Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories/Archive 27

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.

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Proposed addition to the second paragraph of 9/11 Conspiracy Theories article

While there are plenty of sources to be found on this page that state that NIST as well as other agencies, private companies and people believe that there is no evidence of there being a controlled demolition on the towers I find it kind of strange that there is not one that states that NIST did absolutely no testing for explosive residues of any kind. So I propose that we add the sentence:

"NIST [states that they] did not [perform any] test for the residue of [explosive] compounds [of any kind] in the [debris]."

The original sentence is:

"NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel."

This is in response to question 12 which asks:

"12. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) “slices through steel like a hot knife through butter.”"

This is from the NIST website and can be found here:

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Please let me know if you feel that I have somehow changed the original sentence to much or in anyway constructed it to say something that the original does not say. Please remember that in the context of the source website the sentence is in response to a question while the sentence I propose does not have the same context. That being said I feel that my changes to the sentence just clarifies what is actually meant by the original sentence. - Asphyxiate.always (talk) 00:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and added my sentence to the article with proper reference. I did this because no one seemed to be questioning it, if I simply did not wait long enough, my apologies. If you object to my addition please explain why. If it is reasonable or I have made some kind of mistake then I will be happy to change it. Thanks! - Asphyxiate.always (talk) 01:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Source #65 is no longer valid

Source #65 which is:

"Powell, Michael (September 8, 2006). "9/11 conspiracy theorists multiply". The Washington Post. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14723997//. Retrieved September 21, 2009."

Is now a dead link, which is to say that the link goes through to msnbc.com but the article is no longer there. A portion of the article can be found at:

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost/access/1124155701.html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=Sep+8%2C+2006&author=Michael+Powell+-+Washington+Post+Staff+Writer&pub=The+Washington+Post&edition=&startpage=C.1&desc=The+Disbelievers%3B+9%2F11+Conspiracy+Theorists+Are+Building+Their+Case+Against+the+Government+From+Ground+Zero

but this is just an abstract from the article. If you want full access to the article you are expected to pay for it. I am not sure that this qualifies as a source anymore because of this. All three of the references to #65 can no longer be verified with the abstract from the WP article. The three sentences referenced to #65 are:

"In September 2001, NORAD generals said they learned of the hijackings in time to scramble fighter jets. Later, the U.S. government released tapes claiming to show the Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) did not tell the military about the hijackings until three of the four planes had crashed, a fact that would indicate that the FAA repeatedly lied to other U.S. government agencies.[65]"

"Theories that allege deliberate inaction by the U.S. administration cite former transportation secretary Norman Mineta's testimony to the 9/11 Commission, in which he stated that an aide asked then Vice President Dick Cheney whether the "orders still stand". Cheney answered that they did. Mineta assumed that the orders were to shoot down the plane, while conspiracy theorists see this as an indication that the orders were not to shoot down the plane.[65]"

and

"Prominent adherents of the movement include, among others, theologian David Ray Griffin, physicist Steven E. Jones, software engineer Jim Hoffman, architect Richard Gage, film producer Dylan Avery, former Governor of Minnesota Jesse Ventura, former member of the U.S. House of Representatives Cynthia McKinney,[168] actors Daniel Sunjata, Ed Asner, and Charlie Sheen, political science professor Joseph Diaferia and journalist Thierry Meyssan.[65][169][170]"

I would like to point out that I feel that the second statement quoted preceding this is promoting an unfair bias. Where it states that “Mineta assumed the orders were to shoot down the plane...”, how do we know that's what he assumed? It says nothing about that in the article as it is available right now. I feel that the use of this term provides a bias against the “conspiracy theorists”.

Also I would like to say that I am very aware that third block quoted above has more than one source where #65 is referenced. I am not recommending anything be done with that block besides #65 being removed while #169 and #170 stay. I have not had a chance to review #169 or #170 and have no opinion on them at this time.

Finally I would like to say that I am very new to providing change on Wikipedia and if I have done something wrong or in error please let me know in a kind way. I mean none of this as an insult to anyone for any reason. I am just reporting errors as I see them.

Thanks - Asphyxiate.always (talk) 22:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

It's still available at the Seattle Times[1]. And of course, an archived version is here.[2] Not sure which is better. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

My bad on that, but did you read the article you linked to? It makes no mention of the first block I quoted about the FAA and does not even include Norman Mineta's name, let alone that he assumed the orders were to shoot down the plane. In fact the only thing that is correctly referenced to this article, at least where reference number 65 is used, is the statement about Steven E. Jones. I am seriously doubting that these statements were ever supported by the alleged reference and were taken on good faith. Again though, if I am mistaken I will be more than happy to admit it. - Asphyxiate.always (talk) 23:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

No, you're correct. I'm not sure what happened. Either we'll have to find new sources or rip the paragraph from the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

It appears as if the unsourced Mineta stuff got into the article on Sept 21 of last year.[3] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Also wouldn't it be better to update the current Source 65 link in the reference section to a link to either the archived version from msnbc or the Seattle Times? I just mean in general, I am not sure who is responsible for finding another source for the other two statements, does that responsibility fall on me? As you can see, total newbie here. - Asphyxiate.always (talk) 23:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I was trying to track down when the Mineta stuff got into the article first. Last summer, I re-wrote about 2/3rds of the article (until I got blocked, LOL) and I was fairly anal about making sure everything was sourced. I'll fix it shortly. I'm participating in several different discussions on Wikipedia and playing with my dogs but I'll fix it shortly. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

No worries man, no rush on it, its just an article ;). I am only picking on this article because I thought it would have a higher incidence of sourcing problems than anything else I could think of at the time. After I get done with this maybe I'll turn my attention to the sources for the actual 9/11 article, lol. I am about to propose an addition to this (conspiracy theories) article as well. I'll make a new thread for that though. - Asphyxiate.always (talk) 00:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, I fixed the broken link and removed the material that failed verification. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Alright, but I was reading through the article again and noticed that the section that reads: "In September 2001, NORAD generals said they learned of the hijackings in time to scramble fighter jets. Later, the U.S. government released tapes claiming to show the Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) did not tell the military about the hijackings until three of the four planes had crashed, a fact that would indicate that the FAA repeatedly lied to other U.S. government agencies.[66]" still does not pass verification. I hate to remove it because I know that this was really said, it is just not said in the referenced article. I will try to locate a suitable reference. Also note that the reference number is now #66 because I added the line I proposed on here as the new ref #12, pushing everything >11 up one number. -Asphyxiate.always (talk) 03:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Sources don't have to be available online and free. News paper articles, books, magazines, and other copyrighted material make excellant sources. 71.79.30.110 (talk) 23:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Updating Source #64 and other concerns about section "Foreknowledge"

First source #64 from Popular Mechanics currently links to:

Which is an RSS feed page and does nothing to allow you to check the reference. It should be changed to:

Which is the main article.

