Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 9/11 conspiracy theories article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42

Template:Todo priority

9/11 conspiracy theories was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (No date specified. To provide a date use: {{FailedGA|insert date in any format here}}). There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

9/11 conspiracy theories received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This article was nominated for deletion on 11 August 2006. The result of the discussion was Speedily kept (nomination withdrawn).

/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3 /Archive 4 /Archive 5 /Archive 6 /Archive 7 /Archive 8 /Archive 9

Al Queda Taking Responsibility

If the government really did orchestrate these attacks, how did they get Osama bin Laden to take responsibility for the 9/11 attacks? Bin Laden doesn't just claim responsibility for everything. He disputed that Al Queda was responsible for the London bombings in 2005 and he did not claim responsibility for anything that convicted terrorists not involved in his 9/11 hand-picked terrorists say. What is one good reason why Osama would take responsibility for these attacks if they were not orchestrated by him?

Osama was trained by the CIA. He could have performed that act on somebody`s order.

Corus study

Steel manufacturer Corus Group (formerly British Steel) conducted tests on unprotected steel beems in an office fire. Despite temperatures of unprotected steel beams being in excess of 1100°C, there was no collapse [54]. A total of 7 tests were carried out between 1994 and 2003 on a 8-storey composite building with metal deck floors at a test facility in Cardington. There are no reports of any structural collapses during the tests [55].

I read the cited articles, and they don't seem to say anything specifically about the WTC.

Do we have a source that cites these studies in relation to 9/11? Otherwise it is Original research.--DCAnderson 23:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See here: http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI.htm TurboForce 13:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are many references to the Corus study in relation to 9/11 on http://911research.wtc7.net/ Search the site for the word Corus and you'll see for yourself. The mention of these fire tests ought to be included in the main article - where it was before being removed. TurboForce 13:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have now updated this section with the cited source above. Have also mentioned that the fires were blamed for the collapse of the twin towers, but the 7 fire tests conducted on the steel structure by Corus never produced any collapses.

CITED SOURCE: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/fires/steel.html

Okay okay, I hope to prove the Corus tests aren't original research. TurboForce 12:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

911research.net is only a reliable source for what its operator thinks. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it would be okay as long as it says something like "According to 911research.net, the Corus study is indicative of..."--DCAnderson 17:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SO WHY DO YOU KEEP DELETING IT WHEN THE INFORMATION ABOUT THE CORUS STUDY HAS AN EXTERNAL SOURCE OF INFORMATION?!!!!!!!!!!!!. TurboForce 21:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The adiabatic flame temperature of the kerosene fuel Jet-A is 1727°C, well above the melting point of the WTC's steel. These temperatures persisted for quite some time, to say nothing of the severe structural damage from the high-speed plane impacts that are discussed in the sections below. -- Huysman^talk^| ^contribs 19:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you truly knew what the meaing of the term "adiabatic" is, you would realise that this is

a best case FLAME temperature in absolutely ideal conditions, with no heat loss, perfect fuel/air mixture etc, which is NOT the case in the WTC fires. It has to do with the energy released during the bonding of the fuel with oxygen, and the amount of energy needed to heat the resulting products (ie CO2 etc). In normal building fires, air temperatures do not reach anywhere near this, normally only briefly breaking 1000 C at flashover in very hot fires. Moreover, as mentioned, this is the temperature of the flame, NOT the temperature of any solid objects being affected by the flame: These objects, especially steel frameworks akin to a giant heatsinks, take a long time and a large amount of heat energy input to reach anywhere near the maximum flame temperature.--Diablomonic 08:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see plenty of evidence around that shows the temperature of the fires in the twin towers could not have been anywhere near that high. Examples:

I think the Corus fire tests are a good example of what could be put into the main page. Researchers say that the fires melted or softened the steel which brought down the twin towers and maybe WTC building 7; the Corus fire tests show steel structures do not collapse when exposed to fire. Source:

http://www.corusconstruction.com/en/design_and_innovation/structural_design/fire/cardington_fire_test/cardington_fire_test/

Steel structure melted and collapsed at Madrid Windsor, so the last sentence is moot. -- Huysman^talk^| ^contribsFile:Poisoned Icon.jpg 03:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quote from that page:

"despite atmosphere temperatures of almost 1200°C and steel temperatures on the unprotected beams in excess of 1100°C in the worst cases, no structural collapse took place."

When you say kerosene fuel Jet-A burns at 1727°C, is that with pressurisation? Where did you get that figure 1727°C from? -- TurboForce 21:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

www.engr.colostate.edu/~dga/me325/handouts/collapse_of_WTC.pdf; . -- Huysman^talk^| ^contribsFile:Poisoned Icon.jpg 03:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above: adiabatic temperature (that 1700 C value) is a best case perfect scenario temperature of the flames, with a perfect fuel air mix, and no heat loss. Basically take all the energy released by the reaction of the fuel with oxygen, and use ALL that heat energy to heat ONLY the fuel, oxygen, and other 70% of the air associated with that amount of oxygen. If too much fuel or too much oxygen is present, then some of that energy is wasted heating that useless excess matter. As you can see, if that energy is also being "drained" by a giant steel heatsink.. well 1000 tonnes of concrete and steel per floor takes a lot more energy to heat than just the air and fuel mixture. The only thing I should note is that while the conditions in the tower where nowhere near ideal flame conditions (eg see the black smoke indictaing excess fuel/lack of oxygen), preheating of the air without lowering its oxygen content can raise this temperature. (ie unburnt preheated air, not hot exhaust from a previous flame)--Diablomonic 08:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On page 5 of 8 in the .pdf file your link points to it says "Flames billowed out the windows…the tower uses a structural steel skin…the flame was licking that skin, so the steel melted."

So why didn't we see the steel melting? If the steel was that hot, it would be glowing red-hot and be clearly visible glowing, even in daylight. Source:

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/columnstemps.html

A heating element (for example) glows when it gets red-hot, any very hot metal object does. The glowing is clearly visible in daylight, even at temperatures below 1000°C. The fires in the towers did not cause significant window breakage, this would happen at temperatures above 600°C. Source:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/fires/severity.html

None of the towers were burning for many hours and both collapsed, other high-rise fires (like the examples in the main article) have burned for much longer, show brighter flames gutting whole floors and none of them totally collapsed.

TurboForce 12:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE DECIDE if I can put the Corus study in the main article under the section 4.1 Controlled-demolition theory next to the comparision to other high-rise fires? It would be ideal to compare the Corus tests to the comparisions of other high rise fires and how steel behaves in building fires.

TurboForce 16:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question: What types of steel beams were used in this? I-beams? What type of loads were placed on the beams in the study?

To answer you question, you can see the Corus fire tests here:

http://www.corusconstruction.com/en/design_and_innovation/structural_design/fire/cardington_fire_test/

Also, search in the http://911research.wtc7.net/ site for the word Corus

TurboForce 19:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The author of the book Facing our Fascist State mentions the Corus fire tests, the book is mentioned here: http://911research.wtc7.net/resources/books/

TurboForce 19:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Based on the pictures on the Corus fire tests, I can only conclude that they have no merit in regards to the WTC.  Take a look at the last picture on this site:

http://www.corusconstruction.com/en/design_and_innovation/structural_design/fire/cardington_fire_test/cardington_fire_test/

The support is what looks like lateral steel I-beams. These are heavy-duty beams set up in square patterns. That was not how the WTC was built at all. They used lighter weight steel trusses. I just need to find a picture to show you what I mean (obviously, you disregard the NIST report, though for no good reason), but those types of steel beams were NOT used to support the floors in WTC.

That's actually irrelevant.

[1]

The above photo was taken after the office demonstration test fire at Cardington. It demonstrates that the thermal expansion of the beams/trusses was accommodated by downward deflection, not by the forcing of the exterior walls away from the core (axial expansion) as claimed by FEMA and NIST. There was also no failure of the end connections. Even though the beams could only contribute as catenary tension members (the beams were reduced to 3 or 4% of their room temperature strength), the concrete floors supplied strength to the structural system by membrane action and no collapse occurred. The beams/trusses were not fire protected. Here is a summary of features of the office demonstration test fire at Cardington. DrObjektiv 15:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have we decided whether the Corus fire tests will make it into the main article? References can be made to the Corus study on http://911research.wtc7.net/ for example on this page of that site: http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/cardington.htm

There are other pages about the Corus study on the 911research site. I have skipped through that page (link above), but have not read it fully. Skipping through, I have discovered that in all tests there were no structural collapses. TurboForce 23:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article nomination has failed

The Good article nomination for 9/11 conspiracy theories has failed, for the following reason:

This article has failed for a few reasons. First it is unstable, since many edits have been made in the past few days. Second, all the citations are not listed at the end of the article. Last, this article still seems to have many tasks still pending left. Fix those up before renomination. Alvin6226 ^talk 01:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These are all valid reasons. I'm going to focus on removing weasel words from this article when I get the chance. -- Huysman^talk^|^contribs 02:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, upon reading the article I see that the number of weasel words has been greatly reduced, perhaps enough to have the weasel words item crossed off the pending task list. What do you think? -- Huysman^talk^|^contribs 02:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page needs to be split

The main page is far too long, is tagged as such, and breaking the main headings into sub pages is clearly long overdue. Taking the main impact sites, WTC, Pentagon, Flight 93 site, combined with wargames, and foreknowledge, seems a sensible preliminary division. I propose the following and invite comments. Timharwoodx 09:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly agree. This page is way to large on its own and should be split so that information about certain subjects can be easily found without refering to your internet's find ability. This would require a lot of pruning to make sure all necessary information is with it's appropriate page, and I'm sure many of you don't want to do this which is why it's been a month since someone replied to Timharwoodx. H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 09:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NO, actually 98% of this article is crap - badly written at that - and should be deleted. The rest should be used to write a concise, well written article. Raul654 09:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, do it. Start deleting, start adding sources, if you get into an edit war cite Wiki's standards, get protection if needed. You can't defend a conspiracy without researched sources from credible sources to back you up. I'm on the side that there is something hidden behind the attacks, but a conspiracy is just that without backing. H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 09:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did that once already - spent several hours rewriting the article, creating a reasonable introduction, 'etc. [2] I have no desire to waste my time doing that again, since apparently there are too many POV pushers here who cannot write a cogent sentence. Raul654 17:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Foreknowledge

Why is foreknowledge treated here as a "theory"? There is ample evidence to suggest it is factual. --Laikalynx 20:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WTC complex

What happened to this page?? --71.36.251.182 17:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To the best of my knowledge this page and the two mentioned below were never started, and have always been redlinks. -- Huysman^talk^| ^contribsFile:Poisoned Icon.jpg 03:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Pentagon

What happened to this page? --71.36.251.182 17:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flight 93

What happened to this page?? --71.36.251.182 17:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wargames

"I propose the following and invite comments."

PLEASE make the proposal before making such a drastic change in an article that so many of us have been trying to get right through so many disagreements and compromises. We are getting around to deciding on what splits to make if you care to read the discussion above. SkeenaR 09:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its a prod to get you all to sort it. The main page is absurdly long. I don't see the need for Foreknowledge, Pentagon, WTC, and Flight 93, Wargames, sub pages, really needs much thought. The wargames page already exists, so you are duplicating content on the main page, in that respect. I've done lots of work on various WIKIs, and I've never had any queries about my chops of overly long pages before. You take the main headings, on which a concensus already exists, and split it out that way. Its not difficult. Get on with it. Timharwoodx 09:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

98 kilobytes is an absurd page size, and vastly exceeds the Wikipedia:Article_size guidelines, which give 20-32 kilobytes as the range to begin to consider subdivision. So logically, following the WIKI rules, AT LEAST 3 sub pages are required, and possibly 5. I don't understand why there has to be so much discussion about something, that is just the application of standing WIKI style guidelines. If this was any other topic than 9/11, it would have been done MONTHS ago. Whats the problem here, exactly? Timharwoodx 10:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, I agree the article needs to be broken up, but you need to leave a one-paragraph stub behind, not just a link to the new article. -- MisterHand 10:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your gonna get a query or two now. Guaranteed. I agree that this thing should be split up a bit, but it's kind of a zoo here, and unless it's done with some foresight it will turn into more of a chaos than it already is. Thanks for the prod, but since you have been so bold in attempting to instigate this, perhaps you should stick around and take part in this wonderful progress. As to your last query, you could start by doing some reading. SkeenaR 10:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there's gotta be stubs of course, and don't forget all the new afd's that are going to happen. How many do we want to deal with all at once. It doesn't have to instantly be broken into six pieces. You know what I mean. SkeenaR 10:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think there should be one article, here, and the various sections reduced in size, with a plethora of pointers to conspiracy theory pages outside of Wikipedia. These are marginal claims with little substance and much speculation. In many cases the claims have been thoroughly refuted.--Cberlet 13:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough I have to commend Tim for being bold with his edits, and combatting what was essentially a great amount of heel dragging going on on this page. Though the only real split I can agree with is the controlled demolition one. The rest I don't think quite justify their own articles. The last time I checked, the page was 66 KBS with the stff abot the WTC taken out, which is a generally accepted length for an article.--DCAnderson 14:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The suggestions by Timharwoodx and MisterHand make the most sense to me. After all, the article is already in sections. It's pretty standard (at least for a librarian) to assign full-page status to these sections, which have all developed in their own right (e.g. 9/11 Conspiracy Theories: Government Foreknowledge), and leave their introductory one-paragraph stubs on the main page with a cross-reference to the new page. Let's split the work up. I'll do the Government Foreknowledge, and perhaps others will volunteer to do the other sections?--PureLogic 22:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New York Times Covers Chicago June 2006 conference

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/05/us/05conspiracy.html http://www.911revealingthetruth.org/

CB Brooklyn 03:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is by far the most sympathetic article toward the 911 Truth movement I have seen in the “mainstream” press 15:14, 7 June 2006 (Ed Kollin)

FBI says "no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11"

This information should be placed into the main article:

According to the Muckraker Report, Rex Tomb, the Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI, has said on June 5, 2006: “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”

Assuming the quote is accurate (I could not find a second link to that quote after a brief search) where do you put this in the main article? While this would put a huge hole in the “official “ theory and should be the lead story on every newscast the linked article while asking many questions does not theorize as to a specific alternate theory. 15:25, 6 June 2006 (Ed Kollin)

It just sounds like something taken out of context. If Rex Tomb really did mean what the quote seems to imply, then yes, it would be the lead story on every newscast. If we can't find the quote in context, we probably should not be including it for the time being.--DCAnderson 19:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying he didn't say what this article claims, but Rex Tomb has addressed this issue in the past, as early as late September, 2001. The reason he has consistently given given in the past is that Usama bin Laden has not been indicted for anything relating to the events of September 11th, 2001. It would seem highly inappropriate for an official FBI spokesperson to plainly state that there is a lack of physical evidence to obtain this indictment when the official line is that he remains a suspect and remains under active investigation. The videos in which he claims responsibility might be convincing, except that there are others in which he denies having any part of 9/11, highly praising (but not naming) those who did. It's actually not surprising that there's no "physical" or "hard" evidence of his involvement. Physical evidence would be fingerprints, DNA, incriminating documents with an identifiable source, and so on. Whether he was involved in 9/11 or not, there is almost certainly no reliable physical evidence to be found that would prove it. The man might be an evil killer, but he has decades of experience at staying alive while being hunted by the world's most powerful nations. Indicting him for 9/11 isn't going to make it any easier to capture the man. There's already at least USD $27 million to be had in official rewards for information leading to his capture (based on the FBI's most-wanted site), and billions of people who would love to see him hang by his neck until long after he is dead. Joel Blanchette 21:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's amazing how so many just can't see it.

the FBI does not consider the video hard evidence. The only rational explanation is that they know the tape is not bin Laden. If you haven't already, take a look here

I have seen that page many times as a former 9/11 conspiracist and I can't believe I fell for that junk. -- Huysman^talk^| ^contribs 19:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not headline news for the same reason every other 9/11 Truth issue isn't: The MSM is controlled.

