Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

Archive this Page

Here are a list of headings that have nothing to do with improving the article. I suggest we archive, tell people to move this "debate", if it can be called that, to the conspiracy page.

"allegedly" - refers to hijacker's culpability

Someone put this in the article--Railsmart 17:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC) - Loose Change

Description of conspiracy theories

Conspiracy Video

Culpability

Conspiracy Video by Alex Jones

need these photos

Re: Collapse. Some really push their POV in the guise of fact.

Conspiracy theorists.

The Controlled Demolition Fairy Tale

Explain these anamolies

84%!

Lost conspiracies

Asymetrical POV

Favor Archiving

C. Nelson - This seems to me like a no brainer. Discussion is off track.

Oppose

Or perhaps someone wants to refactor? If people are still debating this during the summer, I'd be happy to refactor the archives... perhaps move all the conspiracy discussions to one archive.

I moved all the discussion to Archive 15, aside from this one and the latest thread.--MONGO 09:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Breath of fresh air. nice. --Mmx1 15:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Biased and Non-Standard Section Title "Conspiracy Theories"

digiterata April 20 2006 Hi, I have replaced the title "Conspiracy Theories" with "Alternate Theories". I hope I haven't stirred the pot unneccessarily. That wasn't my intent. IMHO "Alternate Theories" is a more neutral term than either "Conspiracy Theories" or "Controversy". Let's see how long this edit lasts before someone removes it.

digiterata April 20 2006 Well per my post above, my "Alternate Theories" edit lasted about 4 minutes, before being removed by an administrator. I checked the definition of "conspiracy theory" on Wikipedia and found it to have strongly negative connotations. Please see my post under "Controversy" on this Talk page. What does the community think? Is "Conspiracy Theory" a fair term to describe this section or is it biased?

Normal nick 00:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC) Hello. I'm new here at the Wikipedia. But, when reading this article, I noticed that instead the typical "Controversy" sub-secction found in many of this Enciclopedia's articles, there's one called "Conspiracy Theories". This name is itself biased and in my opinion should be replaced by the typical and unbiased term "Controversy". I tryied to change this, but my edit was removed, what is the right procedure to do this?

This is the right procedure, bringing it to the talk page. :) --Golbez 01:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

And will this lead anywhere? After this, what should be done? Normal nick 02:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

People will respond. A compromise will be found. If not, then you go to the next step, with is a Request for Comment from the community. --Golbez 02:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this pov wording is supported by many editors who prefer marginalizing independent researchers and critics of official 9/11 stonewalling, by stretching the meaning of npov beyond all recognition. Thank you for bringing the point up for discussion. The 'official' accounts have continued to lose credibility (along with most every aspect of the Bush administration), not simply because of the conflicts of interest and whitewashing that characterized the 9/11 commission, but also because new answers about what really happened have lent additional credence to alternative scenarios. Yes, it is time for an RfC. Ombudsman 02:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the editors of the 9/11 conspiracy theories page can't seem to weed out all of the nonsense and create a concise page which doesn't drown the reader in debunked theories. --146.244.137.154 22:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Meaning of "Controversy"

Could someone please explain how "Conspiracy Theory" is a neutral non-pov term? According to Wikipedia "The term is also used pejoratively to dismiss allegedly misconceived, paranoid or outlandish rumors." I recently changed the term from 'Conspiracy' to 'Alternate' however 'Controversy' also seems appropriate. Per Wikipedia, "A controversy is an opinion or opinions over which parties are actively arguing. Controversies can range from private disputes between two to large scale disagreements." Please advise how 'Conspiracy' is more neutral than the alternatives listed above. There appears to be no means of arriving at a consensus. What is the next step in situations such as this? digiterata April 20 2006

Controversies sections exist where there are some common facts and opinions differ on their interpretation and significance. So the decision to drop the bomb on Hiroshima is controversial. Use of steroids in baseball is controversial. The gap between the facts according to the 9/11 commission and the conspiracy theories is too large to be considered a controversy. patsw 05:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Patsw, although I also don't think that "Conspiracy theory" has such negative conotations that it will become a problem. I think we all agree that the claims are "theories" (in the colloquial sense) about "conspiracies." If a "controversy" section had anything in it, would be about whether the gov was incompetent in not stopping the attacks or something like that. JoshuaZ 05:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

There is controversy over the whole thing. I havent heard so much controversy about anything.