Second, the sentence in the foreknowledge section which ends with:

"...only one civilian plane was intercepted in the decade prior to 9/11, which took 1 hour and 22 minutes.[64]"

is very misleading. What the article actually says is this:

"In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, in October 1999. With passengers and crew unconscious from cabin decompression, the plane lost radio contact but remained in transponder contact until it crashed. Even so, it took an F-16 1 hour and 22 minutes to reach the stricken jet."

This says nothing as to how many off-course or possibly hi-jacked planes NORAD may or may not have intercepted in international airspace or the ADIZ. The only statement one can derive from this is that there was only one situation in American airspace prior to 9/11 that required NORAD's assistance. The way it is presented in the article gives the impression that this was the second time in history that NORAD ever intercepted a plane, which it assuredly is not. Also the time of 1 hour and 22 minutes is ambiguous, how far did the planes have to travel to get to the plane that was to be intercepted? What if it was physically impossible to get there any quicker than 1 hour and 22 minutes? Also the main article says nothing definitively about whether the plane to be intercepted was reached while it was in the air or after it crashed. If it was after it had crashed, which could be seen from the transponder signal and a rapid drop in altitude, they probably were not going at maximum speed to reach the crash site. This is because they were not going to be able to help anyone if they had crashed, they were not in helicopters or any such vehicle that could provide any assistance on the ground once they reached the crash site; the only thing they could have done was confirm that the plane went down.

The next paragraph in the Wikipedia article reads:

"Rules in effect at that time, and on 9/11, barred supersonic flight on intercepts. Before 9/11, all other NORAD interceptions were limited to offshore Air Defense Identification Zones (ADIZ). "Until 9/11 there was no domestic ADIZ," says FAA spokesman Bill Schumann. After 9/11, the FAA and NORAD increased cooperation. They set up hotlines between command centers while NORAD increased its fighter coverage and installed radar to watch airspace over the continent.[64]"

I feel that this paragraph, while referenced correctly from the source doesn't really mean anything. For one I know that at least 1 plane was a trans-Atlantic flight which means that it would have entered America's ADIZ. This means that it would have had to identified itself and with the transponder off, no squawk, and no contact from the pilots of the plane, NORAD, by its own word, should have intercepted the plane; but that's not really my point. This paragraph, I feel, would be better placed somewhere in the actual 9/11 attacks page and not on the conspiracy theory page. This paragraph does nothing to disprove the conspiracy theorist approach (especially if the preceding argument is found to be less than verifiable) and is only a statement about America's interior radar infrastructure improvements post-9/11.

As always, if I have messed something up or gotten the story wrong, I will be the first to admit it, so don't start a flame war where it isn't necessary. - Asphyxiate.always (talk) 03:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to bed soon and don't have time to give your post the careful consideration that it deserves, but I just wanted to make one small point. I am probably the editor who wrote this part of the article and at the time, http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=3 linked directly to correct article. Unfortunately, Web sites change and links that used to work a year ago, no longer work. Have a good night, I don't have as much time to work on this article during the week that I do over the weekend. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

A Quest For Knowledge, I wasn't necessarily saying that it was intentionally mis-linked, just that it needs to be updated. I will update the reference link, if there is some kind of problem with that you can let me know later. Also I didn't figure that I would get the quick responses that I did for this already, so whenever someone has time to respond, that's when it will get done. Look forward to a response when you have time. -Asphyxiate.always (talk) 04:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Template:9/11 conspiracy theories

Does someone want to rename Template:911ct to Template:9/11 conspiracy theories? Christopher Connor (talk) 03:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

There are numerous related templates. Is it really worth all the disruption? I don't see that the name is being confused with anything else. --UncleDouggie (talk) 06:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Paragraph 2 in Main theories - Foreknowledge

The opening sentence of paragraph 2 states:

One popular conspiracy theory suggests there was a suspiciously high volume of put options placed on United Airlines and American Airlines stocks just before 9/11.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/19/eveningnews/main311834.shtml reports that it is not just a theory that there were such option trades, but a fact. The paragraph needs to be reworded to have it convey fact from mere theories such as follows:

A few days prior to the attacks, a suspiciously high volume of put options were placed only on United Airlines and American Airlines stocks "coincidentally" just the airlines hijacked on 9/11 suggesting foreknowledge of the attacks.(then provide the link above as at least one reference)

Existing next sentence:

According to this theory, trading insiders knew in advance of the coming events of 9/11 and placed their bets accordingly.

changes to be:

If foreknowledge of set plans involving just those airlines were used, insiders options trades would have made handsome profits. British securities regulators and the AXA Group identified some of the UAL trades as originating from the American arm of of German giant Deutsche Bank. (ref http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/10/19/BU142745.DTL) Oldspammer (talk) 09:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I did add a paragraph with the 60 Minutes sourced information naming the brokerage firms involved discussing the profit to be made and discussing the SEC investigation. I see no reason to change “suspected” as that is the language the source used. Since nobody was convicted of insider trading “suspected” remains the correct word here. The SEC was not investigating a US government 9/11 CT and Osama was the main suspect.