Whether or not it would help find bin Laden is not the point. The point is that the FBI did not put 9/11 on bin Laden's poster. They have no hard evidence, yet many Whitehouse officials said they knew it was him. We bombed Afghanistan under the assumption the video was real.

THE FBI says they have no hard evidence. Looking at the video, it is obviously not bin Laden.

On what basis can anyone say otherwise? Where is the reasoning supporting that line of thinking?

CB Brooklyn 21:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The person in the video obviously is bin Laden. -- Huysman^talk^| ^contribs 12:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend an appointment with your eye doctor :-) CB Brooklyn 12:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise. :-) Did you even visit the page? If you did, you ought to have realized that the video shows Osama. Can you provide a substantive reply? -- Huysman^talk^| ^contribs 23:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 911myths site is ridiculous. It makes silly assumptions not based on facts. And btw, what education/experience do the writers of that site have? What are the authors names???????? Don't be taken in. CB Brooklyn 13:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please list some "silly assumptions" instead of a blanket statement and caricature of the site. -- Huysman^talk^| ^contribs 23:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the 911 myths FAQ this site is Original Research by the web site creator U.K. software developer Mike Williams. He claims he did this to sharpen his research skills and because he enjoys the topic. 11:40, 8 June 2006 (Ed Kollin)

Kindly post the URL to that FAQ showing the author's name.

http://911myths.com/html/site_faq.html. -- Huysman^talk^| ^contribs 23:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strange how the FAQ is not linked from the home page. In any case, it's an unscientific site, and I don't consider a software developer reputable for this type of situation anyway. CB Brooklyn 04:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's ironic, considering that Jim Hoffman is a software developer and one the most frequently cited sources in the article (and one that has been suspected of linkfarming wiki articles to his site. --Mmx1 17:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

911myths is the most unscientific site I've ever seen about 9/11. This link describes the author's method of evaluating the evidence: Pathological science.

Nope, not even close. Read the criteria on that page again and you should notice that it fits many of the 9/11 conspiracist claims in this discussion. -- Huysman^talk^| ^contribs 23:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It does not fit the claims of Dr Steven E. Jones. CB Brooklyn 04:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Jones promotes "fantastic theories contrary to experience." -- Huysman^talk^| ^contribs 19:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a person from BYU who is actually qualified to assess the WTC collapses has this to say on Jones's paper: The structural design of the towers was unique in that the supporting steel structure consisted of closely spaced columns in the walls of all four sides. The resulting structure was similar to a tube. When the aircraft impacted the towers at speeds of about 500 plus mph, many steel columns were immediately severed and others rendered weak by the following fires. The fires critically damaged the floors systems. Structural steel will begin to lose strength when heated to temperatures above 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. Steel bridge girders are bent to conform to the curved roadway by spot heating flanges between 800 and 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. It is easy to comprehend the loss of carrying capacity of all the structural steel due to the raging fires fed by the jet's fuel as well as aircraft and building contents. -- Huysman^talk^| ^contribs 19:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The author of that site simply starts with the assumption the official conspiracy theory is correct. From there, he attempts to debunk as many claims as he can that contradicts it. That is unscientific.

For the last time, the official story is not a conspiracy theory. -- Huysman^talk^| ^contribs 23:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no proof to back up the official story. Therefore it is a conspiracy theory. Any "proof" that people claim exists is easily contradicted by facts. btw, just so I know where you stand, are you LIHOP, or imcompetence theory? Or, plain ol' official theory (government caught completely by surprise)? Obviously I am MIHOP. The controlled demolitions of the Twin Towers and WTC 7 makes that decision easy. CB Brooklyn 04:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your first sentence makes it hard not to believe that you have committed intellectual suicide. I think it was a mix of bad luck, missed opportunities, and incompetence. -- Huysman^talk^| ^contribs 18:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

btw, I'm still waiting for someone to explain the report of partly evaporated steel in the rubble of WTC 7 :-)

Also, every point made here must be addressed and explained (without absurd claims).

CB Brooklyn 16:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. It will take me some time but I'll try my best within the time constraints. It's funny how one can call himself a patriot while accusing his own government of mass murder, conspiracy, and coverup with phony evidence. I think I'm going to post a response to each section (e.g. "High-level officials") in separate blog posts so as not to clutter up this talk page, and then provide the external links. -- Huysman^talk^| ^contribs 23:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea... posting in a blog is better than here. As for your other comment... America was built on questioning the government. I accuse them of mass murder because of the overwhelming evidence, mainly the controlled demolitions of the Twin Towers and WTC 7. CB Brooklyn 04:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "evidence" is based on bad physics, Ockham's razor violations, question begging, lies, and other faulty logic. The Towers weren't demolished; I will elaborate on my upcoming blog posts. -- Huysman^talk^| ^contribs 18:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the main page of 911proof there is a link to a blog post saying that 7 men could have planned the conspiracy and kept it secret. The author of that blog post says it is probably more than seven, but the point is that the number of people could have been extremely small. This is absurd. Here are just some people it would have to include: Bush, Cheney, Larry Mitchell, Rice, Ashcroft, Silverstein, numerous FBI personel working in the Moussaoui case, the people who "planted evidence" in the hijacker's cars, five dancing Israelis, Bush's secret service team, SEC and all the people who committed "insider trading," NORAD, fighter pilots, the people who would've planted explosives at WTC 1/2/7, CNN, FEMA, NIST, WTC insurance companies, FDNY, NYPD, Giuliani, KSM, Binalshibh, numerous al-Qaeda members giving "fake" confessions, Pentagon workers in charge of missile batteries etc., "remote control planes" pilots, numerous UAL and AAL workers, and myriad others. -- Huysman^talk^| ^contribs 00:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only the higher ups would be in the need-to-know. That does not include fighter pilots, the FDNY or NYPD, but does include some of the others you mentioned. Still... saying it's absurd does not explain all the anomalies in the government's version. (Many of those anomalies contradict the government's version, making their version a conspiracy theory.) CB Brooklyn 04:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The WTC collapses, Flight 93 and Pentagon crashes, hijackers' identity, trading patterns, etc. are not anomalous. The FDNY and NYPD would have to know something was up because if a conspiracy were true they would've had to silence many people. The fighter pilots would've known something was wrong if they deliberately flew "slowly." -- Huysman^talk^| ^contribs 18:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They're not anomalies??? Kindy show a reference to a high rise building anywhere on the planet that collapsed with the characteristics of the Twin Towers and WTC 7, but were not brought down in a controlled demolition. If you can reference such an event, then I will agree with you that they are not anomalies. CB Brooklyn 23:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not in denial nor am I brainwashed; these terms would apply to me when I was promoting 9/11 conspiracism in my writings a couple of years ago. The Twin Towers were hit by jets, come on already. As shown above their design was nowhere near strong enough to survive the crashes and resulting fires. Some buildings that suffered from progressive, pancake collapse are L'Ambiance Plaza, other steel frame buildings in Los Angeles and Fairfax County, VA, and the Ronan Point building in England (1968). Progressive collapse of steel framed buildings, including fire induced collapses, is something that has occurred several times in history. -- -- Huysman^talk^| ^contribs 00:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the towers were hit by jets. But the government did not explain how impact damage and fires caused all the following anomalies in the Towers and WTC 7... anomalies that are all common to controlled demolitions (and WTC 7 was not hit by a jet): complete collapse; near freefall speed; straight down; puffs of smoke coming out the sides; molten metal in the rubble (hotter than burning jet fuel); partly evaporated steel in the WTC 7 rubble; pulverization of concrete, office furniture, carpeting etc, into flour-like powder; multiple reports of controlled demolition behavior, explosions, and bombs. In order for the government's story to hold any water, all those anomalies must be addressed. CB Brooklyn 00:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The straight down collapses item is addressed above; see here as well. The most accurate timeframes for the collapses--based on seismic and video evidencefor--are 15+ seconds, way slower than freefall speed (however, pieces of rubble, not the tower itself, did freefall). Again, the adiabatic flame temperature of the kerosene fuel Jet-A is 1727°C, well above the melting point of the WTC's steel. Maybe the metal was aluminum; after all, Mark Loizeaux never said he saw molten steel and that contractors reported this to him regarding metal that they didn't test. These temperatures persisted for quite some time and these are what would have created molten steel. I addressed the reports of explosion sounds in the Proposed Alternative Theories section of the 9/11 attacks talk page. When the floors started buckling inward there was no debris ejection; this only took place after the pancaking floors started forcing massive amounts of air out of the windows, unlike in a controlled demolition (when ejection takes place beforehand). Abundant photographic evidence indicates an inward collapse. Although there was ejected steel, photographs show much of the steel was falling from above. There was a load of concrete that wasn't dust; insulation, ceiling tiles, and gypsum sheet rock were easily pulverized. There was such tremendous force with all the pancaking that it is no wonder lots of concrete was pulverized. Define "flour-like" numerically: how fine is that? I'll take a look at the WTC 7 "partially vaporized steel" link soon and get back to you on that. -- Huysman^talk^| ^contribs 02:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the NIST report, the South Tower collapsed in 10 seconds. But whether it was 10 or 15, is irrelevant though. The point is that buildings have never collapsed at that speed from anything other than controlled demolitions. The NIST report did not explain how fire and impact damage did that to three buildings all in one day, all in downtown Manhattan. Based on experiments by Steven E. Jones, the molten metal was probably not aluminum. Also, Prof. Thomas Eagar from MIT said: "The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel." You cannot simply say that the collapse caused tremendous force that it pulverized concrete to powder. You must demonstrate how. Read Dr Jones paper for info on the flour-like powder. The CNN link from Rittenhouse is from an interview and therefore means nothing. He cannot simply "explain" the collapses. He must prove it scientifically. He must perform scientific experiments demonstrating how fire and impact damage caused three buildings to collapse in that manner... a manner only seen in the past via controlled demolitions. I'll tell you what... let's forget about the Towers. Just explain WTC 7 to me. How did impact damage and fires cause it to collapse in that controlled demolitions style manner? When something looks like something, that is what it should be assumed, until proven otherwise. CB Brooklyn 03:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WTC 7 was severely damaged; read the reports. Photographs of WTC 7 show severe fires and smoke; look it up on somewhere that's not a selective conspiracist site. WTC 7 is already falling before "squibs" appear, unlike in a controlled demolition. The so-called squibs are actually windows popping out due to air, and the smoke travels upward and not outward. There wasn't enough water to fight in the fires in that building, and again, progressive collapse is something that happens to steel-framed buildings. -- Huysman^talk^| ^contribs 17:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I challange you to cite a building that collapsed like WTC 7 from anything other than a controlled demolition CB Brooklyn 03:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The collapse was asymmetrical, with most of the building falling to the southeast while some of it fell to the north. The collapse happened from the bottom and the penthouse, which fell first, had a fire under it. I already cited examples. My points in this reply and the one above prove that WTC 7 did not collapse due to demolition. -- Huysman^talk^| ^contribs 03:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Compare the WTC 7 collapse with the Philips Building, Southwark Towers, and Schuylkill Falls Tower collapses here

After viewing those, cite a collapse similar to that of WTC 7 but not from controlled demolition. CB Brooklyn 04:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In all those examples there are large squibs extending 100+ meters - several seconds PRIOR to the collapse. There were no such things with WTC 7. What are cited as "squibs" occur during the collapse and extend a few feet out - the result of failing structural members, not the cause. That and many of the controlled demolitions are decidedly asymmetrical. How is symmetry a "characteristic" of CD again?--Mmx1 05:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Explain how the vertical columns failed (near?) simultaneously. Also explain where the delay from conservation of momentum went. Also cite a building that collapsed in the manner as WTC 7 did (I must have asked this three times already) from anything other than controlled demolitions. CB Brooklyn 05:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me as if he's already pointed out, several times, that the way WTC7 fell does not match controlled demolitions, for various reasons, so your question is centrally flawed. ThatGuamGuy 14:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)sean[reply]