"Controversy on the diccionary". There are several different views about the topic and there are arguments based on facts on both sides. There is a public dispute between sides holding oposing views. I don't understand why don't you want to use the regular word for the name of this secction, I continue to believe that opposing to this change is biased. I can try to explain why: The set of words "conspiracy theories" has a bashing effect on the credebility of one of the sides of the dispute, and by using it, you're yourself taking part on the dispute as one that agrees with one side. You seem to deny there is a controversy here, but it's quite obvious there is one. If there wasn't, then there wouldn't exist movies about it nor this talk page would be so full. By other mean, not all the controversy about this happening has to do with conspiracies, and much of it is about simple isolated facts.Normal nick 12:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Refusing to use the word controversy and insisting on using the tag 'conspiracy theorist' unquestionably has an undeserved credibility bashing effect on anyone who expresses ideas or views that may contradict the 'official story' or mainstream media. I think this is intentional in many cases. And there are many credible sources outside of these. SkeenaR 19:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there's a controversy, but it's of the Earth is Round vs. Flat Earth type -- there may be people that believe that the Earth is flat, but it's not a credible theory that merits serious consideration. Morton devonshire 19:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

That argument is funny, because if there had been a Wikipedia at that time, then, at the earth talk page many would mention the uncredability of the possibility of the earth beeing round. Every theory deserves consideration, as long as you can't prove it wrong. And even wrong theories deserve a page here at the wikipedia, as long as you mention they are wrong.Normal nick 19:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. The conflict is from amateurs looking at a photograph and trying to put their random guesses on an equal footing with the professional assertions of the people who designed and built the towers or who analyzed the collapse scientifically. The conspiracy theories are mentioned in the appropriate articles. If a particular theory gains credibility (in the professional engineering sense), then it might in future be moved to this article. Peter Grey 20:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The conflicts regarding what the true circumstances are behind this event are far more wide ranging than the collapse of the World Trade Center SkeenaR 20:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I partialy agree with Peter Grey. Even though, there is no reason that justifies the biased and unstandard use of terminology. You guys couldn't sill explain me what justfies to remove an edit from "Conspiracy theories" to the regular "Controversy". I remember you that not all the controversy about this issue has to do with any kind of conspiracy. Remeber also that much of the info reported in this article has the United States government as the only source, wich is clearly an highly biased source. Now, please justify the use of the title "conspiracy theories" instead of the regular "controversy". Normal nick 20:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

A few people chiming in here with a sole intention of adding nonscientific mumbo jumbo to this article, are POV pushing. There simply is zero proof of either U.S. Government involvement or controlled demolition or actions by Israeli operatives that has any basis in fact. It is all simply wide eyed conspiracy theory rhetoric. That is why the section is noted as Conspiracy Theories and that is why this junk science is all in subpages. If you want to fill Wikipedia up with junk science, then do so over in those articles, not here. Thanks.--MONGO 03:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Our own article Conspiracy theory states the problems with using the term: "The term "conspiracy theory" is used by scholars and in popular culture to identify a type of folklore similar to an urban legend, having certain regular features, especially an explanatory narrative which is constructed with certain naive methodological flaws. The term is also used pejoratively to dismiss allegedly misconceived, paranoid or outlandish rumors."Pedant 23:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

9-11 conspiracy theories fit your description.conspiracy theories debunked

Motivations for the Change

I think it is up to you to show why conspiracy theory is not suitable for a title. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not a matter of not beeing suitable, but of beeing worse. It's simple:

• Wikipedia is suposed to be the more neutral possible when exposing controversial issues. Any natural language words are non-neutral by themselves, Wikipedia is made of those. If the expression "Controversy" is more neutral than "Conspiracy theories", then it's use improves Wikipedia quality comparing to the use of the current title, because it makes wikipedia to be more neutral.
• By other mean, the word "Controversy" is used in many other Wikipedia's articles. Then, using it here for the same sort of content will improve Wikipedia's Orthogonality as a Human-Machine Interface, making it easier for the users to find the information they look for.
• Finally, the word "Controversy" is much more general than the expression currently beeing used. By making the change I propose, references to controversy about conspiracies and controversy about simple and isolated facts can be adequatly separated inside this section.Normal nick 22:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Er, abrangent? I'm not familiar with that word. JoshuaZ 22:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Ups.. Sorry, it was suposed to be "more general"Normal nick 22:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I've heard that argument before, and I don't find it persuasive. Conspiracy theory is a perfectly correct term. Calling them anything other than what they are is just inaccurate. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The matter here is not if it is correct or not, but if it is best than "Controversy". By your non-arguments i see it's not.

It's much more accurate and more neutral than "controversy". "Controversy" implies a legitimacy and an air of serious debate which the 9/11 conspiracy movement does not have. The movement is a tiny group who can't even make up their mind about which theory to support. Ignoring the vast amount of evidence supporting the official account, they allege that members of the U.S. government conspired to murder thousands of U.S. citizens and somehow kept it a secret. There is no better term than "conspiracy theory" to describe these unsupported beliefs. Rhobite 04:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

They aren't a single group, with a single theory, and many of them don't even say nothing about any conspiracy. The this is: There are people who disagree with the officaly presented facts, and that as to unbiasely be referred on this article. "Controversy" don't implies legitimacy, and "legetimacy" is way too subjective.

Some of the unofficial theories appear to have supporting evidence while others appear to have none. Many claims of the official account seem to be legitimate while others seem unsubsantiated. But one thing is certain, and that is there is much controversy - obviously. SkeenaR 04:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

There is not controversy debunking 911 conspiracy theories

Our own article Conspiracy theory states the problems with using the term: "The term "conspiracy theory" is used by scholars and in popular culture to identify a type of folklore similar to an urban legend, having certain regular features, especially an explanatory narrative which is constructed with certain naive methodological flaws. The term is also used pejoratively to dismiss allegedly misconceived, paranoid or outlandish rumors."