Also since only two foreknowledge theories are being discussed split that section into two for clarity Edkollin (talk) 19:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The sequence of words to which I object is "theory suggests there was..." evidence. However, WP:RS state that none of the evidence was theoretical. The theory uses this proven evidence to suppose other stuff. Do you get me? The sentence says that "theory suggested evidence" existed making the theory look pretty lame if evidence does not even appear proven but remains theoretical. It is a question of grammar presentation of the info. The grammar must be changed not to be lame. Oldspammer (talk) 07:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing suspicious about the number of put options. The imbalance was *unusual*, not *suspicious*. The original sentence above is as such correct. It could also be reworded as "One popular conspiracy theory suggests that an unusually high volume of put options placed on United Airlines and American Airlines stocks the 8th of September is suspicious" or something, but it's kinda silly. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

"Just before 9/11 there was as "extraordinary" amount of put options placed on United Airlines and American Airlines stocks. Conspiracy theorists believe trading insiders knew in advance of the coming events of 9/11 and placed their bets accordingly. An analysis by Allen M. Poteshman into the possibility of insider trading on 9/11 concludes that"

"Extraordinary" was the word used by 60 minutes and is a more in my view powerful then "unusual" which could mean a wide range of “unusual.” Edkollin (talk) 19:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

That works. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

If no objection in the next few days will change the language Edkollin (talk) 20:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Done Edkollin (talk) 19:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from PAhsagah, 27 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Someone has placed their own opinions on the page, saying "you'd have to be a gullible idiot to believe these half-baked conspiracy theories, most of which were thought up by marijuana smoking basement-dwellers.

It's offensive and ignorant. Please remove.

PAhsagah (talk) 06:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

...but its true? 24.235.198.240 (talk) 19:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think it's possible for one to be gullible, but not quite down to the idiot level, to believe the theories. I don't think they were thought up by marijuana-smoking basement-dwellers. But it's almost true. However, Wikipedia doesn't care about Truth, only about Verifiability. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

That type of remark is vandalism and always needs to be removed. And if it happens a lot the page can be protected.Edkollin (talk) 21:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

If the statement comes from a professional investigator, researcher, or etc, it should be given some weight. James MEIGS, the editor of Popular Mechanics, described elements of the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories as “disgusting.” He did NOT call followers “gullible,” “pot smoking,” nor “basement dwelling” (in the sections I actually caught), but others may have, and this should be given some consideration (these are professionals, not “mere wackos with an axe to grind,” as NECT Deniers have been accused of by so-called “Truthers”).174.25.8.116 (talk) 15:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC) A REDDSON

Meigs is not an expert on questions of taste or moral judgment. Therefore, his opinions in this regards would be undue in this article, in my view. Cs32en Talk to me 16:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

United 93 "Passenger Revolt"

Did not the 9/11 commission conclude that the hijackers had a pre arraigned plan to ditch the plane in the NYC streets if there was a problem and with revolting passengers at the cockpit door the hijackers ditched the plane following the general idea of the plan. The was different then the original story which claimed the passengers them stormed the cockpit and took the plane down. Edkollin (talk) 20:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

NIST and Popular Mechanics?

Umm, gee... when did NIST and Popular Mechanics become experts on "conspiracy theories" per se? Or for that matter who exactly in science or engineering regards Popular Mechanics as any kind of an authority on anything? Seriously, NIST may be have to be presumed to have some credible here despite their blatant conflict of interest, but Popular Mechanics is laughable (just like the ridiculous story we were told about 19 hijackers and Osama bin Laden's cave). Why not cite some actual experts on "conspiracy theories" per se or false flag operations instead? Certainly there are plenty of credible former intelligence officers who can be quoted instead. http://patriotsquestion911.com/ provides many. 24.11.186.64 (talk) 03:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS. 77.10.179.229 (talk) 15:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Because is popular and mechanic. Mechanical thinking pays D. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.244 (talk) 05:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Films

There is a lot of films of youtube. The films contains notable information. For example film watched by 1.7 mln peoples is more notable than party newspaper printed in 100k or 10000 books burned by Pentagon. Agreement?

So there is need to prepare here collection of links so we can get agreement which later we put to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.244 (talk) 08:31, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Nope, not going to be included. Loose Change is NOT a reliable source. Soxwon (talk) 18:40, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

There is some sort of copyright issue with youtube videos so Wikipedia does not allow them to be used as sources. Edkollin (talk) 20:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Loose Change is already mentioned in the article and readers may click on the internal link and find an external link to their website. Even if their movie were a reliable source, WP:EL would not allow us to include the external link here. TFD (talk) 09:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Evidence for involvement of Neo-Nazis, domestic terrorists!

There are so many clues of a Neo-Nazi involvement it's scary. It all centers around William Luther Pierce, founder of the National Alliance and author of The Turner Diaries (Timothy McVeigh's guide for the Oklahoma City bombing).

Pierce's April 2001 article named "As ye sow" is terrifying to say the least.

Much evidence for their (Neo-Nazi) involvement at the following link:

http://letsrollforums.com/neo-nazis-domestic-terrorists-t22140.html?s=085a4e0d7fc01e92aafcce49f280d452&

Maybe someone can incorporate this theory into the article. I am not familiar enough with Wikipedia to do it myself. Anonymous, 09/13/2010, 04:06 UTC (+1) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.153.221.249 (talk) 02:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The material from the link you included is clearly fringe original research from an anonymous forum poster. Sorry to say it is far from being a verifiable, reliable source, remember, the threshold for wikipedia is "verifiability, not truth". КĐ^♥ 06:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

This is my article in fact. :) You can use any part of it. And I only used reliable sources I found, like "natvan", the page of the National Alliance, William Pierce's group. They host all his articles, like "As ye sow", which indicates Pierce had foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks, to say the least. And also I use CNN as a source, or the CDC (US government), or the official Oklahoma City Bombing investigating website. These are all serious, reliable sources.

Sorry, but we have a theory in this article claiming shape-shifting reptiles were behind the attacks. You can't tell me we can't incorporate the theory about the possible Neo-Nazi involvement into this article. These people attacked the US in Oklahoma in 1995, shape-shifting reptiles never did, as far as I know... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.153.221.249 (talk) 08:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The shape-shifting-reptile-theorist (or should some of those be en-dashes?) is notable (although not reliable, credible, or (possibly) sane. You (or William Pierce (perhaps William Luther Pierce?) are not notable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, but unless you are a notable expert on white supremacists, etc, I don't think your self published source counts as RS. I read through your article and the sources, and it is considered original research as you are joining up seemingly unrelated dots based only on your own deductive and reasoning abilities (which is not verifiable). I am strongly against the inclusion of the shape-shifting reptiles section myself, as I said in an earlier post on the discussion, it makes a mockery of this entire article as it is absurdly fringe.КĐ^♥ 09:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

You would need to get your theory published and then reported upon by the mainstream media before we could mention it here. TFD (talk) 09:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC

Hm, I don't like that idea. Not because I think it won't be published, but because I fear it will. I don't want this kind of attention. But if anyone want to send my article to any mainstream media, do it! Use this evidence, so maybe their (Neo-Nazi) involvement gets investigated.