I've already given examples of both partial and total collapses. -- Huysman^talk^| ^contribs 17:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you are making the assumption that simultaneous vertical column failing is related to "partial and total collapses" of buildings. It is not. If you think otherwise, explain your reasoning specifically. If not, then please answer my original question. CB Brooklyn 21:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a structural engineer nor do I have the available facts regarding WTC 7. However, your videos do not match in a critical way that invalidates the causality of your "squibs". Delay from what? It's clear that even in your posted videos, there IS a delay between the detonations and the collapse, so if anything, that's an argument that it couldn't have been CD. --Mmx1 05:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You need to do some research on conservation of momentum, it has nothing to do with squibs. I'm not a structural engineer either but I can certainly see that WTC 7 was professionally demolished. All that is needed is common sense. Buildings do not (and have never) collapsed in that manner from anything other than a controlled demolition. And how do we explain the reports of partly evaporated steel in the rubble? (see Jones' paper for the info). CB Brooklyn 06:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have had training in physics. When you talk about squibs, you are implying that conservation of momentum is the reason for the delay between the explosions and the actual collapse. Well, that's clear in the videos you provided....the squibs from the explosions come before the collapse and there's a second delay. What's the "delay" measured from in WTC 7? There are no major squibs, only small puffs resulting from structural members failing. If the "partially evaporated stee" is a reference to the sulfites found, there's still no indication when those sulfites entered the steel - as a manufacturing defect, during the fire in the Towers, or during the smoldering on the ground.--Mmx1 06:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am talking about the near freefall speed of the collapse, not squibs. There's no reference to sulfites regarding the partly evaportated steel. But even so, one cannot simply claim a manufacturing defect. That is silly and unscientific!! Evidence must be shown. Here's another question: do you see the similarities between the collapses from implosionworld and WTC 7? CB Brooklyn 06:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the collapses were not "near free fall." -- Huysman^talk^| ^contribs 17:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you are bringing up a red herring. Whether it is classified as "near freefall" or not does not matter. The fact that 10-15 seconds is close enough to freefall speed to make the government theory impossible. In any event, since you think the Towers and WTC 7 would be able to collapse at that speed without prepositioned explosives, kindly cite a scientist explaining and calculating how the government's theory does not violate Conservation of Momentum. (See Dr Jones' paper section 9, and Dr Wood's paper for info on how Conservation of Momentum.) CB Brooklyn 21:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, saying that the reason you can't explain how the vertical columns failed simultaneously is because you're not a structural engineer, is a copout... CB Brooklyn 06:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your out-of-hand dismissal of the CNN interview I cited was also a copout. He was reporting on scientific findings. Please address it properly. -- Huysman^talk^| ^contribs 17:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Show me an actual report and not some interview where he just says what he wants the audience to hear and I'll take a look. CB Brooklyn 21:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are no structural engineers, architects, demolition experts, materials specialists, or seismologists who posit bombs in the towers. -- Huysman^talk^| ^contribs 18:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps because they don't want to lose their jobs, of worse. Check these reporter video clips: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]

Here's videos from CNN. Why did CNN mute the word explosion on the 2nd video? [15] [16]

FDNY FIRE MARSHAL: "I thought it was exploding, actually. That’s what I thought for hours afterwards, that it had exploded or the plane or there had been some device on the plane that had exploded, because the debris from the tower had shot out far over our heads"

FDNY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER: "I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down."

Q. "Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was?"

A. "No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw"

CB Brooklyn 21:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is that these "revelations" are really nothing of the sort. Wired News ran an article on September 27th, 2001 in which the very same FBI spokesperson, Rex Tomb, explained that they only mention crimes that a person has been indicted for on their most-wanted list.

Considering that we're talking about the FBI's 10 most wanted list, whether the information would improve the likelihood of a suspect's capture is exactly the point. They don't list every indictment against Osama bin Laden. They say that he is wanted for a few specified attacks and is suspected of involvement in others which are not specified, but obviously include 9/11.

I'm still somewhat skeptical of the article being refered to. I've read several articles now in which Mr. Tomb is quoted as saying the 9/11 charges aren't on bin Laden's poster because he hasn't been charged with them, though he remains a suspect. I've yet to find an instance where he (or any other FBI official) actually stated that there was a lack of evidence to do so. This is somebody who's been handling this issue since 9/11, and he's never deviated significantly in his response. Also, how much faith can one put in an author who can't even quote himself properly? In his third paragraph, he quotes himself asking “How this was possible?” Also, the author, Ed Haas, is clearly heavily biased against the media and the American government. Joel Blanchette 20:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would intercepted communications fall under the hard evidence monkier? Back to the matter at hand if you can get another link or transcript of Mr. Tomb's remark I would think we could put this under "Other Points of Interest" for now. In the long run since the article is being split up I think we might need a page just for people who question the official story but do not offer any specific alternative theory. 02:06, 7 June 2006 (Ed Kollin)

There would be no way of corroborating this story without contacting Rex Tomb, as the quotes are taken from a telephone conversation between Mr. Tomb and Ed Haas (aka The Muckraker Report). Mr. Tomb is a legitimate person, but I don't believe there's such a position as "Chief of Investigative Publicity" within the FBI. In fact, quickly searching the Internet indicates that his title is Unit Chief of the Fugitive Publicity & Public Affairs Unit. It's possible his title has changed, but the only reference to the title given by Mr. Haas is on his own site and on a blog that These might seem like trivial objections, but they do put into question the author's ability to accurately report a story. Joel Blanchette 20:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a "chat" page

Please, unless you're specifically discussing an improvement to this article, please keep it off the talk page. Thank you.--DCAnderson 21:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 100% and will cease. CB Brooklyn 21:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. I will reserve it for blogging and will post a link on my userpage eventually. -- Huysman^talk^| ^contribsFile:Poisoned Icon.jpg 20:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CB Brooklyn, you and anyone else are invited to continue discussion at User talk:Huysman/911 conspiracism -- Huysman^talk^| ^contribsFile:Poisoned Icon.jpg 01:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What information Mr. Schippers received

I have deleted "It is unclear exactly what warnings he is thought to have received" because the statement itself is unclear. Does it convey any specific verifiable facts? The next sentence says, "Mr. Schippers has said the information dated back to a 1995 warning that indicated a possible terrorist attack planned for lower Manhattan using a nuclear device." Mr. Schippers may be a nut case, or his informants imaginary or wrong, but that sentence does say, with a fair amount of exactitude, what warnings he is thought to have received.

O Govinda 19:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Alex Jones Video From June Chicago Conference

all 9/11 wiki editors should watch this 150MB video. CB Brooklyn 12:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As an example of bad research, bad analysis, lack of logic, leaps of conclusion, and general demagoguery?--Cberlet 13:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but assume that wiki editors will judge it for themselves. SkeenaR 15:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About half way through the video freezes. I ran it again to make sure it was not the connection and it stopped at the exact same place. 03:34, 11 June 2006 (Ed Kollin)

Jewish/Israeli conspiracy split

Fellow Wikipedians: I split this off to a new page because of the long article notice. The new page is 9/11 Jewish conspiracy. It is unchanged. The section on this page is jsut an abbreviated section, with fewer points and support (because otherwise, why split it off?) Scoutersig 03:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, a similar attempt at a fork just a few days ago was swiftly shut down by an AFD. -- MisterHand 03:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Jews and Israel should have been the article to split.--DCAnderson 04:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this was just deleted at AfD, it should not be recreated. Or is it something different? Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will you people stop trying to split the article? because of that we lost a lot of info from the article itself. And there are certain people who will not allow it. ILovePlankton 15:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We didn't lose any info. We reverted all the info back in, didn't we?--DCAnderson 15:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see what you mean.--DCAnderson 16:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:-). ILovePlankton 16:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First step in handling article length

Before splitting sections off, is there anything that anyone can see that can be deleted because either it is:

Not relevant to the issue.

or

Not helping the reader's understanding of the subject.

?--DCAnderson 16:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think we could remove this section "Did George W. Bush see the first plane hit?" It really doesnt do much for the article (people are going to get pissed at me for that aren't they? :P). I will look for more later. ILovePlankton 16:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello from a librarian. Re the suggestion at the top of the page that the article be broken into sections, there is a long section called "Government Foreknowledge". How about if we created a separate page called "9/11 Conspiracy Theories: Government Foreknowledge"? We could then leave the first paragraph of that section on the existing long page, with the cross reference, Main Page at "9/11 Conspiracy Theories: Government Foreknowledge". If people agree, I will perform the edit. --PureLogic 21:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. -- Huysman^talk^| ^contribs 22:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't this just done? The resulting pages were taken to AfD and deleted. Or am I misunderstanding the proposal? Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now there is such a page; 9/11 conspiracy theories foreknowledge. This task is finished. -- Huysman^talk^| ^contribs 23:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I did not realize that page existed -- probably because its word for word content is still on the main conspiracy page! If everyone agrees, I will move the headings below onto main pages, as each one in itself has been huge in the blogosphere. I will leave stubs for these on the original page:

Government Foreknowlege (Main article: 9/11 conspiracy theories: Government Foreknowledge

WTC complex (Main article: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories: World Trade Center)

The Pentagon (Main article: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories: Pentagon)

Flight 93 (Main article: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories: Flight 93)--PureLogic 00:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe (partly from experience) that many of these sections and sub-sections are considered "too short" or "too unsubstantiated" to be thier own articles; this leads to deletion of spin-offs and break-offs. However, if the page is ever to get any shorter, either information needs to be moved to a side project (unlikely) or deleted (unlikely). Scoutersig 23:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a consensus for this. There is just not enough reliable secondary-source information to support individual articles. Inevitably the page is mostly original research supported by citations to the conspiracist web sites. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can you say that the sections are unsubstantiated? They are full of references! If the content stands on the main page, then it stands alone by the same standard of consensus that it has achieved to date. We have been asked to break the page down, not delete its content as unsubstantiated. You can't have it both ways. So let's get on with doing what we have been asked to do!--PureLogic 01:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need this under "How else would one say he was watching the news of a plane that hit the WTC? It is therefore pretty asinine to claim the President had a special closed circuit TV image of the first plain hitting, and anyone who actually believe this should check in with the local mental institution in his community." Who let this get into the article? Keep your asinine opinions out of Wikipedia.

Deletions

Okay.....anticipating debate over these.

Removed statement that amateur 9-11 researchers believe evidence suggests foreknowledge - insignificant that these particular researchs believe this - after all, that's why they're "amateur 9-11 researchers". Maybe if the SEC or some other credible authority held this opinion it would be interesting.
Removed D.A. statement regarding Elgindy, $300k trust isn't large in the scheme of the options being traded that day and Elgindy is just a shady penny stock trader to begin with. He was cleared of the 9-11 allegations (but convicted on many other fraud charges), the D.A. statement was just a smear from the D.A. prosecuting him, and ignored by the Judge presiding the case (over unrelated matters) [17].
Removed reference to the "Lone Gunmen" episode - fiction preceding the events. Belongs, if anything, in the Lone Gunmen article.
Moved the entire Bin Laden tapes and videos section to Osama tapes, which I will tag to merge to Videos_of_Osama_bin_Laden. Both those articles are a mess, but the latter is cleaner and probably the best target for the merge. The tapes are of tangential relation to this page and only a stub is needed --Mmx1 01:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Mmx1 01:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has already been reverted. ILovePlankton 07:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Before deleting so much you should first discuss and make sure to have the consenus.--Pokipsy76 07:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted three small lines, the justification for which is given above. How about challenging the merits rather than defending the status quo? It's been established that the page is too long. The entire section about Bin Laden was poorly written, copied itself, and was largely inconsequential to the conspiracy theories. It wasn't deleted, it got merged to Osama tapes where it belongs. Write a paragraph about the conspiracy aspects of the tapes, but a detailed timeline of them does not belong here. --Mmx1 16:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added a link to "Osama tapes". It is, of course, not at all "inconsequential" to the conspiracy aspect of 9/11 whether or not the tapes are real or fabrications, or to what extent bin Laden is involved and how this is proven. These are important questions for all those writers who have been labelled "conspiracy theorists". I thought this was rather obvious. The timeline was actually not very detailed but rather concise, although I agree it could be improved. Rkrichbaum 02:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the dispute over the tape is related, but a straight timeline is not directly related. What I'm looking for is a direct discussion of the main allegations the conspiracy theorists; not a tally of every tape made, their content, and the nitpicks of each of them, which is what the moved section contained. --Mmx1 02:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have deleted a lot of things, and the problem is that before doing a massive deletion you should first discuss the merit. The fact that the article is too long doesn't give the right to delete what you believe to be "poorly written". The topic is controversial and your personal aesthetic taste is not a guideline develope it.--Pokipsy76 21:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More blather about procedure and not content. DO YOU DISPUTE THE REASONS FOR THE DELETION? There was no massive deletion, there were minor and inconsequential lines removed; plus the move of a large body of content (that appeard to be copy-pasted multiple versions) to an appropriate page. --23:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

As I have already said, I dispute the massive and weakly motivated deletion that has been done.--Pokipsy76 08:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the section on Griffin's view on whistleblowers, because I don't think we need 3 paragraphs devoted to one person's musings without citing any other opinions.--DCAnderson 18:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another Former High Level Government Insider Speaks Up

This should be placed in the main article as well. [18] CB Brooklyn 01:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested warnings: Problems with Mr. Woodring's statement

Theorists allege that Jeb Bush's executive order reflected foreknowledge of 9/11. In response, we have a statement from his assistant general counsel, Mr. Woodring, saying Mr. Bush had "taken . . . steps to deal with this terror attack."

I see two problems here.

First, the external link for Mr. Woodring's statement seems to lead to the wrong place: a transcription from a session of the 9/11 Commission where (unless I missed it, which of course is possible) his statement isn't mentioned.

Second, following the footnotes shows that Mr. Bush signed his executive order on 7 September, several days before the terror attack. That the order was a response to the attack therefore makes no sense.

For this second problem, I see two solutions: either (1) delete Mr. Woodring's statement or (2) add a sentence pointing out the contradiction.

Any suggestions from more experienced Wikipedians?

