Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories/Archive 3

Request to change title

alternative theories or 9/11 skeptism are much more fair and accurate titles. Here's why

~using the definitive use of the word, the attack on that day was a conspiracy no matter who was behind it. Be it Osama, the CIA, Mossad or the Dalai Lamai. 9/11 was a conspiracy. So that makes the word settled and no longer neccessary.

~the current title is prejudice and insulting to real inquiries about 9/11 because of the flack recieved under the name "conspiracy theories." It makes people not bother to take it seriously. the Orwellian tendency to call speculation of 9/11 "conspiracy theories" originated from the same political seed that orchestrated the US to invade Iraq, US senators to pass the patriot act overnight, the replacement of human rights with torture, and the stonewalling of a 9/11 investigation.

---

Let us not tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th -malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists themselves, away from the guilty." George Bush, 2001

~These theories have ground and consistency, unlike the official story.

~9/11 skeptics arn't aluminum foil heads who share blogospheres with people who question wheter JFK was shot by aliens. There base garners huge support from victims' families. Over half the city of NY believes the governement had at least foreknowledge of the attacks coming and used them politcally and economically for their own self interests.

---

"Lucky me I hit the trifecta." George Bush, 8 times in 2001 and 2002

~You don't get a label for openly percieving OJ to be guilty as hell. <<<officialy innocent niether even the existence of God in today's society. So why 9/11??? HOW DARE YE QUESTION OUR CORPORATE MEDIA'S GOVERNMENT SPONSERED STORYLINE?!?!?! Shame!!!

my thoughts--Lamrock 02:42, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Your thoughts, but not a policy for Wikipedia. Angst and emotion do not trump facts and NPOV. Sorry.--Cberlet 02:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Let me digress. Emotions are everywhere on wikipedia and the plurality accepts that. You play those cards and you will lose, if you need me to prove it, just ask. Onto the point the title 9/11 skeptism is not only fair for everyone. If you studied it you'd also know it's accurate I ask everyone to vote for this name change--Lamrock 03:07, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Let me suggest that you check out the fact that this exact issue has been debated extensively already, and a vote was taken that said a name change was not appropriate.--Cberlet 03:22, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

golly, guess I missed the bus huh? Well... too bad guy, caus it's being debated again.--Lamrock 03:38, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's not being debated again -- not yet anyways. That doesn't mean that wikipedia policy will never change, it just means that everytime someone decides they don't like a specific term, the world doesn't stop turning until they are satisfied. It's been debated on a number of pages and "conspiracy theory" has been determined to be less POV than other options. The same has been shown for "terrorist" and plenty of other hot-button words. Just because you demand a debate, doesn't mean that the issue needs to be rehashed. I would suggest going through the talk archives of this and other 'conspiracy theory' pages and policy pages, and finding some new information on why c.t. is no longer apt. I would also find an adequate replacement before suggesting a change in policy. (Neither skeptism nor alternative theories are new or have shown adequate for most wikipedians.) --Quasipalm 18:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I support a bid to change the name. An actual conspiracy or not is immaterial to what we call the page. The word conspiracy is pejoritive especially when coupled with theory. It conjures tin foil hat wearing wackos and detracts from any serious inquiry into the concept. I would prefer 9/11 alternatives or Skepticism or Criticism (or something similar). These terms have been vetted all over wikipedia as npov. Also the word has too many stipulative and colloquial meanings to actually be useful. Someone please email me if it comes up for a vote, which i think it should TitaniumDreads 07:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. A couple of weeks ago there was significant disagreement over whether a section of this article should continue to be labeled with "conspiracy theory" if moved to a sub article. There has historically been disagreement over the phrase's use in titles within Wikipedia generally so alot more discussion may be necessary to find consensus here, see Wikipedia:Title Neutrality for the full scope and details. zen master T 08:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

There is a consensus on the use of the phrase "conspiracy theory". Zen-master simply ignores it. Only a tiny minority of Wiki editors object to the term. In a democratic environment, the minority has rights, but it is anti-democratic for a minority group of editors here to relentlessly insist that we have the same vote over and over and over. To pretend this question has not been settled (and recently), is, to speak plainly, simply misleading and dishonest. This question has been raised, voted on, and defeated.--Cberlet 13:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Consensus does not mean majority. The first straw poll on the issue closed over 6 months ago, if new people or anyone wants to re-open debate, discussion, and voting I fail to see your justification for restricting what other people do. The Wikipedia:Title Neutrality proposal has specifically been updated based on discussion page feedback, arguments, and concerns, including yours. It's obvious to many users that the phrase "conspiracy theory" is pejorative, we just need to seek a larger consensus and get as many people as possible aware of this issue. zen master T 18:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