Supposedly New Video

An editor added a cite from a major German newspaper that shows supposedly new videos provided by the International Center for 9/11 Studies. The edit claims the article states that the video supposedly provides "new evidence". Does the article actually say the videos are new evidence or International Center for 9/11 Studies group is claiming that it is?. Since I am not a German speaker I can't answer that question. If the article does not say that International Center for 9/11 Studies is claiming evidence of a conspiracy the material should be deleted. There is a question as to the notability or reliability of the International Center for 9/11 Studies. Wikipedia does not have an article on that group which while not an automatic disqualification should raise questions. If the International Center for 9/11 Studies is not notable or reliable Wikipedia should not publish there material just because one reliable media source has. Only if the International Center for 9/11 Studies are reliable or notable and the article actually states that the organization is making a claim that the videos demonstrate a conspiracy should the material be left in Even then the piece should be rewritten to specifically state that it is the International Center for 9/11 Studies that is making the claim. In the meantime I slapped an unreliable warning on it. If no satisfactory answer is given in the next few days I will delete the material. Edkollin (talk) 21:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung is considered to be a first-class publication with regard to reliability and accuracy. This is the German original of the article and my English translation:

Terroranschläge

Neue Videos vom 11. September
Im Internet sind neue, spektakuläre Videos zu den Terroranschlägen vom 11. September veröffentlicht worden. Die Videos, jahrelang unter Verschluss gehalten, geben Verschwörungstheoretikern neue Nahrung.
10. September 2010 Neue Nahrung für Verschwörungstheoretiker: Pünktlich zum neunten Jahrestag des Terroranschlags auf das World Trade Center in New York sind im Internet neue, bislang unbekannte Videos zum 11. September 2001 veröffentlicht worden. Diese waren bislang unter Verschluss gehalten worden. Das private „International Center for 9/11 Studies“ hatte erfolgreich auf Herausgabe der Videodokumente geklagt und sie nun auf seinem eigenen Kanal bei Youtube veröffentlicht. Das „National Institute of Standards and Technology“ (Nist), die technische Prüfstelle der Vereinigten Staaten, hatte die Videos - beklemmende Amateuraufnahmen von direkt Beteiligten und Berichte von lokalen Fernsehstationen - jahrelang nicht freigegeben.

Die bislang unbekannten Videos sollen als weitere Beweise für eine Verschwörung rund um den 11. September dienen. Hartnäckig kursieren im Internet Gerüchte, dass nicht die von Islamisten gekaperten Flugzeuge den Einsturz der Zwillingstürme verursacht hätten, sondern kontrollierte Sprengungen durch Fachleute. Der Schlüssel zu dieser Theorie soll im Kollaps des Nebengebäudes World Trade Center 7 liegen. Das Nachbargebäude, Sitz des Geheimdienstes CIA, stürzte ein, obwohl es nicht von einem Flugzeug getroffen worden war. Eine Vielzahl der nun neu veröffentlichten Videos zeigt Bilder vom WTC7.
[This introduction is followed by descriptions of several of the videos, which are linked from the journal's website]

Terrorist attacks

New videos from September 11
New, spectacular videos about the terrorist attacks of September 11 have been published on the Internet. The videos, which have been kept under wraps [or: from public view] for years, provide new fuel for conspiracy theorists. [or: feed conspiracy theorists]
September 10, 2010 New food for conspiracy theorists: On time for the ninth anniversary of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York, new, previously unknown, videos about September 11, 2001, have been published on the internet. These have been kept under wraps [or: from public view] before. The private „International Center for 9/11 Studies“ has successfully sued for the release of the video documents and has now published them on its own channel on YouTube. The „National Institute of Standards and Technology“ (Nist), the technical certification institution [don't know if this particular translation is fully accurate] had not released the videos – emotionally distressing amateur videos of people that have been directly involved and reports from local television stations – for years.

The previously unknown videos are supposed to serve as further proof for a conspiracy around September 11. Persistent rumors on the internet say that the collapse of the twin town had not been caused by the planes hijacked by Islamists, but by controlled demolitions carried out by specialists. The key for that theory is supposed to be found in the collaps of the adjacent building 7 World Trade Center. The adjacent building, rented by the CIA, has crumbled, although it has not been hit by a plane. A large number of the newly published videos shows images of 7 WTC.
[This introduction is followed by descriptions of several of the videos, which are linked from the journal's website]

Cs32en Talk to me 22:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok that clarify s things somewhat. I rewrote the section to hopefully more closely adhere to what the source said. The fact the International Center for 9/11 Studies sued successfully for the videos release is an argument for notability. The reliability question for that organization remains. Edkollin (talk) 21:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The organization would not be considered a reliable source, of course. However, no content in the article has been based on any statements from that source. All is based on the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung's report. Therefore, the reliability tag that is currently included in the sentence is misplaced, in my view. Would you agree to remove the tag? Cs32en Talk to me 21:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't know, this is the first video from a "unreliable" source published by a reliable one I have put a warning on. Like you said words from them might be contested for reliability, are videos from them different and if so why? As for reliability warning I will wait a few days to see if other editors comment. If they don't I will remove the warning as two against and one unsure is consensus enough. Edkollin (talk) 18:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The reliability tag is a tag that is used to indicate that a content of Wikipedia may be poorly sourced. In this case, the videos may be a poor source, but no content in Wikipedia is based on them. If you want to indicate that some publication or organization that is being mentioned on Wikipedia would be unreliable, you would need to support such a statement with a reliable source, however. Cs32en Talk to me 18:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Emirenfield, 17 September 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

I request that the section titled 'Reptilian shape-shifting aliens' be removed from the page. This is a ridiculous addition to the possible conspiracies of 9/11 which serves no real merit by being on the page. It is an insane theory not even based in reality and although many may say that 9/11 conspiracy theories are lunatics themselves, this takes the entire subject, one which is very serious and emotional for a lot of people and makes it a laughing stock. The chapter discredits any rational thought on the subject and furthermore just outright publicizes the views of David Icke. This does not, in any way, help this topic and aid for any kind of rational thought.

