you and 2 other guys? That sounds like POV to me! I really don't see what the big deal is about throwing your edits into a new section. Why do you insist on tainting these people's hard work with your unfounded garbage?

I've removed the following: "[Note: this is not possible as the angle at which the wing would stall (lose upward lift force) is about 13 degrees] [Note: This isn't entirely correct. Yes the angle of stall is about 15 degrees but it's from the angle of the wind. If you are travelling upwards (and have big enough engines to keep going up) you can still fly because the angle of wind to wing is pretty much zero. If you couldn't fly up at more then 13 degrees then how does the space shuttle take off?]"

Let's keep arguments on the talk page, not the article.

Oh, and in response to "If you couldn't fly up at more then 13 degrees then how does the space shuttle take off?", not all wings are created the same.

Integration

We have to represent everyone here, I don't think anyone is against the inclusion of any theory, that's what the article is for. What I and others have been stressing here is proportionality. Jay, Raul, please include your material. But lets keep in one, tidy, concise section so that it does not appear to outweigh the other theories.

Initium79