O Govinda 14:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it isn't supported, then delete it.--DCAnderson 16:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only source I've been able to find are conspiracy sites. The quote can be found here [19] and it seems that it was from a letter he was sending to concerned citizens. It also seems that an important qualifier was left out of our article, "Martial law is when military authorities control all civilian affairs, and military law, not civilian law, is followed. The civilian authorities in Florida are fully operational and fully in control." (Which, as a Floridian, I can vouch for.)--DCAnderson 17:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further consideration, I think we could safely ditch the whole "Florida Martial Law" thing because it doesn't seem we have any reliable sources who support it, it seems to be a long dead internet rumor, and it doesn't add very much to an allrerady bloated article.--DCAnderson 17:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice behaviour: if you cannot debunk it anymore then find any excuse to "safely ditch" it.--Pokipsy76 08:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try and keep this an easy going affair, it's easier on everybody. I'm not aware of the details on this matter, but did the alleged changes to law enact greater powers for the police forces or military to engage in action involving civilians? If that is truly the case it shouldn't be hard to find a source. That fact would be conspiracy theory fuel which also shouldn't be hard to find a source for if the allegation is true. If this is the case, then I think it probably qualifies for the article. If it's not the case, then it probably should be ditched. SkeenaR 09:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources are easy to come by, I needed some 5 minutes to find them. There are two relevant Executive Orders (as quoted in a RICO complaint by WILLIAM RODRIGUEZ: http://www.911forthetruth.com/pages/RodriguezComplaint.htm):

1. http://sun6.dms.state.fl.us/eog_new/eog/orders/2001/september/eo2001-261-09-07-01.html

2. http://sun6.dms.state.fl.us/eog_new/eog/orders/2001/september/eo2001-262-09-11-01.html

The first one (01/261) from 7/11/01 replaces a former, almost identical one: http://sun6.dms.state.fl.us/eog_new/eog/orders/2001/january/eo2001-17-01-19-01.html (01/17), adding a new section 3. which mentions an "act of terrorism": "Based on the potential massive damage to life and property that may result from an act of terrorism at a Florida port, the necessity to protect life and property from such acts of terrorism ...". The previous version of this Executive Order (01/17) does not contain such references to an "act of terrorism". This has been cited as "intriguing, and circumstantial proof of Enterprise foreknowledge of the 9-11 attacks" in the RICO complaint (point 126.) , see http://www.911forthetruth.com/pages/RodriguezComplaint7.htm

The other Executive Order (01/262) is from 9/11/01, and is a declaration of a state of emergency in the State of Florida, delegating the "authority to suspend the effect of any statute or rule governing the conduct of state business" to the Interim Director of the Division of Emergency Management.

Rkrichbaum 15:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well if we attribute it Rodriguez I suppose it is fine, provided Rodriguez is notable. Who is Rodriguez? Is he notable among conspiracy theorists? Is his case ever going to see the light of day?

Do you guys think this theory is notable? Do you view it as an important part of 9/11 conspiracy theory?--DCAnderson 00:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard it mentioned by conspiracy theorists lots of times. SkeenaR 00:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To find out who Rodriguez is you need even less than 5 minutes: http://www.911forthetruth.com/pages/Rodriguez.htm, Picture with a president and some with Hillary: http://www.911forthetruth.com/William%27s%20pics/index.html. Notable for sure, although I personally don't know what to make of these Executive Orders. One thing is that Florida is the only state where a state of emergency was declared on 9/11, as far as I know. If this is not true, it should be mentioned so as to refute the conspiracists' claim that it was somehow unusual. Rkrichbaum 00:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well it does seem that a state of emergency was declared, but it certainly wasn't Martial Law like our article was saying (the Law Enforcement Agencies still had power). It also seems that a State of Emergency is declared for all sorts of things[20], usually hurricanes. So yes, a State of Emergency was called (which is a fact) and Rodriguez and other conspiracists say it was something anomolous and/or martial law (also a fact). I think we could include it in the article, but it needs to be a little better written and better sourced with the links mentioned above.--DCAnderson 01:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The original controversy was that by the act of signing those papers did it demonstrate that Jeb Bush had foreknowlage 01:40,14 June 2006 (Ed Kollin)

Hijackers' identities questions

Maybe if someone finds a link that might explain just what the hell actually is going on with the hijackers and their id's we can clear this up for everybody. I'm a bit confused about the issue right now, but at least we are sourced. SkeenaR 01:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A very good place to start is http://www.team8plus.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewforum.php?23 - be prepared to spend hours and hours to wade through the references, though ... :-) I could not bring myself to read everything yet. An interesting aspect not yet mentioned in the Wiki article is the inconsistency of news reports which in some cases suggests the existence of doubles. Many researchers have pointed this out. Rkrichbaum 01:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. SkeenaR 04:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RV's

We don't need three cites for criticisms of the commision report and a demand for proof that alternatives to the official explanation are criticized by journalists and scientists. That is glaringly obvious. The previous version of the intro describes the situation properly and accurately and almost everyone here agrees on that. This has been discussed at great length. SkeenaR 16:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think the cites are needed to represent the diversity of criticisms and I resent the double revert without explanation. Did you even read what the sources say?

Nobody asked for "proof that alternatives to the official explanation are criticized by journalists and scientists", what is being asserted and reverted here endlessly is the vague assumption that they constitute a "majority" (of whom?), or even more inconsequential, "many". If this wording has been discussed at length, the issue obviously wasn't resolved, why else these countless reverts and re-reverts today (before I added and asked for sources)?

My proposal is to support such vague opinionating by Wiki users with facts and respectable sources. Do you have a problem with that? And why is it even relevant to mention the number of critics and countercritics? The only reason I could imagine is that somebody really believes no one except a few trouble makers criticize the official version. Well, in this case, they should have no trouble at all to find a valid source for such a claim. Merely suggesting it with weasel words helps nobody and explains nothing. Rkrichbaum 17:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you Rkrichbaum: the intro has not a neutral point of view (and the title too) but beware of the three revert rule.--Pokipsy76 17:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up, but I am aware of this rule. It seems to apply not to all users, though. Rkrichbaum 19:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Researchers

I think the term "researchers" is used too loosely on this and the other conspiracy theorist pages. What exactly is a "researcher"? Is it anyone, including laymen, who cobble-together uneducated theories? What does one have to be to be a "researcher"? Isn't a researcher someone who has some expertise in the particular area being researched, and therefore can make a thoughtful and objective analysis of that which he researches. A "researcher" is not someone out to advocate on behalf of a particular theory, such as the conspiracy theories presented here, but someone who has an objective mindset. As such, persons such as Hoffman, Jones, et al. don't qualify. Morton devonshire 08:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just because someone may have a particular point of view does not mean that they don't qualify as a researcher. Stephen Jay Gould had strong opinions, but that doesn't suggest that he wasn't a researcher. Are you seriously suggesting that people who have dedicated the majority of their time, expertise and knowledge don't qualify as researchers?[21] There is no orthodox way of defining it that I know of, but I've read that someone who steals the work of another is a plagiarist, while one who takes from the work of many is a researcher. I know what you are saying, but I honestly can't think of better terminology than researcher. SkeenaR 09:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of source

I removed a source from the section regarding conspiracy theories about Jews which quoted a passage from www.jewsdidwtc.com, a ludicrously anti-Semitic website sponsored and maintained solely by the Gay Nigger Association of America, a ring of internet trolls whose main goal is essentially to be as offensive as the venues of the internet allow. I assume I'm not alone in thinking that we should find another source for the quotations in that section, and that, as the GNAA's web site is an extremely inappropriate reference for this project, it's better left as a fact tag than linking to that site. JDoorj a m Talk 04:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reference to Pentagon money laundering and WTC insurance fraud

If there was a mention of Pentagon financial shenanigans and WTC insurance policies here, I missed it. These are big, and need to be part of the article. Also, Thermite theories have plenty of evidence that could be expounded on here. --71.36.251.182 17:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a link to the Wikipedia "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" entry

James Fetzer of "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" has posted a lament at their Web site (see:

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ArticlesWikipedia.html

--about being unable to include their own information about themselves at Wikipedia's entry for them (see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholars_for_9/11_Truth

I think the discussion section for that entry is quite revealing about what's going on (see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Scholars_for_9/11_Truth

Change Article Name

In American English, the term conspiracy theory is perjorative. Since all theories of 9/11 are conspiracied, including the official story, perhaps we should change the title of this article to "Alternative 9/11 Theories".

TruthSeeker1234 04:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, we shouldn't. Already discussed; the title is entirely accurate. Peter Grey 05:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's pejorative, and well-deserved. Not an ounce of verifiable fact. Just made up crap.

Morton Devonshire^Yo

You've been taking lessons haven't you?. Please check your discussion conventions. SkeenaR 08:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has been gone over many times TruthSeeker. There is a problem. The policy states that titles must be neutral. Wikipedia says that the term Conspiracy theory is pejorative. Still, all of the claims regarding 9/11 involve conspiracy theories. It's kind of a conundrum. SkeenaR 09:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not true: the claims involve skepticism on the official account, involve suspect of complicity but not always "theories": a theory is a system of claims that attempt to give an explanation, there are not so many "theories" as far as I can see, there are a lot of questions instead.--Pokipsy76 10:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the article Conspiracy theory we can read this paragraph:

The term "conspiracy theory" is considered by different observers to be a neutral description for a conspiracy claim, a pejorative term used to dismiss such a claim, and a term that can be positively embraced by proponents of such a claim. The term may be used by some for arguments they might not wholly believe but consider radical and exciting. The most widely accepted sense of the term is that which popular culture and academic usage share, certainly having negative implications for a narrative's probable truth value.

So there are negative implications in the term according to the "most widely accepted sense of the term". The question is over whether "Conspiracy Theory" is a term intended to be used as a perjorative or whether it is an official term for describing a certain kind of theory. The term "Conspiracy theories" is generally used by debunkers who contest the theories while the "researchers" who support the theories never use it, they use the term "skepitcism". This topic has been fiercely debated since the page was created. There was a vote on this when this page was first created[22] and since the term does not show up on Words to avoid the consensus thus far has been that it is an acceptable term for use on this page.
Some arguments against the title:

The term has objectively negative implications (there can be no discussion about this).
When a topic is *controversial* (and this is the case) the title must be neutral: you can use title with negative implications when you speak about nazis or pedophilia because in those case there is an almost unanimous consensus (they are not controversial topic). If the topic is controversial you must use a title that is accepted by all the point of views.
It's not correct to say that topic of the article are *theories* about *conspiracy*: the article is about the skeptic POV about the official account: alternative theories are part of the content of the article not *the* main topic.
It wouldn't be neutral to dedicate the article to *theories* about *conspiracies* (even if the article wanted to do so): to put emphasis on the *theories* is a way to discredit the skeptic POV: it's more difficult to believe someone when he says "I have a theory" rather than when he just says "I'm skeptic".

--Pokipsy76 08:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article title is fair. These are theories of conspiracy. The official government theory is also a theory of a conspiracy. And this article mentions that in the second paragraph. It is a fair and accuarate title. Seabhcán 14:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with user Pokipsy76. Most of the skeptics would not characterize themselves as "conspiracy theorists". They may speculate on alternatives to the official version, or rather some aspects of it, but this does not often amount to a complete "theory" of the events. Most of the critics point out inaccuracies, inconsistencies or holes in the official version.

When media persons and others label them "conspiracy theorists" it is always meant to denigrate skeptics. It is also used to lump all criticisms together and thus render an inaccurate impression of unity and uniformity that doesn't exist. There are vast differences between many of them, they come from all kinds of political persuasions and do not necessarily reach the same conclusions - except one: an independent investigation of the attacks. This hardly constitutes a "theory", let alone a "conspiracy theory". Of course, there are conspiracy theories out there, their proponents are known and can be described. I see no problem to include a paragraph exlusively dedicated to conspiracy theories in the context of 9/11 skepticism. But it is important to note that they do not necessarily dominate the discussion among skeptics, which the current article title clearly implies. Rkrichbaum 16:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agree that the title should be changed. That the subject has already been discussed is a weak argument: when exactly has it been discussed? For example, in 2003 i was sure that these were all "conspiracy theories". Today, after seeing all evidence coming out, I honestly am no longer sure. Massimamanno

I also agree the title ought to change. Conspiracy theories is perjorative, and doesn't distinguish such theories from the theory put forward by the US government of an al Qaeda conspiracy. "Alternative theories" is neutral and differentiates the content from the official government account. Perhaps a vote is in order. Damburger 10:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is increasingly living up to its name (see the "origins" section, for example). In a sense, it is short for "accounts of the 9/11 attacks commonly denounced/derided/described as conspiracy theories". The information in this article is interesting for people who are interested precisely in "9/11 conspiracy theories". The only way any of this information will ever become "neutral" or accurately labeled in non-pejorative terms is in so far as it becomes part of the official story. In that unlikely event, it should be moved into the main articles on 9/11, WTC, etc.--Thomas Basboll 14:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BYU Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples, Building Collapses an Inside Job

New article (actually four days old).

In this video, Professor Jones explains that the results are still preliminary, and that more (time intensive) testing needs to be done. But he does say the evidence "fits like a glove". CB Brooklyn 01:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a source for the article other than Indymedia? Preferably something that doesn't devote a third of the article to vague claims of threats against Dr. Jones and BYU (which does not support the conclusions of his research, as I recall, but is willing to defend his right to conduct it). And is there any indication as to where he got his samples from, other than "redundant sources" (you can't get the same sample from multiple sources, so I'm guessing the author means that similar samples were acquired by independent sources)? It would seem difficult to conclusively prove the origin of a piece of structural steel, though it is absolutely necessary that he do so. A piece of structural steel that has been damaged by thermite/thermate isn't exactly impossible to make, after all. The implication in the article seems to be that the samples were acquired via subterfuge or less-than-ethical means. If the source of the steel can't be confirmed, the whole paper will be pretty much worthless.