Emirenfield (talk) 18:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

It being an insane theory is clearly no reason for removal, as it applies to the pod people and other clearly absurd theories. One could make a good case that all the theories are refuted by the facts, which makes it difficult to determine which are insane and which merely misguided. I would refuse the request, but I'm clearly an involved admin, so I won't do it, myself. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Not done: I think there is a great difference between scenarios which might have happened, though the facts strongly suggest that they did not, and scenarios which any sane person would discard out of hand. It worries me more that some people may actually not be able to see that difference, as opposed to your hyperbolic suggestion that they are the same, than it does that some people believe in either class of scenarios. Speculation on which foreign government might have financed the attack doesn't deserve to be lumped in with aliens and holographically disguised missiles. Regardless, edit requests shouldn't be accepted when there is a clear lack of consensus for the change. Celestra (talk) 19:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Not done: It is my understanding that this article is a rendering of "9/11 conspiracy theories"... not 'some' theories, not 'theories which someone thinks are sane', not 'theories someone thinks are ridiculous', but only the words in the title. Shearonink (talk) 19:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec; to Celestra) One could argue that the "controlled demolition" scenarios are not physically impossible, distinguishing them from the "pod people", energy beam weapons, and Icke. On the other hand, there's no "sane" place to draw the line, even if we were all agree that Icke's theories are insane. Speculation as to which government might have financed the attack doesn't deserve to be lumped in with aliens, holographically disguised missiles, or controlled demolition. But the alternative is to have separate articles for each theory, and hence only listing the theories which are independently notable. (I'm commenting on a closed {{editsemiprotected}} request, because I'm trying to see what article changes related to that request might be an improvement.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that as the only alternative. There should be a consensus around how to organize the various theories as well as what merits being included in the article. That consensus should include, in my opinion, separating the obviously impossible theories from the theories which merely appear to be disproven or highly unlikely. This doesn't require us to insert our opinions on whether any one theory is better than another, beyond what is obviously impossible and it makes for a more neutral article because it removes the unnecessary editorial POV that these theories are all equally impossible or insane. Whether to include it in a separate section or to exclude it from the article depends on how broadly we define 'theory'. Celestra (talk) 17:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Jotakin5512, 12 September 2010

Could you change: "NIST does not claim that the steel was melted" --> "Despite eyewitness testimonies of molten metal, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fs_ogSbQFbM NIST does not claim that the steel was melted "

Yes, let's include eyewitnesses who were certainly objective and had no emotions distracting them. And certainly we'll only use high quality that have no agenda to push like Architects and Engineers for truth. (/sarcasm) Soxwon (talk) 18:39, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Let's just listen what television has to say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.141.121.28 (talk) 09:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Ustates2119, 25 September 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Could a regular wikipedia editor please add the following addition to the section marked "Insider Trading" I've sourced it with Primary Video Evidence.

In a interview on 9/11, renowned former CIA agent Robert Baer stated "I know the guy that went to his broker in San Diego and said 'Cash me out it's going down tomorrow.'" Baer goes on further to say "His brother works at the White House." ( 2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fp52aXzVVa8 Timecode - 5:40

Feel free to reword if need be.

Ustates2119 (talk) 03:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Those YouTube videos are copyright violations, and as such we can't link to them from this article. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The first source may be a copyright violation but probably not, it contains 10 seconds of CNN usage which would be classed under FAIR USAGE. The second source is definitely NOT, the interview was filmed by Wearechange and they do NOT copyright their interviews, they allow free use! Please reconsider. Wikipedia allows youtube to be a source if the subject can be verified in the video which they can clearly in these. The subject Robert Baer meets all the wikipedia guidelines, he is regularly on mainstream cable channels talking about american foreign policy, he is a columnist for several MSM papers.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ustates2119 (talk • contribs) 04:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

No, these videos have no merit to them whatsoever. They appear to be amateur made mash-ups to try and prove a point. Soxwon (talk) 06:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? There is footage of the subject stating those comments which are extremely signficant. The fact that the interviewers are biased has nothing to do with it. Someone please add those comments. I agree the 1st source is a little mashed up so just use the raw interview http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fp52aXzVVa8 (timecode 5:40) as the source. In any other case if there was physical video evidence of significant subject stating something significant it could be used as a source, so it should apply in this case. Wikipedia policy: In some cases, video clips published on YouTube may be acceptable as primary sources if their authenticity can be confirmed. You can confirm Robert Baer's identity in this CNN interview http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/bestoftv/2009/06/28/gps.robert.baer.intel.iran.cnn.html - Note this is actual evidence is does not need to come from a trusted source since it is clear video from a trusted source itself. If you look at any mainstream interviews with Baer you can tell by 100 percent accuracy that it is Robert Baer saying those comments, you can go to his wiki articles for sources on his CIA career.

So the revised edit should be:

In a interview on 9/11, renowned former CIA agent Robert Baer stated "I know the guy that went to his broker in San Diego and said 'Cash me out it's going down tomorrow.'" Baer goes on further to say "His brother works at the White House." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fp52aXzVVa8 Timecode - 5:40 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ustates2119 (talk • contribs) 06:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