This has been discussed ad nauseum Zen. Yes, consensus doesn't mean a majority. But it also doesn't mean that a few renegade editors can force wikipedia to lose it's credibility by using it as a platform to push an agenda that has no basis in fact or evidence. --Quasipalm 18:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

It is true, even according to Wikipedia's own article on conspiracy theories, that the term "conspiracy theory" is more often than not used with a negative connotation. Might we consider a title such as "9/11 conspiracy arguments" or "9/11 conspiracy claims" or "9/11 alternative theories"? --unsigned comment by Papep

I agree, I have often asked and wondered why the title of certain articles has to specifically be exactly "conspiracy theory" given all the alternative titles... zen master T 21:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I would be interested in seeing a list of possible title changes. I don't know for sure if there is a better title or not but I don't see any harm in an open discussion on it. SkeenaR 23:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

7 World Trade Center redundant with this page

I've added a merge request to this article: 7 World Trade Center#Conspiracy theories. Anyone object? The reasons being:

1. This page has all of this information already
2. The 7WTC page is overrun with alternative theories about collapse (yes, they should be mentioned, but it shouldn't be 3/4 of the page).

Thoughts? --Quasipalm 17:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Sounds just fine but don't remove anything unless it's extremely redundant.

Totally Disputed

I restored this flag because not only is this article badly written, but material keeps getting added that does not report on claims as claims, but makes assertion that are POV and highly dubious. This is an encyclopedia article on conspiracy theories generated after 9/11, not a cesspit for conspiracy cranks.--Cberlet 17:10, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

_________________________________________________

Put cleanup tag. Removed neutrality tag. You should be more specific when pointing out the things that are POV. Not everyone sees things the same way you do. Be specific.

Zhiago 17:53, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Reinstated the neutrality dispute tag

It's best to put the neutrality tag as well. We need more editors to moderate this article's neutrality. This subject matter is extremely important and would do much service to the public (only when neutrality is established). We cannot risk allowing this article to appear manipulated or biased in anyway, because readers might think that this is propaganda and disinfo. Credibility works best with objectivity. The neutrality tag is on for now.

Ratherford Skills 18:48, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

He should have been more specific though. Zhiago 19:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I've read through the talk and it seems to me the tag is unwarranted. Of course some of the theories appear nonsense to some - I for one think the Zionist angles in particular are ridiculous - but to tag the entire entry is to encourage the reader to find it ALL "propaganda and disinfo." Newcomers to this topic shouldn't be encouraged to dismiss it too readily. Trachys 18:12, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

NPOV trouble in first few sections

Sections 2 to 5 of this article need work. Everything from Governmental Foreknowledge to The Pentagon is basically lists of conspiracy theorist talking points, with few arguments or explanations from the opposing side. These sections should be similar to the later sections (eg. Claims related to Jews and Israel), where conspiracy theorist claims are weighed against counterarguments.

This is an extremely important topic, and it reflects badly on Wikipedia's credibility if the text appears to be pushing a certain agenda. Furthermore, tons of bulleted lists are bad writing, and fixing up these sections could help create some sort of coherent flow in the article.

--Ultra Megatron 06:30, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

>>This is an extremely important topic, and it reflects badly on Wikipedia's credibility if the text appears to be pushing a certain agenda

Most of the WTC/Sept 11 sections only push the Bush agenda and official story, particularly areas about Muslims, al Queda, the collapses, etc., so I don't see why this section then has to be disputed at every turn. Most of the WTC/Sept 11 sections are scraped clean of any dispute.

Vocabulary and War

I've noticed that that the use of keywords such as "Jews" or "anti-semetism" provoke often irrational emotional responses and lead to revert and edit wars. Similarly, are the proponents of such theories really talking about the Jews or are they talking about "Zionists"? Surely you don't mean the sixty-three year old Jewish neighbor who lives in a cottage out in the woods. Those finding connections leading back to Israel or Zion would probably agree with me on this point, so to use such broad and self-discrediting language seems a bit of a choice to make - unless this is really what they propose. So again, I ask: should this be revised? This reminds me of a similar issue with Nazi action against the Jewish community because of suspicions only confirmed through the Protocols. I think we should bear in mind what the whole mess of conspiracy theories means to the average everyday Jew and understand why Jews and those determined to combat anti-semetism are complaining about the size of the section on Israel/Jews.