911 conspiracy theories fit your description; therefore, they are accurately labeled. debunking 911 conspiracy theories

If there was nothing to cover up, why was there no crime scene investigation at the WTC site, why was the evidence meticulously removed? Why is there no picture whatsoever showing commercial airline markings on any of the planes that were alleged to have been commercial airliners? Of course its a conspiracy, of course there are theories and this article is nothing but conspiracy theories... but use of that term is a pejorative, freighted with the meaning "nutty speculation". The entire article needs a rewrite to become credible and NPOV, we shouldn't pick and choose as to whose speculations and assertions are more credible, just report facts based on evidence. But anything counter to the official 9/11 commission report is sent of to the Kid's Table. What if we had written an article on the Kennedy assassination, not including anything contrary to the Warren Commission Report???Pedant 23:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Your argument is based on false premises, becasue all of your concernes have been adressed and there is no controversy.debunking 911 conspiracy theories

I believe the entry should be labeled September 11, 2001; Attack Theories

There are definitely more conflicting reports from the "official" theory and, I believe, less sound science. The speed of freefall in air is a law of physics. That an object will fall along the path of least resistance, is a law of physics. The disappearance of angular momentum in the south tower's falling top, defies physics if you subscribe to the official theory and if you disregard the laws of physics. That we can't prove (right now) that Larry Silverstein or Peter Peterson were involved is just as conclusive as saying Osama BinLaden was involved (perhaps even less so, since we have a video of him (the real Osama, not the fake) denying involvement). Just because Popular Mechanics, or Popular Science, or even People magazine say it happened a certain way, isn't conclusive. That the 9/11 COmission omitted the collapse of Building 7 speaks to it's lack of depth. Why are people being so prudish about this? If you don't want to find out the truth, why are you looking at Wikipedia? Waterflaws 00:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

There are hundreds of wacky conspiracy theories which have been debunked by experts and eyewitness testimony. wikipedia is not the place for us to run around in circles chasing white rabits just to end up in the same place. If there is any truth to the myriad of wacky ideas involved in alternate 911 theories, then I suggest you clean up the 9/11_conspiracy_theories page which is highly convoluted and filled with over a hundred unreliable footnotes. If you want people to take you seriously, then you need to get rid of all of the nonsense. How about we call it,September 11, 2001; Debunked Attack Theories, that would be more representative. --146.244.137.126 20:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The Popular Mechanics article "Debunking 9/11 Myths" tries to explain the "myths" in wacky ways, way that are highly unlikely compared to the logical "myths". Just because they label something as a "fact" doesnt mean it is. Their "facts" are way too far fetched. e.g. "while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper." That seems too far fetched to me. Now the burning rugs, curtains, furniture and 'paper' caused the building to collapse?? --Spindled 06:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Controversy shouldn't be allowed

I dispute that the numerous Controversy sections which appear in articles are helpful. It's a method used by POV-pushers to assign more weight to critics regarless of their credibility. Other encyclopedias through the ages didn't see a need for them. patsw 22:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you are right about that, but that ain't a thing to be discussed here on this particular talk page.

Try Wikipedia's first page talk for that, but i remember you that those sections can be seen as a tool for both POV and NPOV pushersNormal nick 22:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Normal nick, if your recent entries are appropriate to be discussed on this particular talk page, my replies to you are as well. patsw 00:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry by the way I replied, I should have justified why I said that. That problem you are talking about is something that guives respect to the whole wikipedia, then, it should be discussed in some page related to the wikipedia's policies, and not on this one. Continuing that argumentation you started is off-topic and leads nowhere. You are saying Wikipedia's polices wrong. Particularily, you are argumentating against something that is clearly defined as necessary for NPOV in Wikipedia's rules. Normal nick 03:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

"You are saying Wikipedia's polices wrong." What policy do you mean? Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

From NPOV:

"All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one."

"NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each."Normal nick 03:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

There is a link to the 9/11 conspiracy theories article. That is the due weight that fairly represents the viewpoint that 9/11 may have been one of serveral different conspiracies described in the linked article. patsw 05:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Using the expression "conspiracy theorists", you are putting all people that opose to the official version in the same bag: The ones that simply speculate and the ones who realy investigate. This is inacurate and highly biased. It resembles propaganda tactics.Normal nick 11:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you organize the 9/11 conspiracy theories page to reflect a distinction between speculators and credible investigations. Currently, its all mixed together, and the over all appearance is that of uninformed, second hand speculation. --146.244.137.154 22:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Our own article Conspiracy theory states the problems with using the term: "The term "conspiracy theory" is used by scholars and in popular culture to identify a type of folklore similar to an urban legend, having certain regular features, especially an explanatory narrative which is constructed with certain naive methodological flaws. The term is also used pejoratively to dismiss allegedly misconceived, paranoid or outlandish rumors."Pedant 23:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