It is a relevant piece of information by an authority on the subject. Obviously, it would be better to have it from a news outlet that has fact checked the claim. The best reference I can find is: www.infowarscom/cias-robert-baer-knows-guy-who-cashed-out-day-before-911/ ^{[unreliable fringe source?]} Alex Jones has a radio show, but isn't exactly mainstream media. He still links to the YouTube video, which does not include any claim of authorship of the video or that they have the right to use it. I presume that the originator is [4], however, I can't find this particular video on their site. I think we must assume that it is being used without permission. Nevertheless, we could potentially use the Infowars page since it has the quote in text form. The same quote and YouTube reference has been added to September 11 attacks advance-knowledge debate, as it's not under protection. We should update it accordingly with whatever we decide here. Thoughts? —UncleDouggie (talk) 10:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I found the original video. The introduction to the video has the name of this YouTube channel, so it would seem to be the real deal. This video has more footage and the quote in question occurs at 9:45. —UncleDouggie (talk) 10:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, this is a single quote taken out of context for the explicit purpose of pushing the 9/11 truth movement agenda. The subject himself has stated that he doesn't believe that 9/11 was an inside job. Soxwon (talk) 16:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Robert Baer, who is cited as an expert with regard to intelligence issues and terrorism by reliable sources, has made a number of statements about the September 11 attacks in reliable sources. It's better to use these statements, rather than an off-the-cuff remark (which may well have been a joke at the end of this interview, other statement in the interview are actually more interesting). Some would fall into the scope of the September 11 attacks advance-knowledge debate, while other may be relevant for this article, although Baer says his statements are not supporting conspiracy theories. (A number of people whose statements are referred to in this article do not describe their beliefs as conspiracy theories either.) Cs32en Talk to me 17:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.49.37.14 (talk) 18:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Military-industrial complex section

I have deleted the new section titled Military-industrial complex for the following reasons:

The "plausible theories" are just parroting back Wikipedia! There was no new evidence or theories presented.
Ahmadinejad presented no evidence about passports. It's impossible to tell if the quote was referring to the official account or a conspiracy theory.
The lines about a reasonable investigation are largely also from Wikipedia, but further embellished to make a political point.
There is no need for more poll data in this article. We already have September 11 attacks opinion polls. Besides, the Scripps poll is already in the lead!
The statements about Korey Rowe, the US State Department and Time have no sources.
It makes no sense to include coverage of everyone who grandstands about these theories. The article should be about the theories themselves and the evidence for them.
The title of the section does not convey anything about the contents. It could apply equally to any section in the article.

—UncleDouggie (talk) 12:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I was going to delete it myself. There were a number of problems with the section, including the fact that it was sourced entirely to a primary source, and not secondary, reliable sources, and the fact that it completely ignored WP:NPOV, among other things. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

FALSE USE OF SOURCE.

This article says under the sub-heading "Bin Laden Tapes"; 'Some observers, especially people in the Muslim world, doubt the authenticity of the tape.[152]'

This is deceitful as it DIRECTLY proceeds '. At first the speaker denied responsibility for the attacks[148] but over the years has taken increasing responsibility for them culminating in a November 2007 audiotape in which the speaker claimed sole responsibility for the attacks and denied the Taliban and the Afghan government or people had any prior knowledge of the attacks.'

This source is from 2001. The fact that the sentence was inserted directly after the sentence talking of the 2007 tape makes it seem like the source is refering to the 2007 tape, when it's not in any way.

There should be an edit for clarification/explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.115.48 (talk) 12:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Clarified hopefully. Need newer sourcing for fake tape claim or consideration should be given to deleting the section Edkollin (talk) 22:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Craig Ranke

It has been proposed that Craig Ranke be merged here. I'm adding this discussion section, and noting that WP:BLP1E seems to apply. I'm not sure what the original reasons for the tag were. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I recall getting sidetracked after adding the merge tag; I guess I forgot to add a message to this page. As you mentioned above BLP1E applies to both men. The well referenced paragraph added is plenty; I would suggest simply redirecting the page to that section. They are not notable beyond their theory. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 15:17, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Seconded, keeping the stub seems just unnecessary. Notability is limited to 911 CTs. 79.204.45.158 (talk) 07:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't think two articles in the alternative press makes this notable for this article or for it's own article. Edkollin (talk) 20:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

He's already mentioned in this article. Merging him in here would expand that section appropriately. For a BLP, he does not meet notability. Vote = merge.--S. Rich (talk) 22:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

-Agree.Mystylplx (talk) 20:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Gone ahead & redirected. There wasn't any sourced text that actually needed merging.--Misarxist 13:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

"A Pentagon courier saw the plane flying over the building". Could "They claim that..." be prefixed to that? I've read the transcript of the interview and nowhere in it does the courier say Flight 77 flew over the building. The interviewee could very well have referred to the C-130 that came later and that DID fly over the Pentagon, which means the former is their interpretation.

Also, 'filmaker' is with an extra 'm'. I would edit the article myself, but alas, I can't. 81.204.124.148 (talk) 19:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Truthers or Troofers?

I thought the term for people who believe in 9-11 conspiracies was "troofers," not "truthers." Is there any troof in this? Also, the Canadian Green Party believes in the troofiness? Whoa! SCFilm29 (talk) 23:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

"Troofer" is a common term of degradation and mockery used by columnists who believe the 9/11 conspiracy theories are wacky the attire of those that believe in them include tinfoil hats. It is not used by those writing straight news stories about the topic and therefore the 9/11 truth movement articles should not be changed to "9/11 troofer movement" unless Steven Colbert becomes president. On a more serious note the term probably has been used enough to be notable enough for article inclusion, but as with everything else we can't put in a bunch of quotes and based on them say it's a trend, we need a reliable source saying its a common term of depredation and mockery of the 9/11 truth movement. Edkollin (talk) 05:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Proponants of Conspiracy Theories

The list of proponants should be expanded to include the Canadian Green Party members of the Ottawa Group of Four, (Paul Maillet, Sylvie Lemieux, Akbar Manoussi, and Dr. Qais Ghanem), and Canadian Action Party members including Paul Hellyer.