I agree that this section could use more attention and I think it needs to be addressed more thoroughly. However, I also understand how this is a sensitive issue to some communities.

Antisemitism plays a role in conspiracy claims on this page, but if one looks at various conspiracy claims, the language used often conflates, Jews, Zionists, pro-Zionists, the nation of Israel, the government of Israel, and its intelligence agency, Mossad. Given this fact of life in the wolrd of conspiracy theory, it is appropriate to note a variety of claims, while mentioning the historic role of antisemitic conspiracy theories in shaping current conspiracy theories.--Cberlet 18:36, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

In the article about Fall of Constantinople, someone added this (diff):

According to many historians, the Kerkoporta was left open by the Jewish population of The City, after they killed the guards. The sultan had promise not to harm them if they help him and the Jewish part of The City was the only part left untouched.

In 1453 the Ottoman Turkish Sultan Mehmed II conquered Constantinople. Five hundred years later someone is still saying, "The Jews were behind it." Tom Harrison ^(talk) 01:54, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Good point Cberlet. However, as I mentioned earlier, these terms take on different meanings. To lump them all together as "Anything with Jewish interests or relations" is a dangerous all-inclusive protective bubble. For example, to blame the Jewish people of the world, the entire grouping, is bizarre and in poor taste. Yet those who attack the motivations of Mossad or the STATE of Isreal are likely to get blasted for anti-semetism. I don't know about you, but I think this line of thinking is as dangerous as...sacrificing citizen rights in the name of national security.

September 11, 2001 researchers

September 11 researchers was AFDed a while ago, with the result being support for its being merged here. Such a merge has not taken place yet, so I have moved the article to 9/11 conspiracy theories/September 11 researchers. All relevant material from the subpage should be merged here, and then the subpage can be deleted. Ingoolemo ^talk 14:54, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm in the process of merging in the contents of 9/11 conspiracy theories/September 11 researchers. I have removed duplicate links and moved the remainder here. Next I'm going to work on the content. I plan to first remove anything that's already addressed here, and then tack what's left onto the most appropriate section. I expect there will be a lot that editors want to change. Understand that my inclusion of material from 9/11 conspiracy theories/September 11 researchers doesn't mean I endorse that material, or that I don't. It just means it was there and not here. I intend what I'm doing right now to be mostly mechanical. I hope that the normal editing process will take care of any disagreements as they occur. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 19:57, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

There seems to be a major disconnect here. Months have passed during which the 9/11 researchers article has had a chance to mature into valid and useful stand alone article. Any proposed new titles and this belated merger should have been planned and discussed anew, prior to the massive and questionable changes that are underway now. One of the major sticking points seemed to be over what to name the merged article, since the term 'conspiracy' is loaded with pov. Ombudsman 23:36, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I found the page September 11 researchers when I noticed a link to it. Reading the page, I was surprised it was separate; there was a lot of duplicated information that was in 9/11 conspiracy theories. Looking through the page history, I saw that it had been through VfD, and was tagged for merger into this page. The merger was never done, and at some point the merge tag was removed. Not knowing exactly what to do myself, I asked asked Ingoolemo about it.

It was before my time, but I wonder why it was never merged, after it was voted for retention and merger. I assume that this was not meant to be a POV content fork, but that, through an oversight, it grew accidentally as a duplicate article. In any case, I think both articles can profit from the attention of a wider pool of editors.

I thought that whether or not conspiracy theory was appropriate for article titles was a question that had been discussed extensively and voted on. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 01:13, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

It might be helpful for those of us who aren't part of the voting process, to link to a vote page or summarize the results so we can understand. Personally I think some of this can be solved by including a neutral phrase combined with the pejorative, like "Alternative ('Conspiracy') Theories." But I'm also fine with not including 'conspiracy' at all, or including it for both. DRG started off his speech in DC with the statement, "There are two conspiracy theories about 9/11 .. ." (official and alternate).Bov 21:44, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

There was some discussion at words to avoid, and at conspiracy theory. Here is the record of the proposed policy. Here is the vote I know of. I think another proposal to disallow conspiracy theory in article titles is in process, but I don't know where. User:Zen-master probably knows. If I find a link I'll post it here. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 22:10, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Here is the link to the current discussion on Title Neutrality. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 01:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