Also, can anybody tell me when the picture in the Indymedia article was taken? Joel Blanchette 19:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plus we need to know the steel was cut before the collapse of the WTC. Peter Grey 21:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was why I wanted to know when the picture was taken. That vertical beam was cut diagonally. That's pretty obvious. I suspect that the beam was cut during the search and rescue effort as a safety measure. There were some large pieces of metal structure that were still hanging precariously after the collapses, which would have been cut down almost immediately to make the site as safe as possible for the rescue workers. An acetylene cutting torch will cut through steel (I used to do this in high school shop class, with pieces of scrap steel and iron almost an inch thick), and if you cut with the flame on a horizontal plane through a vertical object (as is apparent here), it leaves a blobby edge just like what we see in this picture. The diagonal cut would be to control the direction of the fall. Also, look at the rear upper corner of the cut pillar. It appears to have been cut using the same method as the rest of the pillar (you can see the hardened molten steel on the inside of the pillar) but it is angled downward in the opposite direction to the rest of the cuts. Also, the on the nearer side of the beam, there is a section a few inches long at the top that is not melted. It is not smooth and does not appear to have been cut at all. It looks like it sheared at that point. Thermite, once ignited, is a liquid. Unless propelled by an outside force, or impeded by solid objects they cannot pass through, liquids tend to go straight down. How would thermite move in a straight line at something like a 60 degree angle through steel? While this image doesn't necessarily preclude the use of thermite in the collapse, I'm almost certain this particular beam was cut after the collapse. Joel Blanchette 23:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment

I would like some more eyes on the Steven E. Jones article; in its current form it reads too much like a soapbox for Jones's theories, and I am currently having a dispute with another editor regarding inferences made on the article. --Mmx1 02:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Theories based on physical evidence. CB Brooklyn 03:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does Issac Newton contain a synopsis of his work on calculus or geometry? --Mmx1 03:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on CB Brooklyn 03:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I know, the two are not exactly comparable; but Newton has a decently written article for comparison's sake. And I don't see a synopsis of his Principa Mathematica taking up half the article. --Mmx1 03:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All wiki 9/11 editors should read this book

[23]

It should also be included in the main article.

Published by Elsevier, one of the TOP publishers.

CB Brooklyn 16:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed additions/ Edits

Hi all, I'm new to wikipedia, so I thought I'd give and get some opinions before jumping in and changing anything:

Additions: Under prior knowledge, I would like to point out two videos, currently available on youtube.

. Lone Gunman pilot episode. This is a spin off of X-files, produced around a year before 9/11, that has a substantial likeness to 9/11. Its main theme is that

rogue elements in the US government/millitary/millitary industrial complex, mainly millitary contractors, remotely take over an airliner and attempt to fly it into a WTC tower, for the purpose of boosting millitary spending. In the last seconds the pilot regains control and skims the roof of the tower. Strangely enough it was supposed to have been seen by over 10 million viewers, and yet is rarely mentioned in the mainstream media

Personally I see this as one of two things: A warning by someone with foreknowledge, or a red herring by an insider. As a warning its purpose is obvious. As to why I consider it a red herring: mainly because it minimises blame, and because of its source (FOX entertainment) (although obviously a mainstream TV show wont normally go around accusing large portions of the current government of conspiracy, so Im not certain either way)

. "Alex Jones Predicts 9/11" again available on youtube. In this video from a few months prior to 9/11, Alex Jones describes how the US government is preparing for martial law, and reports of plans to blow up planes in supposed terrorist attacks. He states that if they happen, we will know it is the government who is the terrorists, and even goes as far as predicting that osama bin laden will be blamed!

Under Government Inquiry "conducted a three year $24 million investigation" I would like to add something along the lines of the following (but more concise):

"Critics of this study point out that, in comparison, over $40 million was spent investigating Bill Clintons sex life (or insert other multi million dollar investigation into (relatively) smaller matter here), whereas 9/11 is considered the largest ever attack on US soil/failure of US intelligence/procedures, and recieved only 2$4 million, that even this was only provided after much public pressure, and after most of the evidence had been destroyed (*). They also point out that The report does not model the actual collapse itself, nor does it include the undamaged floors below the impact zones in its models, satisfying itself by only modeling up to the point where the buidings where about to collapse. Hence it does not explain any of the features of the collapse seemingly inconsistant with a gravity driven collapse." see here for some details :http://www.911review.com/coverup/nist.html

(*) claims that most of the evidence was not destroyed are rediculous: Not only was this a terrorist attack of unprecedented size, It was also an unprecedented failure of 3 steel highrise buildings due to fire, and a multiple aircraft aviation disaster, each of which deserved massive investigation by themself!. In normal airliner crashes, investigators painstakingly find every possible piece of a plane and piece it back together, and NOTHING is disturbed untill it has been thouroughly documented and photographed, yet in the case of the WTC's, "A total of 236 recovered pieces of WTC steel were cataloged; the great majority belonging to the towers, WTC 1 and WTC 2. These samples represented a quarter to half a percent of the 200,000 tons of structural steel used in the construction of the two towers" (not to mention tower 7). Would you normally be satisfied with an investigation where 99.75-99.5% of the physical evidence was destroyed before photographic evidence of it was taken or testing on it could be done? http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3Draft.pdf

I am also unsure why the following line is included under Gocernment Inquiry: "Critics question Jones' credibility on the subject by pointing out that he does not have a structural engineering background." Is this relevant? No claim was made that he DID have such a qualification, it is already specifically pointed out that he is a physics professor not an engineer, so why is this ad hominem attack needed? Of course critics point out his alleged lack of credentials. When they cant refute the arguments what else can they do?

Under "The Debris"

"Physicist Steven E. Jones has pointed out that these molten metal observations cannot be known to be steel without a metallurgical analysis being done."

Addition: He also, very importantly, pointed out that from the colour of the metal being pulled out (bright yellow) its temperature was in excess of 1000 deg C, ruling out aluminium (which would be molten at 600 C), and strongly suggesting that it was infact steel, but more importantly; this temperature is hotter than should have been possible from normal fires alone. (this can be read in his paper "why indeed did the WTC buildings collapse")

Another Question: why is the NY firefighter and the TRAC volunteer refered to as "two men" rather than "NY firefighter Nicholas DeMasi and TRAC volunteer member Mike Bellone"? especially since this information is in the documents listed? should we refer to NIST's report as "some guys report"?

Im also concerned by the wording "Alleged recent chemical analysis of recovered molten metal". Perhaps "preliminary independant analyisis of recovered molten metal" would be better. Is someone disputing that the analysis is taking place? Even "Preliminary independant analysis of alleged recovered molten metal" would be a little better, but unless you have some evidence/good reasons for believing it is not a legitimate sample, then even this is unneccessary.

Next: "They also say witnesses specifically describe seeing explosions or the result of explosions before the planes hit the towers, during the evacuation, and immediately prior to the collapse of the towers" This should be

"Many Witnesses describe seeing, hearing and feeling what initially appeared to them to be explosions, before the planes hit the towers, during the evacuation, mmediately prior to, and during the collapse of the towers. Many (some? there are quite a few) initially thought they where witnessing a controlled demolition"

I have read numerous statements by witnesses (firefighters etc) backing this up, as shown below, and have also seen news footage talking about the explosions, and heard what seems to be the sounds of the explosions on footage of the collapse (see 9/11 eyewitness, the camera across the water, there appears to be a huge rumbling explosion about 10 seconds prior to the collapse).

Karin Deshore -- Captain (E.M.S.) "Somewhere around the middle of the World Trade Center, there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building. " (emphasis mine) http://www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/oralhistories/explosions.html etc etc

Dominick Derubbio -- Battalion Chief (F.D.N.Y.) [Division 8] "It looked like it was a timed explosion, but I guess it was just the floors starting to pancake one on top of the other". Note I left the end speculatory comment in, even though his initial opinion of what it looked like was a timed explosion.

Under Motives: I would like to add the following:

"Claims have been made that large amounts of gold and silver bullion went missing from the gold repository underneath WTC 4. There were unverified rumours of up to 160 billion in precious metals stored there prior to 9/11(*), although more realistic estimates put the amount a little under a billion. There are also claims that some of this was found abandoned loaded in trucks under the WTC, though this seems to be based on a misreading of the initial news story. Officially the gold was recovered in its entirety; an amount of around 250 million dollars worth."

(*) I realise that this is not well backed up, however this IS a conspiracy theory explanation page, and this IS part of the conspiracy theorists alleged motives for 9/11. I have unsuccesfully tried to find accurate figures for the amount of gold down there, and although not entirely successfull, it certainly seems to be quite a bit more than 200 million. (eg just one of the banks claimed they had around 200 millions worth worth down there, yet there where quite a few banks using the vault). see here: http://www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/gold.html

other motives: "It is also claimed that the attacks where used to allow the US to invade Afghanistan and Iraq for various reasons:

To allow the building of the planned Amoco(sp?) oil pipeline through afghanistan, and allow the US to gain influence in this area of the world, due to important oil resources in the area.
To reverse the ban on opium poppy growing that the Taliban had put in place. It is interesting to note that prior to the Taliban ban on opium growing, Afghanistan was the worlds number one opium grower. During the ban opium production dropped 95%, yet after the US defeated the Taliban government, the ban was lifted and Afghanistan is once again the worlds largest supplier of opium. see http://www.copvcia.com for why this is considered by some people to be extremely important to the US economy
To stop Iraq from selling oil in Euros rather than USD. Conspiracy theorists believe that since the USD is no longer backed by gold (is this true by the way?), one of the main things holding its value up is that OPEC nations only allow oil sales in USD, basically making it an oil backed currency. It is claimed that both Iraq and now Iran were/are being targeted due to their attempts to sell oil for euros instead of USD.
Personal motives for people claimed to be involved in the conspiracy include the 5 billion dollar insurance payout recieved by Larry Silverstein, owner of WTC7, who had just taken out a 99 year lease on the entire WTC complex 6 weeks before 9/11, and the Federally funded cleanup of buildings which are alleged to have had massive asbestos related problems.

Anyway, thats enough for now (lots more to go though), got other things to do, be back again later. Let me know what you think. Personally, I think this article is full of POV statements/wording and seems almost deliberately laid out to minimise the impact of the more important claims/discourage people from understanding the real issues. Example:

"The rubble of the Twin Towers smoldered for weeks after the collapse. [47]

   * This claim is meant to point out that steel could only have smoldered as a result of pre-placed explosives."

This is a strawman argument, in what is supposed to be a NPOV resource on these theories! The problem is not that it smoldered, it is that there was "dripping metal steel", according to various members of the cleanup team, and this could not have come from the heat sources (normal fire) officially present. Stating that it was the smouldering that was out of place right at the start of this section immediately makes this claim/section appear ludicrous, encouraging casual readers to skip over the section where it explains the actual problem.

I have tried to word my possible additions in as non POV way as possible, but a little of my bias may have slipped through.--Diablomonic 12:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also just noticed, why is no mention made of the lack of interception of 4 hijacked planes for nearly an hour in each case? It is known that NORAD had "67 scrambles from September 2000 to June 2001", thats more than one per week, yet they didnt feel that the situation on 9/11 was worth scrambling for until too late? I find this COMPLETELY ridiculous and find it hard to believe anyone accepts this. http://www.wanttoknow.info/020812ap

and another one under motives: the day before 9/11, "Defense Secretary Rumsfeld announces that by some estimates the Department of Defense 'cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions.' CBS later calculates that 25% of the yearly defense budget is unaccounted for. A defense analyst says, 'The books are cooked routinely year after year.'"

This was buried in the news of 9/11, and is thought by conspiracy theorists to be deliberate: eg http://www.wanttoknow.info/9-11cover-up10pg --Diablomonic 12:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the specific editing changes have some validity but as a newbie you are making one elementary mistake throughout this presentation. Most of this comes under the guise of Original Research which is the ultimate Wikipedia no no. Basically you are gathering facts and leading the readers to a conclusion. The idea here is to cite “credible” sources who have gathered the facts and stated theories that are different from the “official story” or more specifically the 9/11 commission report. The Lone Gunman episode was in the “Other Points of Interest” section for a long time but was taken out because no source connected it to a conspiracy theory. If you find a source that states this episode as some sort of warning put in the article and cite it. If as you state it is your personal theory then absolutely no way does it belong in the article. Go step by step through all the “facts” you stated and try and find sources and proceed with the above in mind. And thanks for asking before doing anything. 00:35, 26 June 2006 (Ed Kollin)

Put options

This has been deleted:

The most notable reference concerns the options market, where in the days before 9/11 more than 6 times the normal volume of put options was purchased on both American and United Airlines.[24]

being http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/sept11/londontimes_insidertrading.html not a reliable source.

However this article tells about conspiracy theories so if there is in the literature a notable "conspiracy theory" that assert what is written above we should cite it in the article, shouldn't us?

So I think we could try to find a way to insert this "theory" without presenting it as a fact. Any suggestion?--Pokipsy76 14:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We would need a reliable source who says this is an important part of conspiracy theories. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a part of the theory about foreknowledge. Do you find it disputable? What type of source do you need to accept this? What sources do you have to say that any other part of this article is an "important part of a conspiracy theory"? Show me some examples.--Pokipsy76 14:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What sources do we have for the other items in the article? Too few, and those are often primary sources. All the inadequetly sourced claims should be deleted. It's better than it was, but too much of the article is our own work instead of the work of responsible academics. What type of source? A reliable source. Examples of reliable sources describing conspiracy theories include:

Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What you have cited are only newspapers articles: are you suggesting that if a newspaper journalist read about some "conspiracy theoretic" material in a book, a movie or in the internet and write an article about it then we can insert this theory, if otherwise we know the theory from a book, a movie or the web then we cannot insert it unless a newspaper journalist write something about it?--Pokipsy76 15:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's make an example. Surely there have been a lot of newspaper articles about Loose Change (video) or about the book 9/11: The Big Lie that probably describe them as "conspiracy theoretic", do you think that this articles can be considered a reliable source who says that the theories described in that book or that video are conspiracy theories?--Pokipsy76 16:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I fully understand you. Can you give me a specific example? Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lets put it in this way: "Loose Change" and "9/11 the big lie" are enought famous to have a specific voice in wikipedia and I think we can reasonably agree that surely there are newspapers article about them. So the problem of having "reliable source who says this is an important part of conspiracy theories" doesn't exist for the part of the theories that are expressed in these media, ok?--Pokipsy76 16:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Meyssan's book should be mentioned in 9/11 conspiracy theories. I think the importance of Loose Change is overestimated because of its aggressive astroturf marketing. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, then we can add the put option stuff into the article because it is cited by both these media and therefore the problem of having "reliable source who says this is an important part of conspiracy theories" doesn't exist for it.--Pokipsy76 23:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly do you want to add, and what is the citation for it? Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was suggesting to try to find a way to insert the put option part that has been deleted without presenting it as a fact but as something that has been claimed by the media. If nobody has a suggestion I will try to think about it.--Pokipsy76 07:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For put options, the issue would be whether it's just some unfocused innuendo, or if an actual conspiracy theory has been formulated that incorporates the assertion. Peter Grey 20:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Main categorizations

These words in the Incompetence theory section "This line was advanced, with much defensive language, in The 9/11 Commission Report" I find POV and vague 02:32, 28 June 2006 (Ed Kollin)

"MIHOP ("Made It Happen on Purpose"): The U.S. government, elements within the U.S. government, or foreign governments, possibly assisted by private forces, planned and executed the attacks."