the page 9/11 conspiracy theories is full of folklore wich is similar to an urban legend. Most of the material should be dismissed as allegedly misconceived, paranoid and outlandish. perhaps we whoudl call the page, Urban Legends regarding 911. That might help.--146.244.137.125 00:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

the page 9/11 conspiracy theories is full of folklore which is similar to an urban legend. under what expertise or evidence? Personally I don't really believe some of the things on that page, but I don't agree with calling them "conspiracy theories". That term is used by critics to dismiss relevant claims. Some facts in that article are known to the public, such as the Government hiding information from the general public for unknown reasons. I don't think its fair to dismiss information because they conflict with your point of view. RiseRobotRise 08:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy is the mother of all endings for the word *IF*. Its not a factual claim and cannot be supported. This article should only have factual claims supported by *Official Investigation* references. Eg; U.N., Congress, Military, other countries investigations. It doesn't belong here because it doesn't do any justice to the families and the deaths. --Scott Grayban 20:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

In Favour of Moving This Talk Section Somewhere Else

• Normal nick 03:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
• Shark Fin 101 19:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Scott Grayban 20:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't understand what this vote is for

• Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Validity of facts

The points of view Normal nick speaks of have no basis in fact...they are just nonsense...and that is why they are not in this article.--MONGO 03:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Some of them are based on facts. It's a fact that outside the pentagon there were no airplane debris. And it's a fact that the way the towers have fallen it's weirdly similar to implosion demolitions. About the others, i can't tell if they are facts or no. I didn't see them.

Normal nick 03:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

nick,... there is no validity to your comment Your claims debunked

No, zero of this nonsense is based on facts...you didn't see them...I did...no aircraft parts at the Pentagon?...examine this image...see those folks in the white hazmat suits near the orange crane...to the right slightly is some of the remains of the aircraft...they are in hazmat outfits due to the biohazard from the people that died on the plane and in the building. There is zero proof of controlled demolition...when some one can prove it, then it can go in this article....got it?--MONGO 03:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• No wings nor any other big parts. This is fact..
• There is no proff about controled demonition, you are right, but there are proffs it looked like a controled demolition.

You are wrong...they did find a lot of aircraft parts at the Pentagon. You're a conspiracy theorists and you have no facts...the buildings at the WTC were not imploded. There is no evidence that proves implosion.--MONGO 04:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• I don't know whether a plane realy crashed against the pentagon, neither do you. But there are no big parts of any plane at that photos or movies. This is a fact.
• I don't know if there was a controled demolition, neither do you. But the fall of the buildings looks like one. And this is a fact.Normal nick 04:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I do know a plane hit the pentagon...I work for USDHS. The fall of the buildings at the WTC may look like controlled demolition...but that doesn't mean that it was...do you have proof of controlled demolition?...oh, I see, I didn't think so.--MONGO 04:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand that the fact of "had been a controled demolition" is different from the "it looked like a controled demolition". Strange that you saw it, because there are other witnesses that say they didn't. And... working for the USDHS don't makes you way too biased for having anything to do with the edition of this topic? Editors are suposed to be neutral.Normal nick 04:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

nick, all of your arguments have been adressed and they are invalid debunking 911 conspiracy theories]

Asserting that you work for the USDHS is as ridiculous as me saying I'm the President's Head Secret Service Agent. Unless you are editing non-anonymously, AS the person who works for USDHS, and as a witness, which you aren't so that point is just plain bs. Since there is ample footage of the impact and events leading up to the impact at the Pentagon, there should be a picture of a commercial airliner just prior to it hitting the Pentagon. There ARE pictures, and if they did show such an image, they would very likely have been released. There being as you say "no evidence that proves implosion" is no more cogent than me saying "it is physically impossible for a building of that type to collapse in that way from jet fuel fires", and there is ample evidence that indicates that controlled demolition by pre-placed charges is more likely than the assertion that a building specifically designed' to withstand a similar impact -- with a greater fuel payload, on a day with MORE wind load, with more static weight load of people in the building -- just collapsed, like no other building in history ever has, and in complete contradiction to the laws of physics", and that the 2 buildings next to it also collapsed the same way, the first 3 steel framed buildings to have all their steel melt at temperatures far lower than the melting point of such steel, all 3 buildings crumbling to dust. Ignoring one scientist in favor of another is a POV violation. Not to mention that one of the towers began to topple to the side and then turned to dust and fell straight down at freefall speeds, in complete violation of conservation of angular momentum. Lastly, if you work for the USDHS, what is your job? Lurking on wikipedia and frustrating attempts by other editors to write a factually based unbiased article? If you know something that would definitely prove that a commercial airliner hit the Pentagon, you should make it public, not brag about it backstage at Wikipedia.Pedant 23:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Please try to keep it civil. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Is "the sky looks green" a fact? The pentagon was unlike Tower 2, there was no "ample footage". You're just making up crap. Any scientist claiming the steel had to have "melted" for the towers to collapse needs to have all their degrees revoked for sheer ignorance. --Mmx1 23:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

all of pedants arguments have beendebunked by experts.--146.244.137.154 00:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