With regards to the assertion that the article has matured and expanded since its AFD: if you check the page history, you'll find that it's expanded, but not to an especially large degree. Since Tom has finished merging the pages, I think it's time to get the researchers' article deleted. The AFD may be found by checking the page history. Ingoolemo ^talk 16:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Your point is well taken, Ingoolemo, but discussion regarding the determination of a suitable name ought to come first, not after resorting to the misleading inference, inherent in the proposed merged article title, that 9/11 researchers are all a bunch of crackpots. Although there is a clear bias towards orthodoxy, among the strengths of the Wiki is that it is capable of reporting majority views with the requisite grain of salt. Proceeding to an AfD prior to sorting out article title issues would be counterproductive. Ombudsman 20:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I think discussion of a suitable name did come first, some time ago. My understanding is that there has already been an AfD where these issues were raised. The conclusion was that the article be merged. This merge, while somehow delayed, has now been completed. I believe everything on this page is now on 9/11 conspiracy theories. Is it that Ombudsman wants that page renamed? I don't believe this is the best mechanism to resolve a disagreement about the use of conspiracy theory in article titles. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 22:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

That merger seemed to be inconclusive because it was disrupted by the dispute over a title. The point is that it is illogical to put a good article under a bad title, and the delay in merging only served to underscore and compound this pronounced disconnect. And absolutely, merging the articles now - months after the dispute - is not the best way to 'resolve' the article title disagreement. Ombudsman 03:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Just for those interested, I finally found the old AFD debate at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/September_11,_researchers. Ingoolemo ^talk 05:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

War Games

In the War Games section, the following statement is factually inaccurate: "There is no evidence either way to suggest that these exercises impeded the reaction of NORAD or that ATC was even aware of any exercise at the time of the hijackings." The obvious, incontrovertible evidence that these war games impeded NORAD reaction is that the WTC towers and the Pentagon were successfully attacked. -- James

Isn't that assuming the conclusion to prove the assumptions? Tom Harrison ^(talk) 16:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of any attempt to prove anything here. I simply pointed out that the problem with the statement as it stands is its implication that NORAD's response to the 9/11 attacks was unaffected or aided by the war games that morning -- a tenuous POV at odds with the glaring fact that NORAD did not prevent any of the attacks that day. (Are we to believe that an unimpeded or better-than-planned NORAD response would allow three hijacked aircraft to hit their targets?) One piece of evidence that does suggest a NORAD failure is the phantom blips. Regardless, a more accurate statment would not try to rule out any schools of thought on the War Games controversy in a false-neutrality POV, as it does now, but would give time to all of the widespread POVs, which I understand to be: 1) The wargames aided NORAD's response to the attacks; 2) The wargames did not affect NORAD's response to the attacks; 3) The wargames confused and/or impeded NORAD's response to the attacks; 4) The attacks were run as part of the wargames themselves. -- James

I'm sorry, I misunderstood. I thought you were suggesting that the fact that the planes hit their targets was proof that the war games impeded the military response. Certainly I agree that it's possible a textbook NORAD response could have still failed to prevent the slaughter.

Your points 1), 2) and 3) seem plausible, and I suppose should be presented, insofar as there are good citations to support them. Point 4) seems kind of unlikely, since it would seem to imply that the attacks were carried out by the U.S. government, or at least rouge elements of the military. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 01:14, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Whether or not any of these theories seems plausible to you, as far as I can tell, these are the four widespread schools of thought on the war games with schools 3) and 4) falling in the domain of "9/11 conspiracy theories" and 1) and 2) probably going under the counter-conspiracy or conspiracy rebuttal column. -- James

Intro

I took out both of the modifiers alternate and conspiracy. I think with "conspiracy theory" already in the title it would be redundant to have it in the paragraph also. I also think it better reflects reality to say that "Before the sun had set on the evening of September 11, theories were being developed..." Everyone was casting about for an explanation, and no particular view had emerged as dominant. I suppose for consistency we could change the next sentence to "For each event that transpired that Tuesday, multiple explanations have arisen" or "For each official explanation an alternative has emerged." Any thoughts? Tom Harrison ^(talk) 22:18, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Traditional and New Media discussion in the United States