It's not just generic unknown "foreign governments" is it? Nobody that I've heard thinks it was the Russians. The only conspiracy theories I've heard of say it was Israel or Saudi Arabia. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan and the UK are also frequently mentioned.[25] Seabhcán 14:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also China. SkeenaR 22:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It came from the New Yorker article. I think it's OK, and at least it's sourced. Better than catering to every theorist. I'm sure I could throw up "Mmx1 thinks Russians responsible for 9/11" on my blog if that would make you happy. --Mmx1 22:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pretty broad list of potential conspirators, but as long as it's sourced that's fine. At least the Estonians weren't in on it; right? Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:05, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe thats what they want you to think! Seabhcán 13:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point; Some say the Teutonic Knights are part of the New World Order conspiracy. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Loose Change

Does the Loose Change video have enough unique notability to exist as a seperate article as opposed to a section in this article and a redirect or disambig (loose change has another movie with the same name)? Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be not a good idea to bring all those informations inside this article because there are several people here that say it is too long and must be splitted (and some tried to do it).--Pokipsy76 18:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I Oppose the merge. I would say Loose Change deserves its own article, since the film seems to have become a populist "gateway" into 9/11 conspiracy theories. Interestingly, a lot of conspiracy theorists have distanced themselves from the film. Likewise, I would oppose merging Super Size Me into McDonald's. -- MisterHand 18:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merge.; Film has garnered major media attention in broadcast, print, and internet sources.--Rosicrucian 22:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the merge. Loose Change warrants an article of it's own. SkeenaR 00:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 01:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, the question asked was whether to split Loose Change into its own article, not a merger. Second, is this the Loose Change (video), whose article has an edit history going back to February, or something else? Peter Grey 02:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's a proposed merger. Hipocrite has already posted the merger template on the article you mention.--Rosicrucian 03:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Misplaced references in "Controlled-demolition theory"

The sentence "Significant damage to the exterior of the building [WTC1 & 2] and/or the trusses could and did cause a total failure of the system" now begins with an attribution: "Supporters of the official theory say that significant damage. . ."

That small matter aside, the original sentence was followed by two notes irrelevant to what it asserted. The first note points to a resource concerning the structure of the First Interstate Bank, the second to a resource concerning the structure of the Windsor Tower. I have therefore moved the notes, placing them adjacent to the buildings they relate to.

I have not verified that the resources confirm what the article says about those two buildings. I have only assumed they do.

O Govinda 07:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a little deletion- In the subsection Alleged Demolition Waves: The citation of the USGS analysis of dust and girders from the WTC site previously numbered as 22 was erroneous in supporting the absence of explosive residues because a) It was not looking for explosive residues, and b) More importantly did not determine the identity of any specific compounds, measuring only elemental composition of the material. If there's a good reason it should be there, please say so.--Uncle-P 07:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate quote from NIST

In the first paragraph under "World Trade Center towers / Controlled-demolition theory," we have a quote from the NIST, who

"found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001."

Further down, in the second paragraph under "Government inquiry," we again find the identical quote.

I suggest deleting the first instance of the quotation. The first time around, we are hearing what the conspiracy theorists say. However mad we may think them, we ought to let them tell us their theory, uninterrupted.

Further down, we are hearing scientific refutation from the government's report. This is where the quotation from the NIST is entirely in place.

So I suggest: Once is enough. Delete the first instance, keep the second, and move the reference note, which is obviously worth keeping.

Yes?

O Govinda 08:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suspicious-looking edits

In my edit of 07:56, 30 June 2006 I've done hardly more than I say in my Edit Summary: I've deleted a subhead, added some new subheads, and shifted the location of a paragraph dealing with what Jim Hoffman says about "Pulverization." Anything else I've done, I believe, is of little consequence ("As of June 17, 2006, Dr. Jones says" became "On June 17, 2006, Dr. Jones said").

Yet when the revision is viewed next to the previous version, we see lots of red, as if I had done much more.

In such a controversial article as this one, that certainly looks suspicious!

My suspicion is that there's some elegantly simple way to make such revisions without triggering a needless "red alert." Could someone more experienced point me in the right direction?

My apologies to the other contributors to this page if I've made a needless messy puzzle.

Respectfully, O Govinda 08:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This same comment applies to my edit of 07:12, 30 June 2006.

O Govinda 09:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't worry about it. Such is the consequence of moving paragraphs around. It appears to the software as if one paragraph has been deleted, and another put elsewhere in the article. I think it's easy to tell what you were doing here. -- MisterHand 12:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's also possible to view diffs with an external program, for example vimdiff. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, MisterHand and Tom Harrison. I much appreciate your help and encouragement. -- Gratefully, O Govinda 19:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article Violating NPOV

This article fails to explain some of the obvious logistical problems with 9/11 being a conspiracy and seems to favor the conspiracy perspective. Considering the fact that the vast majority of neutral studies have concluded that 9/11 wasn't a conspiracy, I think that the article should make reference to these studies. Perhaps atleast point out some of the obvious retorts to some of the most common conspiacy claims. As it stands this article would appear to be written by somebody who believes 9/11 was a conspiracy using simply an encyclopedia's voice.

It might be worthwhile to underline some of the salient gaps in the conspiracy theorists' arguments. But at the same time the article is about "9/11 conspiracy theories", which are a real phenomenon even though they're wrong, so the focus is on the theories, their content, their implications, and their impact on pop culture. Peter Grey 21:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As said above an article about conspiracy theories will tend to focus on them. That being said you could find those "neutral" studies and quote them. I agree that the readers deserve a better explination as to what "official thoeries" are being contested .This article used to do a somewhat better job at it. And if you could find a source that agrees that "that the vast majority of neutral studies have concluded that 9/11 wasn't a conspiracy" or more accurately a Bin Ladin/Al Queda solo conspiracy that would be a good addition to the article. 17:17, 1 July 2006 (Ed Kollin)

I like your NPOV "even though they're wrong". :p ILovePlankton 02:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are these "the vast majority of neutral studies" that "have concluded that 9/11 wasn't a conspiracy"?--Pokipsy76 07:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The summary paragraph found at the beginning of this article seems biased to those who are against the conspiracy theory persepctive (It must be a new additon nice I don't remember such a biased summary paragraph last time I check this page about 6 months ago):

"A number of amateur researchers have expressed skepticism about the official account of events surrounding September 11th and assert the existence of a cover-up in the investigation. Most of these theories exist on pure speculation, with pointless analyzation of grainy photographs and bad video stills. They have a wide following on internet chatrooms, but most actual scientists have been able to debunk them with a healthy dose of common sense and scientific fact."

I would suggest as a first step, to make remove some of suggestive words from this paragraph to better provide a more neutral statement. Just a quick edit below:

"A number of researchers have expressed skepticism about the official account of events surrounding September 11th and indicate the existence of a cover-up in the investigation. Most of these theories seem to be unsupported government investigations."

Its just when you use words like "common sense," "scientific fact," and "pointless" to support a statement they tend to present a preexisting bias.--Dietrichias 18:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the changes. (See bottom of this page for my comments.) It is in an important sense in the nature of a CT that it is "unsupported by government investigations".--Thomas Basboll 18:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jones's credentials

The article said:

"Though this report said there was no such evidence [that the towers were brought down by controlled demolition], professor Steven E. Jones (See individual viewpoints below), as well as others, continue to say that it did not address any of the specific analysis arguing for the demolition hypothesis. [26] Critics question Jones' credibility on the subject by pointing out that he does not have a structural engineering background. [27]"

DrObjektiv deleted the setence about Jones's credibility on the grounds that it was an ad hominem. MisterHand reinstated it on the grounds the question of Jones's expertise is "very much on topic for the article."

I agree with MisterHand. Jones's expertise (or lack of it) surely matters. But not here. To question whether or not a report addresses a specific analysis, one doesn't need a background in engineering. One simply needs to be able to see "Did the report talk about the analysis or not?"

Whether a report has addressed an analysis well is a different matter, which might reasonably call for special qualifications. But that's not what's at issue here. What's at issue is whether the report addressed the analysis at all.

I have therefore deleted the sentence again, not because it's ad hominem but because it's non seq. That is, it's out of place.

Whoever is keen to introduce Jones's lack of a background in structural engineering should reintroduce the point somewhere in the article where expertise in physics but a lack of expertise in structural engineering would matter.

(And if you do reintroduce it, the second link needs editing; it's dead.)

O Govinda 13:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

media reaction section. please add

I've added a section on the reaction and coverage of the Main Stream Media to these theories. Please add material to this section.

(Hopefully this will begin to realign this 'article' into a coherent monolog, rather than the jumble of random information that it currently is. Also who keeps removing the 'long article' tag? This article is nearly 100kb. Max article length should be less than 32kb) Seabhcán 10:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no point in having the tag if nothing is going to be done about it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And why can't we then do something? This is childish. Seabhcán 15:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We can do something, whenever there's a consensus what to do. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some articles need more than 32kb. I would say this is one of them. SkeenaR 19:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barring a radical overhaul, I think that's the case. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a topic very worthy of a section. Many of the “mainstream” media citations and references are from the last year or so. If I were to point that out then would that be considered my original research? Also just listing them in this section would be useless duplication. 02:03, 7 July 2006 (Ed Kollin)

On the nights of September 10th and 11th ABC is broadcasting a miniseries based on the 9/11 commission report [28] 19:50 20 July 2006 (Ed Kollin)

Reverts must be explained

As you can read in the policy reverts must be always explained:

Because of the lack of paralanguage online, if you don't explain things clearly people will probably assume all kinds of nasty things, and that's how edit wars get started.

And this must not happen.--Pokipsy76 13:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Founder launches Political Site

According to CNET News "Wikipedia founder Jimmy "Jimbo" Wales this week announced the opening of a wiki devoted to hot-button political topics such as gay marriage and environmental protection. Political junkies who can't get enough of Daily Kos or RedState (depending on party preferences) may now have a new Web 2.0 toy in the form of Campaigns Wikia".[29][30]

This topic seems a natural for that site 02:39, 7 July 2006 (Ed Kollin)

Ben Chertoff

The title clearly says Ben Chertoff: Propagandist & Illuminati Disinformation Tool. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And two inches below that:

"Original title
How The Bush Administration Uses Nepotism To Conceal Its Dark Secrets About 911
Exclusive to American Free Press"

The site "Educate-Yourself" seems to have independently renamed the author's article.

Respectfully, O Govinda 14:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me like the author re-titled it. Still, as SkeenaR says, "Illuminati" doesn't occur in the body of the article. There are probably better examples of popular conspiracy theorists who think the Illuminati were in on it somehow. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Whatever went wrong, the Illuminati, the Jews, and the Aliens must have been behind it.

Best wishes. O Govinda 15:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who is being referred to

This article throws around the terms "theorists" and "researchers" with abandon. It does not make it clear who it means by each of these. At other times it refers to "conspiracy theorists" and "researchers questioning the official account of 9/11". Are the former shorthand for the latter? If so, may I suggest that on the first use we say something like "researchers questioning the official account of 9/11 (hereafter, 'researchers')" and that when we mean "conspiracy theorists" we do not shorten it to "theorists"? Or if we means something else, we say that? Right now, the scope of who supposedly advocates certain claims is very vague. - Jmabel | Talk 03:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11 is a euphemism for conspiracy theorists. Or conspiracy theorists is a pejorative epithet for researchers questioning the official account of 9/11. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggests to whom?

From the article: "This claim suggests the building was destroyed to provide for an easy clean-up and removal of debris, often implying little study was done of the evidence." Suggests to whom? There doesn't seem to be any citation for this: it is in Wikipedia's narrative voice. And Wikipedia's narrative voice is not supposed to make POV claims like this.

I don't have this article watchlisted; I was just passing by because someone said this article has POV problems. There do seem to be several; I'd also suggest that someone working on this might look for wordings like "points out", which implicitly endorse the claim in question. - Jmabel | Talk 03:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Suggestion for how to shorten

Has anyone considered giving each hypothesis its own article, letting this page be a sort of "connect the dots", providing the full menu of possible conspiracy elements. I say this in part to shorten it, and in part to give each hypothesis the opportunity for a separate hearing.

--Thomas Basboll 20:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the talk page archives are quite long, but you might find it useful to scan through them. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is, unless you are already somewhat familiar with the discussion. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tom. I had actually let the length of the archive discourage me, but this idea of mine seems to have been largely covered. Still, one interesting thing about the conspiracy theories is that they do often simply establish connections between information that is already mainstream (and has or should have non-CT articles). One way to shorten and tighten this article, then, might be by confining it to a summary of established 9/11 facts that, when taken in particular groups, suggest various LIHOP or MIHOP scenarios.--Thomas Basboll 21:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, "connecting the dots" violates Wikipedia policy against original research. Any attempt to pull together disparate facts violates WP:NOR. Most of this article should be deleted on those grounds. See Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position[31]

Morton Devonshire^Yo

This is a tough room. My suggestion was to characterize the conspiracy theories as different ways of connecting the dots. And to make the article a catalogue of the dots that various theorists connect differently. So, for example, some make use of the Pentagon anomalies, some do not; some are interested in controlled demolotion, some (like Ruppert) are not. That's what I meant by the "menu". I was not suggesting actually connecting those dots, just to describe the CTs in terms of the dots to be connected.--Thomas Basboll 06:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a purely descriptive (rather than argumentative) article would be a breath of fresh air.