A little background of me before I make my statement here on this. 20 years in the USAF, worked on fighter jets to 727, know most of weights and messurements of all the planes I worked on including the AWAC's 727. So now my statement about the Pentagon plane. Its not possible, plain and simple. Even after testing this on computer simluations the vass amounts of parts left would have been visible from any angle and even across beltway. However there is no such thing there. Even after looking at photo's taken right after the attack you couldn't see anything that remotely looked like a plane part. Not even a seat. Look at [1] for some arial photo's and sat images. It just isn't possible with the amount of metal and width of the wings or the tail that nothing survived. Sorry but you can flame me or tell me I'm wrong but I spent way to many years in the Air Force to not know what planes can and can't do. --Scott Grayban 20:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Mmx1, the steel was molten after the buildings fell, and was still molten then after. This is physically impossible with just the amount of energy released from the jet fuel burning. If you ignore that the buildings fell "because of melting steel", and say that it is possible for a building of that type to collapse from just weakened steel, then how do you explain the molten steel? This much temperature doesn't just pop out of the ground. It is just common sense to observe that the buildings did not naturally fall by themselves. Any video of the towers collapsing will show you the debris falling beside the buildings at the same rate as the top of the building. -> at least a provoked demolition, not self-occuring. Believing otherwise is just purely unscientific. As for building 7, this is all I need to be sure about, and I am sure. You just have to open your mind. --Spindled 05:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

"Common sense" has proved to be unhelpful in understanding building collapse. Peter Grey 05:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Where did the top part above the impact zone of the tower go? I mean that size of concrete block a few floors high subject to no overhead pressure or impact, and padded by the bottom floors shouldn't just get vaporized you know? Common sense... and when common sense is unhelpful in understanding this kind of thing, then what is? All we can do is use our common sense in a rational way. Believing plop from TV news is not common sense. Common sense in this situation is the logical indisputable fact that there is at least one flaw in the official story, and this is the door, thankfully, to the real story. --Spindled 06:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

We have already had the 'intuition is not structural engineering' discussion. It's not enough to disagree, show some calculations of forces, temperatures, velocities, etc. Peter Grey 15:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theories Article and This One

Then go put that junk in the conspiracy theory page...saying how something looked is a bit POV, no? Gee...sure looks like controlled demolition...is not encyclopedic. I'm not neutral? How do you figure that? If I know the facts and a bunch on nonsense oushing POVer's come here and I do what I can to keep their nonsense out of an encyclopedic article, then I am ensuring a close following of the undue weight clause of WP:NPOV. Do you have proof of controlled demolition? Okay...see you around then.--MONGO 04:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

From NPOV:

• "A POV fork is an attempt to evade NPOV guidelines by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. This is generally considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and majority Point of Views on a certain subject are treated in one article."

With this I'm not saying these pages are some kind of POV fork. What I'm saying that - as in any other article in the Wikipedia - this article should treat all facts and the majority Point Of Views in the same way: With Neutral Terminology.Normal nick 14:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Changing the title from conspiracy theories to controversies makes the title inaccurate. Conspiracy theories is the accurate description of these speculations. This particular collection of conspiracy theories is about 9/11. 9/11 conspiracy theories is entirely correct for an article title, and for the section that points the reader to that article. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I partialy agree with you. This change should only be made to this article and not to the "Conspiracy Theories" one. I note you that section can give more information than just point to the conspiracies page. It should at least refer the 9/11_Truth_Movement. Normal nick 15:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The description of "conspiracy theories" is accurate and broadly used. It is what you need to type into a search engine to find them. The "nutjob" quality of the name is also well-earned. No one takes the conspiracy-theory articles seriously except believers. This article is very different. 69.228.101.155 16:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The expression "conspiracy theorists"is higly inacurate. With it you are putting all people that opose to the official version in the same bag: The ones that simply speculate and the ones who realy investigate. This is inacurate and highly biased. It resembles propaganda tactics.

I agree with keeping the title "conspiracy theories" primarily for it's relationship with the article 9/11 conspiracy theories. To change the title of this section would mean to change the title and inference of that page. --Zleitzen 15:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Just tried to add the following statement, however it is apparently completely being censored:

"However, it has been researched by a growing community of people, that the official version of the attacks can be considered a "theory" as well. It has been revealed that the official story is actually based partially on false inforamtion, omissions of facts and speculations. For further, serious and objective information on this topic see for example: - - an essay by Professor David Ray Griffin about the collapse of the WTC, dealing with the official story - - www.911eyewitness.com - features a very objective video of the collapses filmed from the New Jersey side of the Hudson river"