For the most part I liked the revisions and clean up that were done to my original version of this stub. I revised the wording some more myself and added that the Bush Family, Saudi Family relationship was part of the particular "bias" of the Micheal Moore film. The description of Micheal Moore as a "left wing" filmmaker might be partially misleading or to inflammatory. He may also be described as liberal or populist. A need for further development is the reaction outside of the United States. I used in my original post such terms as "fruitcake" and "tin hat brigade" to describe common reactions to alternative theory threads because in looking at many threads on this topic those words were used over and over again. It was changed to "inventing stories" and "being paranoid" which is accurate but may not convey the emotional and personal nature of the reaction to the posters of these type of threads. I made two other additions that need to be looked at 1. Added to the motives section a belief that the public needed to be made ready for a global conflict between Western Civilization and Islamic Fundementalism. 2. Added to the other areas of interest section a Marvin Bush connection to a firm that did security for the World Trade Center.--Ed Kollin 12/05/05

I moved most of your section to 9/11 conspiracy theories#Claims related to the House of Saud since most of it was related to the Suadis more than it was the media. However, one part that only dealt with the media's reaction to conspiracy theorists was: "Many web sites have been set up to try and debunk the official theory and the subject often comes up in current events discussion boards. Reaction to the alternative theory threads have mainly negative even on websites hostile to the Bush administration. Common reactions include accusing the poster of inventing stories or being paranoid." I wasn't sure if this merited it's own section, so we can recreate it using this as a stub and flesh it out a bit more. --Quasipalm 19:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I have some ideas for the new stub that need to be fleshed out and cleaned up

"The mainstream media gave extensive coverage to missed opportunities to prevent the attacks but attributed these to lack of communication between government agencies and bureaucratic ineptitude”

“Reasons cited for the media’s lack of interest or hostility towered alternative theories”

• A widespread disbelief that government officials would have foreknowledge of the attacks and purposefully do nothing to prevent them from happening or would be involved in planning the attacks

(want to put something about denial here but do not no how to do that without being inflammatory)

• Perception that current and future profits for the owners of the mainstream media companies would be compromised by investigations into alternative theories.
• Reporters objectivity have been compromised by becoming to close to their sources (Want to say something about groupthink caused by being insulated in Washington)
• Prejudice against Moslems and Arabs
• Popularity of the State of Israel
• Public persona of Michael Moore and Howard Dean (Want to communicate that the negative image they have both took away time from discussing what they had to say and hurt their credibility)
• Respect for 9/11 commission members in part due to their congenial bipartisan work style added weight to their conclusions .
• Plethora of conspiracy theories has led to a weariness towered them
• Perception that internet reporting is less credible then that done by the traditional media.

Some of these apply to just the traditional media while some apply to both traditional and new media. Need to think through if traditional and new media should be dealt by seperate stubs--Ed Kollin 2:30 ,6 December 2005

Village Voice inspired changes and additions

Two articles from the December 7-13 2005 issue article "The 9/11 Files Four Years Later What We Still Don't Know" and article "The 9/11 Commission Dealt With Several Issues By Ignoring them" is an inspiration for several changes and additions. I am changing "Claims related to the House of Saud" to 9/11 conspiracy theories#Claims related to the Saudi Royal Family and other Saudi Government Officials. The "Saudi Royal Family" is a more familiar term . I added a claim from that article to the section mentioned above as well as adding a motive to the 9/11 conspiracy theories#Motives --Ed Kollin 3:21, 8 December 2005

Great, I originally created the heading w/ "House of Saud" -- the reason being that seems to be the prefered title for the Saudi Family here on Wikipedia. However, I agree that Saudi Royal Family is more common, so you edit makes sense. --Quasipalm 21:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

ANTHRAX MYSTERY

ANTHRAX MYSTERY?

Is it surprising that the CIA and FBI haven’t exposed the anthrax killers? Are the anthrax killers near the top of the FBI’s most wanted list? We do know this about the anthrax murders:

1. The letters contained highly classified weaponized anthrax (Ames Iowa strain, weaponized at Fort Detrick Maryland) developed by the U.S. military and/or the CIA.

2. The letters were mailed from Trenton New Jersey while the Republicans were trying to jam through the Patriot Act that would give President Bush unprecedented power to disregard Americans’ civil rights, increase defense spending, control the media and wage war.

3. Anthrax letters were mailed to:

a) Tom Brokaw of NBC Nightly News (A fairly balanced news network)

b) The New York Post. (A high profile, fairly balanced newspaper)

c) A boy died of anthrax after visiting ABC news (A fairly balanced U.S. news agency)

d) A editor for the National Enquirer died of anthrax (A very widely distributed and widely hated tabloid that is prone to sensationalize conspiracy theories)

e) A mailroom worker contracted anthrax at CBS News (A fairly balanced U.S. news agency)

The media was driven into hysteria from the Anthrax letters and fervently backed the war on Terror. Note that anthrax letters were not sent to war loving media giants FOX or CNN.

f) Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (Democrat, S.D.) received the first Senate anthrax letter as he led the opposition to the original version of the Patriot Act.

g) Senator Patrick Leahy (Democrat, Vt.) received an anthrax letter after he expressed reservations about the Patriot Act. As Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, he managed the debate on the Bill.