Morton Devonshire^Yo

Certainly this article cannot be deleted on OR research grounds. These facts have been pulled together in many different overlapping ways by all kinds of print and on-line sources. The article simply reports on them.--Thomas Basboll 06:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The facts themselves, if properly sourced, are not the problem. The sythesis of those facts, however, is not something permitted in Wikipedia.

Morton Devonshire^Yo

Well, the particular facts about 9/11 that we will be interested in here are all ones that indicate (1) shortcomings of the official account and/or (2) a more or less sinister alternative account. There seems to be more agreement (or at least overlap of claims) in regard to (1) among CTers. (2) depends on how one constructs the supposed "they", of they "let it" or "made it" HOP. I've seen a great range of opinion about who did it, and the extent to which people whose names we're even familiar with were involved. Anyway, I think the article on Kennedy assassination theories sets an interesting example. We might consider spinning some elements off as independent articles as well, just like the single bullet theory.--Thomas Basboll 07:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the root problem is the lack of secondary sources who have written about these conspiracy theories. We end up with original research by syntheses because that is about all you can do with primary sources. The way to shorten this article is not to spin off some of the original research to other pages, but to remove the original research. So far there has not been a consensus to do that. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting idea. I wonder what would count as a secondary source. Griffin's stuff on controlled demolition can hardly be considered "primary" research (he's generally dismissed as an "expert" in regard to the collapses). In the New Pearl Harbour, and that early anthology on 9/11, he's basically just taking a sympathetic look at some OR, isn't he? The uphill battle that I see 9/11 CTs facing here is that anyone who writes undismissively about them will be considered biased in their favour. So the NPH is often (and I think mistakenly) considered an argument for 9/11 CTs when it is really just an attempt to articulate the case (as proposed by others) in a surveyable form--making it possible to assess them. Later on, he does go over to the "it had to be an inside job" position. But I think his first book on this is arguably a secondary source on the topic, and perhaps even NPOV (nobody's perfect, of course). Worth thinking about.--Thomas Basboll 13:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A guideline for evaluating sources is at Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William Rodriguez testimony

Why is there no reference to William Rodriguez or his report of the explosions near the bottom of the towers on this page? Were these reports debunked or refuted? --216.52.163.1 20:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Luid[reply]

The references were probably just thrown out willy nilly along with lots of other stuff, and so quickly that people weren't able to keep up with what was deleted. If the reports that he claimed this were not true, or if it was shown he was lying, those things most likely would have been added to the article, rather than removed. Feel free to add him back in, maybe with a reference if you feel like it. SkeenaR 08:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and added the section.--12.170.1.226 17:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)Luid[reply]

I've done my best with the spelling and grammar. I see anonymous users continue to remove this section. As there has been no dicussion of this gentleman's credibility or debunking of his story, I'll chock it up to vandalism and keep an eye on it.--70.149.117.242 01:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)LUID[reply]

Sound travels 17 times faster in steel than in air. It would be expected that at the bottom of the building you would hear two bangs from the plane hitting: first when the sound/vibration travels to you through metal, then again the same sound appearing to come from above when the sound travels through air. I'm guessing mentioning anything about this would be original research? Weregerbil 13:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of interest but not article worthy, Willian Rodriguez is in talks with Charlie Sheen and Esai Morales to make a movie about Mr. Rodriguez's actions that day in which he saved hundreds. No mention is to made about "conspiracy theories" [32] 01:39, 22 August 2006 (Ed Kollin)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.114.117.103 (talk • contribs) .

Sulfur in WTC7 Steel

I was just re-reading this article. The reports of sulfur compounds reportedly found on steel beams from WTC7 made me think of something. If I'm not mistaken, the fires in this building were attributed to large quantities of diesel fuel used to power the emergency backup generators. One of the major concerns that environmentalists have long had with diesel was its sulfur content. I'm no expert on the subject, but my understanding is that the sulfur acts as a lubricant in diesel engines. Anyway, is it possible that the sulfur found in the steel is from the diesel? I can't find any sources that say any such thing, so it obviously wouldn't be worthy of inclusion in the article, but maybe it's something that would be worth researching. Joel Blanchette 19:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joel, when you find any evidence of actual diesel fuel, let us know. No one else ever has. bov 01:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you looking for evidence that there was diesel within WTC7, or whether it caused the collapse? According to the FEMA report:

The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue.

The building contained backup power generators fueled by diesel, which is hardly unusual for a large office tower. One can safely infer from this that there would be diesel fuel for the generators stored nearby.

As to whether diesel contributed to the collapse, I honestly don't know. Nor does anybody else. I have yet to come across an explanation for the collapse of WTC7 that didn't fall into the "theoretically possible, but extremely implausible" category. My intent was simply to find out if somebody who knows what they're talking about had already addressed this idea. 209.0.0.29 17:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary Criticism of Sources?

>"Steven E. Jones, a physics professor at Brigham Young University, with no structural engineering experience, and Judy Wood, a mechanical engineer at Clemson University, whose experience is in the mechanical properties of Dentin, say that without the use of explosives, the fall of the towers violates conservation of momentum.[11] "

The qualifiers seem peevish, especially in the case of Judy Wood. I'd imagine that angular momentum is not a particularly esoteric area of study.Icewolf34 13:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Personal POV

Most people here try very hard to write non POV material. However we are human. I have found over the years that when trying very hard to keep things unbiased two things happen. One is the obvious our bias creeps in. The other thing that happens is that we try so hard to be unbiased our writing is biased against our own POV. So in the name of getting things out in the open and my personal curiosity write a short statement about who and what happened on 9/11/01. A few lines about why you feel that way is ok. What I do not want is a long polemic. Also I do not want an argument there are forums for that type of thing. Remember we know the arguments pro and con so long explanations are not necessary to understand where your POV is coming from.

I am one of those shrinking amount of people who hold LIHOP views. The motive was not primarily oil. I believe that many of the “neo cons” actually believed we are in an existential “Clash of Civilizations”. Remember several prominent neo con figures escaped or lost family members to the Holocaust. Information about the general nature of the attack if not the details may have been procured at one of the many Bush/Bin Ladin family business meetings. I am a MIHOP skeptic because the added risk of exposure needed to carry out a controlled demolition was not needed. Living 25 miles from ground zero I can say that having the World Trade Center sit for months partially collapsed while people figure out what to do would in many ways have been more traumatic then the total collapse that did happen. In saying that however I do not believe most MIHOP people are wearing tinfoil hats and their claims should not be laughed at but througly investigated by a independent party. 12:30, 26 July 2006 (Ed Kollin)

Ed, I recommend this essay -

Picking Up Where Partridge Leaves Off: Researchers Address a 9/11 Skeptic

The essay is geared towards explanations and evidence that LIHOPers may not have known of or considered. 198.207.168.65 23:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the article. Whether it was pure LIHOP or LIHOP with assist from actions taken or not taken or (which is where I lean but my original comments did not make this clear) or MIHOP is a technical point. Yes an really important technical point but still a technical point. The important point to me is that if they occurred they are all equally in my view an act of treason. Back to the sprit of the section so you believe it was MIHOP what do you think was the motivation? 03:33, 2 August 2006 (Ed Kollin)

Evacuation/Air defenses

I've heard rumors that the evacuation of the other tower after the first plane hit were cancelled, and the air defenses of the area stood down. Could somebody enter some more information about this subjects please?

After the first plane hit on the North Tower the PA system in the south tower announced that the building was secure and that people should return to their desks a request which many ignored. There was no inkling that the south tower would be hit so it was thought that it would be safer for people to stay inside rather then go outside and face falling debris from the North Tower. As far as a deliberate air defense stand down there have been rumors that this occurred but the most notable conspiracy theorists have emphasized in the last few years the many war games going on that morning as a diversion so that is reflected in the article. 03:20, 28 July 2006 (Ed Kollin)

Primary and secondary sources

Tom Harrison (above) has suggested something that might offer a way of bringing this article onto a firmer foundation: secondary sources. I'm not quite sure what he means by saying that we are condemned to synthesizing primary sources, since most of the CTs out there are themselves syntheses of something. But I wonder what would happen if we used agreement across the LIHOP/MIHOP divide to identify a set of core facts, or at least issues. If we could have a consensus about foregrounding anomalies that meet the following two criteria, we might give a better sense of what a "9/11 conspiracy theory" involves. (1) A good primary source is available to establish the fact. (2) It is invoked by at least one LIHOP and at least one MIHOP theory. (A "theory" here might be identified as book-length connecting of dots.) I'm not suggesting that these are the only facts we should list, only that the article could begin there.--Thomas Basboll 21:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Main categorization section does not serve the reader well

The overall problem is that this section cites one source with a POV. And because it is in quotes we can not change it. What the section should be is a summary of what will be described in more detail later.

The problem with the “Official Story” is that it is vague. It should just say that the attacks were carried out Al Qaeda headed by Osama Bin Laden. Their Moslem Fundamentalist beliefs led them to see Western Civilization and Culture as evil. Then use the Ari Fleisher no warning quote.

As for The Incompetence Theory if you can not understand what is wrong with "This line was advanced, with much ass-covering compensation The 9/11 Commission Report.” I can not help you. Also how is the reader supposed to know what the “RenoWall” theory is? I would change “White House” to top executives of Bush administration or of the last four administrations. As far as the 9/11 commission report all that needs to be done is inform the reader that the incompetence theory was one of the central conclusions of that report.

As for MIHOP I would say something along the line of “Many variations but primarily elements within the United States or Israeli government”. The article contains paragraph after paragraph discussing conspiracy theories involving Israel so mention must be made in the summary.As far as “private forces” I am unsure about the need to mention it here. 02:28, 3 August 2006 (Ed Kollin)

"All the conspiracy theories start with a dissatisfaction with the official explanation of 9/11. But criticism of the official story does not in and of itself constitute a conspiracy theory. One non-conspiriatorial set of criticism..."

What is the source for this material? Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why was a referenced section replaced with someone's original research? Put a reference there or revert to one that has a source. If you can't easily find a reference, it doesn't belong in this article--Dcooper 14:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting my edit is of course an option. I thought Ed's comments on the section as it stood were valid, and I've proposed a different way to present pretty much the same information in more neutral language. One problem with the old version was that it looked like one man's very biased opinion. The LIHOP/MIHOP distinction is pretty uncontroversial and I'd hardly call my very elementary observations original research. The general questions about origin and main types are not very difficult to document. I'd suggest finding some mainstream references that support the divisions of the original quote: there's the Vanity Fair piece, for example, and the New York Magazine piece, Le Monde Diplomatique, etc... Griffin might also make a good source. Certainly none of the stuff I've put in there is original.--Thomas Basboll 19:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably easy enough then to include the sources as you add the material. Again, we must not be the ones to assemble an original syntheses of facts, if they serve to advance a position. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. We should return to the properly-cited version unless the articles that those ideas are taken from are cited soon.--Dcooper 20:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I've cited the Washington Post and Vanity Fair. I've tempered the strength marker on the first two sentences and set them off so that there is one reference per paragraph.--Thomas Basboll 21:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think what needs citation is your description of what constitutes a 9/11 conspiracy theory. The Vanity Fair article is mostly about "Loose Change", with little about 'two main categories.' I think we should restore not the wording, but the citations to The Ground Zero Grassy Knoll, and maybe add Panoply of the Absurd from Der Spiegel, or some other general survey of the theories from a mainstream source (doesn't have to be those; no doubt there are others). I don't think what you have written is inaccurate, just that it needs to be supported.

Also, let's go slow and allow changes to settle. There are people who work on the page, but may only look in every couple of days. If we keep everyone on board as we go, maybe we can avoid someone coming in tomorrow, finding the article dramatically changed, and reverting. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'm working on something for the origins section. But I'll leave it alone for now. I haven't read the Spiegel piece, but that's a great source if it has what we need. I picked VF because it strikes me a slightly more mainstream than NYM. I could be wrong about that. That sentence about criticism of official story does not a conspiracy theory make is not really a substantial point (common sense really) but I wanted a smoother transition to the next paragraph. Other sentences might also work. I'll give it some thought.--Thomas Basboll 21:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FEMA "small probability"

The article says: The FEMA report says that its proposed explanation of the collapse of WTC7 has only a small probability of being correct. Where does this come from? Is that a misreading of the report which says: Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence.? Weregerbil 13:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On 12.3: Mossad connection to filming of 9/11 attacks with "puzzling behavior"

Hi. Could I just say that I'm a bit disturbed that link 124, in the 'dancing Israelis' section, leads to an article on the website of historian David Irving([33]). I know he (officially) claims not to be a Holocaust denier anymore, but is he really an acceptable source for Wiki? Maybe someone could find a better source for the original story. I shall try to myself.--Lopakhin 09:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-semitism is one element of some 9/11 conspiracy theories. I wouldn't want that to be exaggerated, but neither should it be minimized. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contradictory Article

How can this article exist in the same encyclopedia as September 11, 2001 attacks? The two articles do not line up well. This one is full of unverifiable original research, and should be eliminated. Not even conspiracy theorists can get it right. Here's a quote from one of your own:

"Partridge ridicules the Pentagon no-jetliner theory: Hundreds of eyewitnesses on the George Washington Parkway at morning rush-hour were either (a) victims of mass-hallucination, or (b) taken aside and threatened or bribed to testify falsely that they saw a commercial aircraft. Immediately after the impact, squads of conspirators rushed to the scene (including the inside of the burning Pentagon) to plant body parts, personal effects, and bogus aircraft parts (some, like the engines and landing gear weighing several hundred pounds). Others dumped aviation fuel, to "falsely" suggest involvement of an airplane.
With just a few paragraphs Partridge disposes of the case against the crash of Flight 77 at the Pentagon by exposing its essential absurdities. He does not address detailed claims of the no-Boeing theorists, which are so numerous their debunking could amount to a full-time job." See [34]

It's time we take a serious look at deleting all original research from this article, or Afd-ing it. Morton Devonshire^Yo

Wow, I never thought I would say this, but I agree with Morton, we need to get rid of the original research, among other things, and if we can't agree on how to do that then we need to put it up for AFD and see if other people think it should be deleted. 69.179.124.166 16:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An AFD would be a complete waste of everyones time. There would never be a consensus to delete this article. Don't do it. I'm not worried about the article disappearing, I just don't think anybody will want to have to take part in that long pointless excercise. It's good that there are people working on improving it though. SkeenaR 23:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of things wrong with this article. But it does not "contradict" the main 9/11 article any more than Kennedy assassination theories does. That is, it presents (more or less accurately) the existence of dissent about the events of 9/11.--Thomas Basboll 17:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recent non-neutral changes

While I recognize that there are lots of problems with this article, there's no reason to insert things into the article to make it still less useful. Let's try to make this article present the best case (or set of cases) for a 9/11 conspiracy theory that is available in published sources. Like I say, there's lots of work to do. But this last stuff wasn't helpful. Giving up is fine. But then get off the field.--Thomas Basboll 17:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say we want not the best case for the theory, but a neutral description of the theory, supported by reliable sources. Maybe that is just a different way to say what we both mean, or maybe not. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we agree on this. You're right that we shouldn't present theories as stronger than they really are. I meant we should make the best, clearest statement of the theories. It's important to keep theories in the plural. Lumping them altogether as a single conspiracy theory will make it seem excesively absurd. Most of the theories have a certain internal, narrative coherence that ought to be preserved in presenting them. It's part of describing them.--Thomas Basboll 22:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, on Wikipedia, we're not supposed to be "making a case" for any topic -- Wikipedia has a policy against that, it's called "Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position", and it violates WP:NOR. See [35] for a copy of the policy. We can describe the theory, but we cannot "make the case." This article goes too far, in that it tries to make the case, and is therefore original research.