“I have, from the outset, believed that the 9/11 horrendous massacre of thousands of innocent civilians could not possibly be the work of a dozen amateur Saudis. Close watching of video clips and reading of lots of expert opinions convinced me further that this is an inside job, or that it was at the very least done with inside help.” - Qais Ghanem

Source: [5], [6], [7] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.68.52.131 (talk) 19:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Here is a better source for the "Group of Four", a news article originally from the Ottawa Citizen. The CAP article does not clearly state that they are truthers. TFD (talk) 19:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

This may belong in the political section Edkollin (talk) 20:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Here are some better articles with regards to the Canadian Action Party, [8] [9]. 174.89.59.180 (talk) 03:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Scholarship

The piece in question was a blog that seemed to be pointing out a ludicrous expenditure of funds or, at the very least, was against the proposition. Therefore, the statement "The donation was criticized" is perfectly valid. Perhaps if you could find a piece that wasn't mentioning it solely for the purpose of criticism, we could remove the statement. Soxwon (talk) 21:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

If this item is included, it is fair to mention that it is critical of the funding. However, if mention of the criticism is included, it should be clear that the criticism is that of the journalist writing the opinion piece, and not that of some other source. I would prefer that opinion pieces not be included at all (just stick to verifiable facts, please), and I would look for a different, more objective source. If no objective source can be found, I would leave it out of the article altogether. The merit of the donation, in this instance, should be for the Wikipedia reader to decide for him or herself, which is why an unbiased source should be preferred. Wildbear (talk) 23:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Opinion pieces are generally poor sources. News organization do not put their own reputation on the line (editorials are the exception). We should not report about the opinions of writers of opinion pieces, except for the rare cases in which there are independent reports about the expression of that opinion in the respective opinion piece. Sometimes information from opinion pieces may be included in Wikipedia articles, but I would advise against doing so when there are any indications that the facts may be selectively chosen or otherwise misrepresented to support the opinion of the writer. In this case, the mere fact that a scholarship exists has nothing to do with the opinion of the writer, as far as I can see. Thus, the information can be included in the article, in my view. However, given that opinion pieces should be treated with much caution, I wouldn't object if this information, as well as the source, would be removed from the article. Cs32en Talk to me 00:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I would agree, I think it's not really notable and hasn't been reported in a very many place. Soxwon (talk) 00:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

While opinions pieces are discouraged, I felt that Kay while opinionated on this topic is a reputable source for the purposes of verification of the basic facts that this scholarship was given, who got it and who received it and what will be studied. My addition to the article was a strictly factual account of what happened. Later on a sentence was adding noting that the awarding of this scholarship received criticism. I feel making this statement based on this one commentary is original research. Edkollin (talk) 22:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

When 9/11 conspiracy theories emerged

In the History section it says: "Unlike other conspiracy theories, such as those about the death of Princess Diana, 9/11 conspiracy theories did not emerge immediately after the event." That's completely false. See here: http://www.911myths.com/index.php/In_the_beginning 81.204.124.148 (talk) 13:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed this statement is correct. Bill Cooper was the first person to announce over radio that the towers were imploded with shaped-charge explosives on his radio show that aired on September 11, 2001. 76.68.54.70 (talk) 20:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The article makes this claim in the first paragraph, then in the second paragraph notes that LeMonde used the term "inside job" a week after the attacks. Edkollin (talk) 22:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Prior Knowledge

Norad did testings where a plane gets hijacked and flies into the world trade center. Then didn't Bush admin receive info that a plane might be used as a weapon,then Condi Rice says no one knew someone would use a plane has a weapon. Isn't that guarenteed cover up? some sources: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aaf6NuKRHE remember for a cover-up conspiracy to be true any part of it has to be true not all of it. If any part is different from the official story in any way intentionaly then that is a cover up/conspiracy. --24.94.251.190 (talk) 09:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Mostly false, but, even if true, Bush apparently wasn't told the whole truth about a lot of things. Besides, we have a whole article about alleged prior knowledge. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Everyone knows what really happened... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.25.152 (talk) 09:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's the USA Today story on it. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-04-18-norad_x.htm

You can read more about it at September 11 attacks advance-knowledge debate. Ghostofnemo (talk) 19:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Minor point about lead

Re the sentence "NIST stated that it did not perform any test for the residue of explosive compounds of any kind in the debris." No doubt the conspiracy mongers have latched onto this fact claimed well you haven't proved us wrong, but any sane person knows they didn't test for this because we already have a rather convincing explanation for the collapse. Does that sentence really need to be there?--Misarxist 13:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, if there is reliably sourced info that the conspiracy theorists are regularly using that in support of their theories. Edkollin (talk) 20:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

By that logic, the argument that we already have a convincing explanation for the collapse should be added to the article to counter the reasoning by conspiracy theorists, as the former argument is probably often used by sane people. 81.204.124.148 (talk) 22:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

This subject has been split into two articles - the official version and the conspiracy theories. This article is intended to present the conspiracy theories. The NIST admits it ran no tests (see the link). Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that this point should be moved to the body rather than stay in the lede. Soxwon (talk) 06:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. If you pull out Ghost's edit, then pull out the previous paragraph as well. I hereby replace the material edited out by Soxwon. Jusdafax 08:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The material was pulled out b/c it glorified one specific branch of 9/11 Truth. There are many, many strains to it and to single out one in the lede is WP:UNDUE. A more general statement about several or a majority of the groups would be more in line with what should be in the lede IMO. Soxwon (talk) 14:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The preceding paragraph cites NIST, Popular Mechanics, and "the civil engineering establishment" as being in support of (or accepting) the mainstream explanation for the collapse of the Twin Towers. In this instance, it appears appropriate that a body of similarly qualified professionals be presented as counterpoint to the assertion. Statements made by non-technical groups on this particular issue are of lesser relevance here. I agree with Jusdafax, that if this paragraph must go, then the preceding paragraph (citing NIST, PM, and "the civil engineering establishment") should also be removed, in the interest of maintaining balance and NPOV. Wildbear (talk) 21:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

That's absurd, the second paragraph shows the opposing viewpoint to the first. You are asking for a rebuttal to a rebuttal, hardly NPOV. The first paragraph lays out what is believed and who believes it (you can get more specific if you wish, but as I said, I feel there are too many strands to select one or two) and the second provides those who do not believe. Soxwon (talk) 23:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Point taken. I have made a small modification to the lead paragraph; hopefully that will suffice as a compromise. Wildbear (talk) 02:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Architects for 9/11 Truth Again

Their theory arguably is fringe but as a political movement they are getting notable. Columns on the 9/11 truth movement or CT's make mention of them and the local media run their meeting announcements. Yes there are other groups doing the same thing but they hardly get mentions. As for the edit that was there I agree it was WP:UNDUE. Just a sentence that they claim so many signatures and are petitioning Congress to reopen the investigation should suffice. Edkollin (talk) 21:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Again, I don't see how pushing one group is in line with WP:DUE. They are not the only major group, I would say that this should be reflected. Soxwon (talk) 21:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