4. No Republicans received anthrax letters. George Bush Sr and Collin Powell didn’t receive anthrax letters. No CIA agents, Military Personnel, Weapons Dealers, Oil Companies or Jewish Organizations receive anthrax letters. No large public gatherings were targeted with anthrax. (This all lends serious doubt that either Arab militants or Saddam Hussein were behind the letters)

5. The Letters contained scribbled words “Death to America, Death to Israel, Allah is Great” that were written by someone worried that his handwriting could be traced. Tom Brokaw, Tom Daschle, Patrick Leahy and the NY Post have no obvious connection to Israel. The anthrax letters, instead, looked like they might have been forged to frame Islamic militants. After receiving his anthrax letter, Senator Daschle switched from supporting a 2 year limit on the Patriot Act, later defending a 4-year sunset clause as the appropriate balance.

6. The letters were precisely targeted and perfectly timed to unite the media and the opposition (Democrats) in the War on Terror, the War on Afghanistan and the War on Iraq.

7. The letters (only 4 were positively identified) did not kill their intended targets, but the anthrax material was so sophisticated that the spores passed through the envelopes and infected people all along their path--including secretaries and postal workers. Five people are known to have died from inhaling spores from these letters, and 13 others were infected but survived.

8. The Anthrax Letters created the maximum amount of terror with the minimum loss of life.

9. Dozens of hoax anthrax threats have been widely publicized in the media. The CIA and Bush administration have promoted some of these hoax threats – encouraging many American to buy gas masks and seal off their houses with duct tape. Faulty (read: fabricated) CIA “intelligence” about Iraqi Anthrax built hysterical U.S. support for an invasion despite serious doubts from Americans, Brits and most of their closest allies. Hoax anthrax scares are still creating front page headlines and extreme terror throughout North America.

10. The day after the anthrax letters were mailed to Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy (6 days before either Senator received the letters), the original batch of Ames strain anthrax was destroyed with the permission of the FBI --- making tracing this anthrax type much more difficult. Could it be incompetence, conspiracy or cover up that, two months after the anthrax attacks started, the FBI still had not investigated the only facility capable of producing weaponized anthrax -- the biological warfare program based at Fort Detrick Maryland.

11. Within a ten day period, immediately after the USA Patriot Act was passed, three top anthrax experts with knowledge of the U.S. bioweapons program died under suspicious circumstances. Within four months 8 more world-leading microbiologists were killed. Coincidentally, the controversial coroner of one microbiologist (Don Wiley) was later found wrapped in barbed wire with a live bomb strapped to his chest.

12. British microbiologist, weapons expert and would-be whistle blower David Kelly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kelly) died in an “alleged suicide” on July 17, 2003 – amidst world wide publicity that the U.S. and Britain had invaded Iraq largely based on fabricated “intelligence”. Half the world was anxiously waiting for further news releases on Kelly just before his mysterious death. It is notable that on the morning of his death, Kelly e-mailed New York Times reporter Judith Miller (of Valery Plame leak and Lewis Libby Indictment fame) and told her that many dark actors were playing games. (Email sent by Dr Kelly to Judith Miller on July 17, 2003 http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/com/com_4_0076.pdf )

Were some of these dead microbiologists capable of exposing the anthrax killers? Had they been e-mailing each other about the attacks? This stuff has got all the makings of a detective thriller other than creating any serious doubts as to who was responsible for the letters. The only thing that really has to be established is a motive.

(A) Did the perpetrators mail the letters because they honestly believed that the American people needed to be shaken up – even after 9/11 – in order to face the threat of suicide bombers?

(B) Did the perpetrators mail the letters to cash in on hysterical support for:

a. Increased Weapons Spending? Hundreds of billions of dollars are going into somebody’s pockets.

b. An Invasion of Afghanistan with its strategic presence along the east border of Iran, and the oil-rich Caspian Sea?

c. An Invasion of Iraq (on allegations of stockpiling anthrax and other WMDs) with its strategic presence along the west border of Iran.

d. An invasion of Iran with current (delayed) allegations of its complicity in 9-11 and the terrorist attacks?

e. Complete control of the oil-rich Middle East?

f. Note that Shell Oil is paying $150 million in fines to the SEC and FSA for overstating its reserves by (at least) 20%. Shell’s auditors warned the company as early as January 2000 that its reserves were overstated. Could other oil companies also have been overstating their reserves and pressuring the U.S. and British governments for access to oil in Iraq, the Caspian Sea, Iran, (and Venezuela)?