Please tell me here how to adjust this text so the further information may go into this article. Maybe we should link to the 9-11 Commission Final Report? --anonymous 16:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi: thanks for your work on this page. I agree that this viewpoint is getting very little exposure on this page. Currently the main page for this discussion is 9/11 conspiracy theories. There is also a small section on this page, namely September_11,_2001_attacks#Conspiracy_theories, in which you can summarized points from the 9/11 conspiracy theories page. For a more complete list of pages on wikipedia about the 9/11 as inside job topic, see list. You may also consider getting a wikipedia userid under which to do your edits. Then you can have a watchlist and see quickly when people respond to your comments. Also, I suggest that you try to compose material that is thoroughly sourced to specific articles in and out of wikipedia, then you'll have stronger arguments to folks who will dispute you. Also, study the wikipedia concept of NPOV and other rules. Kaimiddleton 17:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Endorese

I endorese Normal nick suggestion and arguemnets for renaming the section to "controversy". Many of the points are based on facts, such as the facts mentioned by Kevin Ryan. Such as the fact of firefighters reporting explosives. Such as the fact that the fireball could not have traveled 1100 feets down to the lobby, and even if it did, it could not create the damage there was there. Such as the fact that no steel framed building have collapsed before or after that. Such as the fact that wtc7 was no hit by a any airplain. Such as the fact that the only three steelframed buildings that collpased in history due to supposed fire, collpased on the same day and where owned by the same guy. Such as the fact that no airplain engines where recovered from pengagon. Such as the fact that pentagon has no released the photo of any plane. Such as the fact that NORAD stood down. Such as, aaah who cares, MONGO does not care for facts, he is not even reading this, he will just repeat i have "zero facts"... --Striver 18:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

You got People questioning the official American 9/11 account, and you say there is no controversy? All those people are not conspiracy theorist, many of them just dont buy the 9/11 Commissions account and whant a new and independent investigation. --Striver 18:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

You have zero facts.--MONGO 19:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

MONGO, read this: [2]. Here is a few quotes to you:

The paper (below) has undergone modifications and a second set of peer reviews

• NIST contracted with Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. to conduct tests to obtain information on the fire endurance of trusses like those in the WTC towers…. All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for approximately 2 hours without collapsing… The Investigation Team was cautious about using these results directly in the formulation of collapse hypotheses. In addition to the scaling issues raised by the test results, the fires in the towers on September 11, and the resulting exposure of the floor systems, were substantially different from the conditions in the test furnaces. Nonetheless, the [empirical test] results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11. (NIST, 2005, p. 141; emphasis added.)

  "the fires in the towers on September 11, and the resulting exposure of the floor systems, were substantially different from the conditions in the test furnaces" exactly...they were substantially different and didn't involve the impact of high speed wide body jets..a force in the hundreds of millions of foot pounds.

• The 110-story towers of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand as a whole the forces caused by a horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft. (Bazant and Zhou, 2002, p. 2.)

  The were designed to withstand a LOW SPEED impact at approximately 120-180mph...not 490 and 590 mpph as the jets were actually doing.

  Source?

• MIT’s Thomas Eagar also concurs “because the number of columns lost on the initial impact was not large and the loads were shifted to remaining columns in this highly redundant structure” (Eagar and Musso, 2001).

  No one in the north tower was able to get down to lower floors...all the elevators and stariwells were in the center...no one knows how much damage was sustained by the impacts in the center of the buildings, but only 2 dozen people above the point of impact in either building survived.

The second tower was hit on a angle, the plane did not even touch the main support columns. --Striver 18:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• NIST report that: “The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes” and office material fires would burn out within about 20 minutes in a given location. (NIST, 2005; p. 179, emphasis added.)

  That is a misquote of the NIST reports and is an obvious incorrect miscue as both buildings were on fire the entire time they were standing and it took 3 months to fully extinguish the flames...did you not watch even one minute of the events on TV?

The towers where on fire for the entire duration, but the fire on a given place of the tower did not last for more than 20 minutes according to the NITS report. So, according to the NITS report, the maximal temperature was reached and past after "a few minutes", and after that, you had on any given space nothing more than furniture fire for 20 minutes. Dispite this, the towers did not collapse on the 25:th minute, hence, on any given place, the maximal heat was reached and past after the 25:th minute. Still, the towers collapsed after an hour, obviously not due to some maximal temperature being reached, in the contrary, the temperature could nothing else than drop after the 25:th minute - this is supported by the black hole of the impact zone, it is compleetly devoided of fire, and it is logicly the most heated zone.

• Bazant & Zhou do not explain how “more than half of the columns in the critical floor [can] suffer buckling” at the same time to precipitate the complete and nearly symmetrical collapse observed. There were 47 huge steel core columns in each Tower, and 24 such support columns in WTC 7 (NIST 2005; NISTb, 2005).

  Parts of airplane were ejected more than 6 blocks from the WTC and sections of the extior shething of the building were blown even further. The steel columns were interlocked with the floors...as the mounting couplets were bent at the support points, the fire simply did the rest.

As the NITS report states, the building was higly redundant, and a few sections missing was well within the reach of the redundancy. It is still no explained how max 1 minute jet fuel and 20 minutes furniture fire can acount for acollapse more that a houre later in a building with 600% redundancy. 1 minute jet fuel and 20 minutes fire does not even begin to weeken, not say bend, a solid steel column, not that it mattered, since they where 6 times more than needed.