To say that most of the civil engineering establishment supports the official explanation in the lead-in of the article, but not to point out that more than 1,000 architects and engineers have called for a new investigation that looks into the possible use of explosives, in an article that is about 9/11 conspiracy theories, is clearly not neutral point of view! Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

For those who can do ratios and know a basic estimate of the number of architects and engineers in the world, yes it is. However, as the current opening stands, I am satisfied.Soxwon (talk) 03:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that the number of all architects and engineers in the world is a valid reference point. We might ask just as well: how many architects and engineers have publicly expressed their personal support for the account of events offered by the U.S. government and its institutions such as NIST? Cs32en Talk to me 01:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

No, b/c there has been no active effort to seek them out as there has been for A&E for truth. The fact that such a small percentage have joined show's how much of a fringe movement it is. Soxwon (talk) 04:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

[10] I don't know why this was added to the article given that we've discussed this several times and every time it was rejected. I have reverted this addition. Please do not add this back into the article until first achieving consensus on the talk page. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Completely deleting factual, well-sourced, relevant material from the article, along with all the supporting references, is not an acceptable solution. Please see WP:PRESERVE. Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with GhostofNemo. My view: deleting this is censorship. The sourced material belongs in this article. Jusdafax 04:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It is relevant and sourced, however there are many similar groups. There is no reason to give this one group WP:UNDUE weight by including it in the intro.--Terrillja _talk 05:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

What the removed material in the lede, placed by Ghostofnemo, does do in the lede is give balance, in my opinion. Wouldn't WP:UNDUE apply to Popular Mechanics being mentioned in the lede? And why then, is there no "rebuttal" concluding the lede of the article for September 11 attacks? I would continue to advocate that the current final paragraph in the lede be removed, or balanced with Ghost's addition. Otherwise, as I see it, concluding the article's lede with the current paragraph gives the distinct impression of spin. Jusdafax 09:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

No, Popular Mechanics is a reliable source, is independent of the subject and represents the mainstream view point. AETruth is an advocacy group promoting fringe theories. They're not at all the same or on equal levels. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

This is from Arbcom: 'Removal of sourced edits made in a neutral narrative is disruptive' 8) It is disruptive to remove statements that are sourced reliably, written in a neutral narrative, and pertain to the subject at hand. Passed 5 to 0 at 05:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar#Removal_of_sourced_edits_made_in_a_neutral_narrative_is_disruptive Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

WikiLawyering isn't going to help your case. Your edit is giving undue weight to a fringe theory and is therefore not neutral. In any case, we've discussed this several times already and I don't think anyone's changed their minds from last time. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

It might also be interesting to note how many of those thousand are architects and how many are engineers? My impression from going through the list at the site is more architects. And since there are all kinds of engineers, how many of the engineers have expertise in this subject matter? Does anyone know of a RS that has tabulated that information? Mystylplx (talk) 13:04, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The signatories and their credentials were all given in the last reference to the deleted material. It's here: http://www.ae911truth.org/signpetition.php Ghostofnemo (talk) 17:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Since A Quest For Knowledge seems to be saying he or she is not willing to discuss this any further, and since this has been heavily debated for months now, and since we seem unable to agree on this, I suggest we submit this point for WP:Mediation. Ghostofnemo (talk) 18:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I said nothing of the kind. If you want editors to change their opinion, then you should provide some new evidence or new argument. You haven't done this. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

"In any case, we've discussed this several times already and I don't think anyone's changed their minds from last time." Ghostofnemo (talk) 18:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no "new evidence". We're deadlocked. Time for another approach. How about mediation? Ghostofnemo (talk) 19:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Please read all my posts in their entirety. Consensus can change but that usually requires one of three things at happen 1) new argument no one's considered before, 2) new evidence that hasn't been examine before or 3) editors change their minds. Based on the discussion so far, none of these 3 conditions have happened. I don't believe we are deadlocked. We've simply reached a consensus which you don't like. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, several editors have supported inclusion, so there is no consensus on this point. Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

For reference, here is a diff of the deletion: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories&diff=400614077&oldid=400592539 Ghostofnemo (talk) 08:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

"Several" is about 3 not banned from this topic? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

On the advice of another editor, I've posted this issue at the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#9.2F11_conspiracy_theories Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

More forum shopping? WP:TEND and WP:DEADHORSE.--Terrillja _talk 02:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

This is really weird, why are the same discounted arguments being presented as having weight again and again? WP:UNDUE does not mean what you think it means - certainly not if you think that mentioning AE falls afoul of it for the lack of other groups being mentioned. u n☯mi 03:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't seem to find last discussion we had where the mentioning AE is undue if we don't mention other groups is undue came up, can anyone point me to it? u n☯mi 03:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Here it is. The RFC never got closed properly, nonetheless, I think it is clear that we either need to include it or open a new RfC where we invite the previous participants to settle the matter. u n☯mi 04:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it may be productive to try the RFC again, assuming ALL parties can calmly, rationally make their points once and not devolve into madness. It's an RFC - make your point once, not the usual response to everyone that goes against your view! Ravensfire (talk) 16:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

We've been around and around over this for months. I suggest we see what happens at the noticeboard. If there is no resolution there, I suggest we request mediation as the next step (although personally I think arbitration is needed, but that would be skipping a step). Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

It was suggested during the discussion at the Fringe Theories Noticeboard that the information be moved from the lead of the article to an appropriate location in the article, so I've moved it back into the "World Trade Center collapse" section. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

In response to this deletion http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=9/11_conspiracy_theories&diff=405170520&oldid=405158745 , and since this issue was not definitively resolved at the Fringe Theories Notice board here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_23#9.2F11_conspiracy_theories I've requested assistance at the Neutral point of view Noticeboard here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#9.2F11_conspiracy_theories_-_deletion_of_referenced.2C_neutral_material Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Forum shopping again because you didn't the the result you wanted! What a surprise! The "not resolved" is no consensus, aka leave it out. Move on.--Terrillja _talk 20:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The RfC was never closed, as the archives show, at the time it was left there was a numerical majority arguing for inclusion. u n☯mi 11:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)