(C) Did the perpetrators mail the letters because they wanted to create a massive distraction from the financial meltdown on Wall Street that was being caused by widespread exposure of corporate corruption (ENRON, WorldCom, Merck, Arthur Anderson, Halliburton etc. etc. etc.)?

The people who profit the most from a crime are the people most likely to have committed it. Who profited the most from the Anthrax letters?

I really hope that the answer to the above multiple choice question is (A) but it makes you want to get some straight facts from the people Americans are trusting with their lives.

It would be better than Santa Clause if there was a believable: (D) None of the above; answer

Who else has a clear, believable motive to precisely target the media and the opposition with anthrax?

Remember how Karl Rove and Lewis Libby were willing to pre-emptively threaten the life of Valerie Plame (by leaking her identity to the press) to prevent Joseph Wilson from providing America with good intelligence on Iraq’s (non-existent) WMDs? Remember how Bush was willing to use the forged “Yellowcake” document? How much of a stretch is it to assume that one or two members of Bush’s administration were willing to brutally threaten the media and the main senate opponents to the Iraq war????

Remember that some of the people that were so desperate to invade Iraq were among the few people in the world capable of accessing the weaponized anthrax from Fort Detrick.

It's chilling that it might only take a few hundred people, a few billion dollars, some orchestrated scare tactics and a lot of greed to completely hijack a government with an annual budget of a trillion dollars.

Even with all the inconsistencies surrounding 9/11, Bush's team figures that it's in their best self-interest not to co-operate with investigations. What are they trying to hide? Are people just too apathetic or dumb to need to know what's going on in the world?

Like Bush said, terrorists have to be brought to justice—no matter who they are.

It would be best if the whole Bush Administration (Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Lewis Libby, Karl Rove, Paul Wolfwitz, John Ashcroft, John Bolton, Trent Lott, Richard Perle etc) was put on polygraphs to see if they know of any conspiracies around the WTC bombings, Anthrax letters or Iraq invasion.

For consistency, other Washington insiders like Zbigniew Brzezinski, Tom Daschle, Patrick Leahy, John Kerry etc should also be put on lie detectors.

It’s laughable that lowly police officers and CIA agents are rigorously tested with polygraphs, but the directors appointed to control the agencies are considered “untouchable”, “beyond suspicion” and “above the law”– even during global debacles like 9/11, the War on Terror and the War on Iraq.

This is a talk page, not a soap box. Please keep content relavent to improving the article. Thanks. --Quasipalm 21:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Prominent 9/11 researchers

I don't think this is a fair heading. It's not a list of "prominent 9/11 researchers" -- it's a list of, at worst, "prominent 9/11 conspiracy theorists" and, at best, "prominent 9/11 researchers that all have the same POV." Can we discuss how to make this title consistent with what the content is? --Quasipalm 21:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that heading just doesn't work. Not really sure myself what a good one would be, but what exists now is unacceptable. Arkon 23:39, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe "prominent 9/11 researchers" isn't the greatest, but it works. "9/11 conspiracy researchers" is maybe more accurate but doesn't sound right and might be interpreted as derogatory. Thesaurus doesn't seem to be much help either, but I suppose it's worth thinking about. -SK 10 December, 2005

I agree that "prominent 9/11 researchers" works. I also agree that calling it 'conspiracy theorists,' again, is redundant with the title already for the whole page. There should be one place on Wikipedia where the derogatory label isn't inserted at every opportunity, especially when PhDs and university professors, UL manager, former Bush Admin officials, etc., are involved now in calling for new investigations. It just underscores that no matter who asks what questions, they are by definition to be ignored because Bush/FEMA/NIST have the last word. That isn't science, that's fascism.