Morton Devonshire^Yo

WTC demolition is way too long

To get a sense of how long the WTC demolition section is I pasted it into a Word document. It's 15 pages long and 6,000 words. That's pretty much the size of an academic journal article. 500 words and about five links (to Jones, Griffin, King, Hoffman and Ross) would easily suffice to summarize the hypothesis and identify its main proponents. I'll be working on it over the next couple of days. Do let me know if you have any concerns about this.--Thomas Basboll 18:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We still need citations for your description of what constitutes a 9/11 conspiracy theory. Your plans for the section sound good, but it might be wise to not let the writing get ahead of the citations that support it. What we had earlier, while certainly flawed, did have some citations to support it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contradictory Article?

I'll repeat my argument for removing the "contradictory article" tag so that we can discuss it. If September 11, 2001 attacks says, "On this day 19 hijackers executed a coordinated surprise terrorist attack on the US" and the 9/11 CT article say, "Since 9/11, ~~alternative~~ a number of alternative hypotheses have been proposed...etc." There is no contradiction. To say, "It is raining but I don't believe it is raining" is a contradiction; but to say "It is raining but Larry doesn't believe it is raining" is not. The relationship between these two articles is very clearly the second case, not the first. Wikipedia provides the official story as fact and the alternative story as opinion, hypotheses, and speculation. It even emphasises that the 9/11 CTs are incompatible with the official version. Again, this article can be improved in many ways, and I'm sure we can do a better job of not introducing "facts" that are incompatible with the official account and difficult to substantiate. But there is no fundamental problem with the whole article.--Thomas Basboll 09:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The key is that the alternative/non-consensus views be attributed to major proponents. If wikipedia offers both opinions as fact, then we have a contradiction. So I've removed the tag. Antonrojo 15:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned up removed the following links

I cleaned up the links, and removed the following:

Site better placed on the 9/11 wikisite

"Defense Department Releases Two Videos of Flight 77 Crashing Into Pentagon". Retrieved 2006-07-30.

Articles on a variety of topics, none on the front page had articles about 9/11 readily seen

"Centre for Research on Globalization". Retrieved 2006-07-30. edited by Michel Chossudovsky

Will put on the Sibel Edmonds page

"The censured FBI Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds speaks out". justacitizen.org. Retrieved 2006-07-30.

Off topic

"Collection of media files, some related to 9/11". Retrieved 2006-07-30.

Site down:

"911research". 911research.wtc7.net. Retrieved 2006-07-30. Pro MIHOP rebuttle to original article

Signed: Travb (talk) 01:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The site for the above is now back up. I put the rebuttle in as a seperate article right below the original. 02:35, 7 August 2006 (Ed Kollin)

Popular Mechanics debunks 9/11 conspiracy theories

FOX News has a good video clip of Bill O'Reilly interviewing the supervising author from Popular Mechanics magazine. RonCram 15:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stating the claims, not making the case

Like I've said above, the WTC section is way too long. But so are many of the other sections. They contain too much evidence and argument. The article has not been confined to presenting the core claims of the 9/11 CTs but to making the arguments. I think that violates POV, but I'd like to try to convince especially those editors that have that POV (i.e., those who support the CTs) that a simple, easily surveyable Wikipedia article is better than one that loses itself in controversial details. All the evidence can be found in stable online and offline source, which are easily referenced and linked to. Let this article be a starting point, not the last word on 9/11. Please make your objections heard. I'm going to start cutting stuff soon.--Thomas Basboll 19:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Before making the cuts in the discussion pages take a section and show that section before your cuts then after your proposed cuts just so we can see what you intend. 00:50,11 August 2001 (Ed Kollin)

That's a good idea. SkeenaR 18:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the Pentagon section had been cut so much that it only referred to the no-Boeing theorists, and not the fact that many of the key people in the movement do believe that AA77 hit the Pentagon. That's an example of the absurdities that happen when 'editors' who don't know anything about 9/11 CTs start 'cutting' for more 'space.' It's an outrage to the families and the researchers who don't want to have anything to do with the no-Boeing claims to be lumped in as though all people who question the official version think that missiles or drones hit the Pentagon. bov 02:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about as a compromise, breaking this main article up into several major sections, each could be a new artilce (e.g. government forewarnings, physical evidence, or the like) to which this artilce links. This main article could keep it high level. Just a though.--—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.195.203.66 (talk • contribs) .

Draft of new WTC collapse section for your consideration

The collapse of the World Trade Center was a great surprise to the engineering community. "No experienced structural engineer watching the attack expected the WTC towers to collapse," wrote the author of the first attempt to explain the collapses ^[1], Zdenek Bazant, in a later paper co-authored with Mathieu Verdure^[2]. "No skyscraper," they point out, "has before collapsed due to fire," and the task for engineers has been to explain how the local damage caused by the airplanes was able to bring on a global progressive collapse. While an explanation has now been "generally accepted by the community of specialists in structural mechanics and structural engineering" (see also WTC collapse), Bazant and Zdenek also identify a dissenting view, which is held by "a few outsiders claiming a conspiracy with planted explosives". Indeed, the "controlled demolition hypothesis," which was explicitly rejected by the official NIST report^[3], plays a central, albeit not essential^[4], role in the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11.

Many journalists{{fact}} compared the collapses to controlled demolitions already on the day of the attacks. The first to suggest it in literal terms seems to have been Van Romero, a demolitions expert in New Mexico. He said that the collapses looked "too methodical" to have been brought on by the impacts and subsequent fires and proposed explosives in the building to account for the images he saw on television. He later retracted his suggestion but did maintain that "that is what it looked like". Jeff King and Jim Hoffman were early defenders of the controlled demolition hypothesis and published their observations online^[5]. David Ray Griffin included it in his comprehensive survey of anomalies in the official story ^[6] It received its most notable proponent to date in early 2006, when Steven E. Jones, a phycisist at Brigham Young University, argued that a "gravity driven collapse "(i.e., one without explosives) would defy the laws of physics and fail to account for the full range of available evidence, which comprises mainly photographs and video material, but also eye-witness reports and samples of the structural steel.

There is a range of opinion about the most likely sort of explosives, the way they were distributed, and how they were successfully brought into the building. Proponents of the hypothesis sometimes cite reports of unusual power outages, maintenance work and emergency drills in the weeks leading up to 9/11. Like any [controlled demolition], the role of the explosives would have been to remove the main structural supports in order to let gravity and the weight of the building do the rest. Many today follow Steven Jones in suggesting [thermite], perhaps in combination with other devices.

Proponents of the controlled demolition hypothesis argue that it better explains the data than the official account, as presented in the NIST report and Bazant and Verdure's recent paper. They normally emphasise the speed (near freefall), symmetry and completeness of the collapses; the reported sounds of explosions going off before the collapses began; the presence of demolition "squibs" in the videos of collapses; and evidence of molten metal both before the collapses began and long after they were over. They also argue that the fires were not hot enough, and did not burn long enough, to significantly weaken the steel in the buildings (as required by the official theory). Finally, they note that WTC 7, which was not hit by a plane, also collapsed on that day, displaying many of these same features of controlled demolition.

The total progressive collapse of WTC 1, 2, and 7 has never been adequately modelled to either refute or prove the controlled demolition hypothesis.{{fact}} The NIST report provided a finite element analysis of the structural response of the building up to the point of where "collapse was inevitable" due to the "enormous" weight of the buildings above the damaged floors. Bazant and Zhou provided some rough estimates to support this characterization, concluding that the weight was at least an "order of magnitude" over that required to occasion total collapse. This was then reaffirmed by Bazant and Verdure. Alternative energy budgets have been produced{{fact}} to suggest the oppositive conclusion, namely, that the structure underneath the impacts should have easily withstood the failure of the top floors, in which case the tops of the buildings should have "fallen off" the towers, rather than straight through them. As noted, this scenario is presently defended only by "outsiders claiming a conspiracy" and has not been discussed in mainstream engineering journals.

There is widespread agreement, however, about the significance of controlled demolition hypothesis, even among those who don't endorse it specifically or conspiracy theories in general. The necessary explosives could only have been planted well in advance of the Semptember 11 attacks and would have required significant levels of access to three highly secured buildings. These housed not only some of the most important financial infrastructure in the United States, but also the offices of the CIA, the FBI and the SEC. If it were to be demonstrated that explosives were involved in the collapses, it would give much credibility to the idea that 9/11 was an "inside job".

Comments welcome

This text is about 800 words, and I hope it can replace the 6,000 we've got. Naturally, there's probably something I've missed, and there's some work to be done on the sources. My aim has been to situate the CT in as close proximity to the official story as possible, and identify only the most salient aspects of it. With links to the papers by Jones and Griffin, and to 9/11 Research (Hoffman) and Plaguepuppy (King), it should serve the curious reader.--Thomas Basboll 12:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Say' avoids the potential tendentiousness of 'point out', 'cite', 'claim', 'note', 'argue', and so on. I have added notes where I think citations are needed. We need to make clear somehow that these assertions are what the theorists say, unless we have citations to a reliable source to state them as facts. For example, they note that WTC 7, which was not hit by a plane, also collapsed on that day, displaying many of these same features of controlled demolition. - What reliable source has listed the features of a controlled demolition, and has said the collapse exhibited those features? Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that reducing the demolition section from a sourced 6000 words to 800 indicates that it should have it's own article unless it stays here. There is no reason why that information shouldn't be included somewhere. And nobody has even mentioned molten metal yet. The collapse features mentioned are undisputed except for in this article talk page. Nobody disputes the dust clouds, etc, etc, etc and there are a billion sources for all that stuff. Of course, none of those things are proof of anything, and so what? I only bring this up in hope of avoiding a replay of that Collapse Talk fiasco. SkeenaR 05:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand this concern. The trouble is that pretty much any article in any encyclopedia deals with a topic that also deserves an essay-length or book-length treatment. Fortunately, those essays and books already exist. The reader of an encyclopedia article wants a quick overview of the main issues and some references for further reading. (I added the molten metal, which, you are right, is an important piece of evidence.) If we gave the controlled demolition hypothesis its own article (which I actually think is appropriate ... but hasn't it been tried?) then 6000 words would, IMHO, still be too long. 1500 ought to do it (again with proper references for further reading; it would be much better to send the reader on to either Griffin's survey of the arguments or Jones' paper, where all these claims are made with some authority and painlessly from within the CT POV). It would allow us to reduce the CD hypothesis section in the CT article to something like what we've got at WTC collapse. (If it's the talk we had there you're talking about it, I'd say it was very trying, but not wholly a fiasco. But, yes, I would like to avoid a process of that kind here.)--Thomas Basboll 07:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You would need citing for the "ununsual" events in the buildings in the days prior to the attack. In the best case scenario you would get a legitimate cite for a source that specifically ties the unusual events to Marvin Bush and the destruction of the buildings. All I have found is sometimes inaccurate mentions in discussion boards. 02:08, 22 August 2006 (Ed Kollin)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.114.117.103 (talk • contribs) .

It could be a good idea. Let's hear from some others too. When you were at the collapse page, I would call that constructive. That wasn't the fiasco I was talking about. SkeenaR 08:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sections on Israelis

Is there any proof at all for the claim that 4,000 Israelis were somehow warned about 9/11? This seems very unlikely. If no one can cite any evidence for it, I propose we delete the section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.239.233.98 (talk • contribs) .

There does not need to be "proof" of 4000 Israelis having foreknowledge. What is important in the context of this article is the widespread reporting of this in the Arab media and opinion polls showing widespread belief in this in that part of the world and significant belief of this in other parts of the world. I would describe the theory as illegitimate but important. Important is what makes it article worthy. It is worthy in that a reader looking to this article to get knowledge of the main theories out their needs to know of this theory. 01:56, 22 August 2006 (Ed Kollin)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.114.117.103 (talk • contribs) .

Good point. I find the claim to be pretty ridiculous - is there some kind of registry of all Israelis that could be used to make these warnings? I really doubt it. But you're right; the article is about theories that have been put forth, and this is a claim that comes up very often. Thanks.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.239.233.98 (talk • contribs) .

^ Bazant and Zhou 2001
^ Bazant and Verdure
^ NIST 2005.
^ Michael Ruppert, for example, explicitly refuses to let anything depend on proving the case for demolition
^ Plague Puppy, 9/11 Research
^ New Pearl Harbor, but see also his contribution to the studies in political economy volume (and weblink at 9/11 Review).

[1] Bazant and Zhou 2001

[2] Bazant and Verdure

[3] NIST 2005.

[4] Michael Ruppert, for example, explicitly refuses to let anything depend on proving the case for demolition

[5] Plague Puppy, 9/11 Research

[6] New Pearl Harbor, but see also his contribution to the studies in political economy volume (and weblink at 9/11 Review).

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]