• NIST notes that office materials in an area burn for about 15-20 minutes, then are consumed away (NIST, 2005, pp. 117, 179). This is evidently not long enough to raise steel column temperatures above 800oC as required in the Bazant & Zhou model, given the enormous heat sinks of the structures.

  Again, the steel colums were interlocked with the couplings on the floor sopprots...once the floors gave way, the enire complex was doomed.

Again, not even one single floor is supposed to give away, there was not enough heat to do anything, the fires where out on any given place after 20 minutes, the fires where of funiture type, 600% redundancy, the whole explanation is stupid and insulting to anyone contemplating it. And just for kicks, check out a video of the collpapse, the collpase starts 3-4 floors above the impact Zone and fires, totaly inconsistent with the fire theory.

• the Final NIST report on the Towers admits: Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250ºC… Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 ºC. ... Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC. (NIST, 2005, pp. 176-177; emphasis added.)

  Still talking about the melting point of steel...I want someone to find one piece of evidence of explosives...it is easy to detect...where is that evidence? There is no evidence of explosives becuase there weren't any explosives.

• Early news reports had indicated that a high pressure, 24-inch gas main was located in the vicinity of the building [WTC 7]; however, this proved not to be true." (FEMA, 2002, chapter 5; emphasis added.)

Im not talking about melting metal, im quoting the columns not even reaching 600 degrees, forget about melting or even bending temperatures. Only three columns examined reached puny 250 degrees!

This article is pov, NPOV it!--Striver 12:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Don't know why I bothered to even answer any of these stupid points, but I'm not going to bother again...it's a waste of time to point out the obvious.--MONGO 12:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

No, dont, keep saying "fire made them fall on freefall speed".... --Striver 18:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I will point out the obvious: What makes this a conspiracy theory and not a controversy is that if the items alleged above were true and provable, there is no explanation for how thousands of people would be able to coordinate a single "lie", i.e. that the collapse of the towers were caused by the aircraft, and how they all benefit from that lie. patsw 16:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Thousands of people did not coordiante that lie, almost all stated that the house fell due to explosives the first days, it was first after the official lie was put on the news that people started to parrot it. --Striver 17:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

"House"? "parrot"? I can understand MONGO's reluctance to engage people point by point. patsw 21:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, for sure polly is sick of crackers. Official lie?...Striver, you are hopeless.--MONGO 03:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Homeland Security?

Mongo, I'm curious about a couple of things and was wondering if you could enlighten me a bit. I assume by USDHS you mean Homeland Security. I noticed that the Popular Mechanics article on 9/11 was written by Ben Chertoff, the cousin of Secretary Chertoff of Homeland Security. Of course I can't say for sure that there is a connection here, but what I was wondering is if it is a policy of Homeland Security to maintain a presence in spaces such as this one, or if you are operating here in a professional capacity. It would be interesting to hear about this from you if you work for Homeland Security. SkeenaR 23:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

No, I am not an investigator. I am not paid or endorsed by anyone. The government does not in itself sponsor any contributions to any articles. I have tried to enlist park rangers and related friends of mine to assist in land management articles due to their knowledge base. I was not solicited or am paid to work on anything related to wikipedia and the vast majority of my edits have nothing to do with my current occupation. There was ofcourse the political wbspammin being done to a few Wikipedia articles from the U.S. Capital, but these were in articles about politicians. I had nothing to do with that and don't even know many of the details. I don't think I have even read the popular science article, and did not know that the writer was related to a government official.--MONGO 07:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean with "does not in itself sponser any censorship [sic] to the articles"? Do it does it in some sort of indirect way?Normal nick 12:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess MONGO used the rollback function to eliminate any evidance of him writing "does not in itself sponser any censorship [sic] to the articles"? Is it only me seeing a problem when a employee of the homeland security is using his weight as a admin in order to prevent a article from expresing other views than endorsed by the USA government?--Striver 12:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Should a glaciologist not edit articles about glaciers...? You make no sense again...if anything, complete nonexperts like yourself should be the ones editing elswhere. No the feds don't pay or endorse anyone to edit...oh...just think, someone who actually knows something about these events may have something to say about what is fact and what is fiction. Does your comments have the slightest thing to do with improving this article? I didn't think so...just more of the same.--MONGO 12:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Dont pretend you are more qualified than anyone else to edit on this topic.--Striver 18:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay...what do I know anyway...I mean, compared to you...--MONGO 20:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Anyone with some commonsense knows that substituting what use to be called "Controversy" by "Conspiracy Theories" is nothing but neutral. Millitary people don't have nothing to do with releasing information correctly. They just have to do with keeping information safe and distorting it presenting it in propaganda form. The use of that expression puts things in a disthorted Black-and-White fashion, like if all the people that don't agree with the official version are togheter and don't have disagreements between themselves. Insisting in the use of that expression is insisting in having a propagandish (black and white) FALLACY in a Wikipedia page, What should unacceptable for all this community.Normal nick 19:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