I would also point out that according to the administration and most of the rest of the establishment, there is no reason to investigate further. According to them, they have told us what really happened and we should believe them and thats the end of it. My point is that there don't seem to be many reasons to further investigate this crime unless one believes there has been a coverup, so I think "Prominent 9/11 Researchers" is probably adequate unless someone has a better idea. -Regarding fascism, I remember the President saying "we will not tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the events of Sept 11". As well, an article in Capitol Hill Blue says that the President remarked the other day about the Constitution "Why do you keep throwing that in my face? It's just a goddamned piece of paper". Fascism alert. I wonder how long this page will be allowed to stay here. - SK

Maybe something like: "Prominent advocates of alternative theories"? Just a thought. --Quasipalm 02:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

"prominent 9/11 researchers", then have a categories for mainstream version and mainstream skeptics.

Dont give me any conspiracy theory bs, the mainstream theory is the worlds most know conspiracy theory, it has not a single undisputed fact that supports it. --Striver 00:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

How about 9/11 reappraisal or 9/11 domestic complicity? zen master T 01:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I love 9/11 domestic complicity. --Striver 02:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

However this would mean any theories which don't involve domestic complicity such as those involving Israel, Saddam, etc don't fit in this article. It would also IMHO remove theories such as those suggesting the Flight 93 was shot down. In fact, I would argue domestic complicity doesn't even include theories which suggest the US may have known but purposely ignored as well as theories that the US might not have known but did not know because they were ordered to avoid gathering evidence. Nil Einne 13:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

join!

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Conspiracies Guild--Striver 00:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

How about working towards presenting "conspiracies" in a neutral way that doesn't play up the X-files angle which indirectly ridicules and dismisses various non-mainstream theories? For starters, lose the word "guild". zen master T 01:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

That sounds like a great idea, and id love to see you make sure the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Conspiracies Guild does not do that! Id love to see you active in that guild, removing anything inappropriate from it, and adding anything appropriate to it ! --Striver 03:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, then rename the project. Creating a "conspiracy" wiki project seems redundant to just pointing out and correcting various NPOV violations in articles involving "conspiracy" allegations. zen master T 21:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

s11 == I'd like this article to be referenced somehow in the 9/11 conspiracy theories section. Can you look at the article and see where it can be added? It was not an enormously popular theory, but it nonetheless got a fair amount of quite serious attention. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 10:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately a couple of posts on message boards do not equal serious attention. Arkon 01:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

It is not a conspiracy when you have the audio and video of bombs exploding at the World Trade Center before the fall of the Twin Towers. Explosions.

7 WTC

I've seen it mentioned before on some conspiracy website that 7 WTC might have been brought down due to the fact that it was hit bu a US missile shot at one of the hijacked planes. If I recall, this claim had some phootos that purported to show this missile. The 7 WTC main page briefly mentions a missile but I don't see this claim mentioned here. Is this a well known claim? If so it clearly needs to be included. We need to also note that unlike 'controlled explosion' and bomb claims and the like, the missile claim doesn't suggest the US did it on purpose, in fact it suggests it was an accident. (Of course, it's possible and I'm sure some people have claimed that the US purposely fired a missile at 7 WTC and if this is also well known, we should mention it) Nil Einne 13:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

There were statements by fire and police personnel made while the attacks were ongoing to the effect that the twin towers were having missiles fired at them. In none of the statements I have read did anybody claim to see actual missiles hitting the towers. The conclusions were arrived at based on the fireball caused by the second plane strike. Remember that unlike the rest of us the people at the scene were not watching the second plane hit on television. Ed Kollin 2:22, 21 December 2005

It sounds like you might be confusing WTC 7 with WTC 1 and WTC 2. Nil is talking about the short note on World Trade Center 7 about a missle. I think the missle line should be removed, as it doesn't appear to be a common conspiracy theory. --Quasipalm 16:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)--- You are correct although in my post I said "twin towers" which implies WTC1 and WTC2. When I posted it I thought Nil might be referring these early reports but a rereading of his remarks clearly shows I was the one who confused. I have always wondered why more has not been made of these early reports Ed Kollin 11:58 3, January 2006

I removed a deceptive image suggesting that there was a billowing cloud from Building 7 when the whole site was smoking, not specifically Bldg 7 -- no one can say exactly which puffs of smoke were coming from which origin who did not take that photograph.Bov 19:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV and the debunking set-up format

I've been working to NPOV some of the sections here. Many have been set up as a debunking - frequently using wording and phrases like "however," (more info at WP:WTA) and essentially asserting a "debunker's" POV. NPOV allows Wikipedia to present and cite the opinions of both sides, but not to assert one point of view or opinion on the matter. Also, all criticisms must be directly cited and specifically relevant to the matter being discussed, and comments in somebody's blog don't count. Blackcats 22:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)