"Military people"? I presume you're referring to DHS and MONGO? DHS is pretty un-military (peek at my user profile to see where I'm coming from). I don't know if you're an American, so FYI, they've folded a lot of stuff into DHS, including the immigration and customs service, FEMA, and of course, TSA. Besides, what do we care about information except to help us do our job? Our job is to win wars, not to shoehorn information. We're not the ministry of truth. It just so happens that it helps us win wars if the other side doesn't know our plans and technology, just like it helps you make money if your competitors don't know your industry secrets and business plan. Nice use of the double negative, btw. --Mmx1 20:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

When using "military people", I meant MONGO and noone else. Sorry if it wasn't clear. And, no, I'm not American nor have nothing to do with that country (I'm Portuguese, by the way). The only reason I'm so active here is that I don't think it's reasonable to use this space as propaganda media. I consider it an insult to the community who is trying hardly to neutraly inform about all the things in the world . In my point of view, this error is by far the biggest error I've seen in Wikipedia. Not because it is incomplete or inaccurate, but because it intentional and has the main goal of misinforming, and such a thing is not proper in an Enciclopedia. Another thing that is important here, is that this kind of misinformation has been (and is) resposible for a lot of suffering along the human History.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Normal nick (talk • contribs)

What? That's a bunch of crap. Excuse me, but you show up and all you do is post your opinions on these events...if anyone is hurt, it by folks like you insulting the families of all those that needlessly died on 9/11 with unscientific POV nonsense that there was a conspiracy or that the government of the U.S. had anything to do with these events...that is propaganda if I ever saw it. I misinform no one...but with "editors" like tourself pushing nonsense that has no basis in fact, it's a wonder we don't just block you outright rather than allow you to edit here. Your sole purpose appears to be agenda driven and that drive is to attempt to have unproven nonsense in this article...what the heck do you know about it anyway? Were you there? Of course you weren't.--MONGO 03:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The fact that i wasn't there just makes me more neutral than the ones who have.Normal nick 14:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

You may have missed my point. MONGO is not military. He works for the feds, yes, but he's in the department that stamps passports, responds to hurricanes, and asks ppl to take their shoes off at the airport. If you're not American, you're probably not aware of the distinction. Regarding propaganda, I could say the same about the conspiracy theorists trying to use wiki as a soapbox. It's certainly what keeps me here.--Mmx1 22:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

USDHS: "(...)of protecting the territory of the United States from terrorist attack and responding to natural disasters. The department was created from 22 existing federal agencies in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001."

U.S._Military: "The armed forces (or armed services) of the United States of America consist of the

* United States Army

* National Guard of the United States

* United States Marine Corps

* United States Navy

* United States Air Force

* United States Coast Guard[1]

Now, MONGO probably doesn't care because your comments don't reflect on him, as he doesn't even consider himself military (unless he's Coast Guard), as much as you thought they might. But I'm offended that you would insinuate that I'm here issuing propaganda because I'm in the military. I don't know about your military, but mine are in the business of doing the country's bidding, not the other way around. --Mmx1 23:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I think we can all read the comments made here on the talk page, examine the edits made to this article and to others, and determine for ourselves who is writing an encyclopedia and who is promoting an agenda. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Hear, hear. Morton devonshire 20:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Si, si.--MortonsSockpuppet 20:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Oui, Oui. --Mmx1 20:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Hooah, hooah Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

What, me worry?--MONGO 20:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

No, you can resed assured that your majority formed disregard for basic NPOVing can continue a bit longer--Striver 21:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Here is an interesting article:

"The War Department is planning to insert itself into every area of the Internet from blogs to chat rooms, from leftist web sites to editorial commentary. Their rapid response team will be on hair-trigger alert to dispute any tidbit of information that challenges the official storyline." " The article is clearly biased, but the Rumsfeld quotes and information are interesting.

SkeenaR 22:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about the "leftist web sites" bit (what's he going to do? Have Privates troll Democratic Underground?) But it is entirely fair and accurate to go out and put our your own version of the news, because if you don't say anything then the opposition gets to define the story. There were no western media in Fallujah during the assault because it was unsafe for them. Al Jazeera got the chance to put out unchallenged reports of hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties. DoD made the mistake of not responding because they didn't want to legitimize the reports. Instead, Al Jazeera's coverage defined the coverage of Fallujah, and the DoD (which had gun camera and other footage to contradict Al Jazeera) said nothing. If someone's out there saying you're killing babies by the dozen, are you expected to shut up or dispute it? That's all the press release is saying. --Mmx1 23:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's another one about this. "examples of information war listed in the report include the creation of “Truth Squads” to provide public information when negative publicity, such as the Abu Ghraib torture scandal, hits US operations, and the establishment of “Humanitarian Road Shows”, which will talk up American support for democracy and freedom"[3] SkeenaR 02:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

It's interesting that this was brought up, for all this time, I figured it was the conspiracy theorists that were being paid to post nonsense here. Maybe I should ask the feds for money for all the time...the National Park Service and other land management agencies should have started paying me a long time ago, with all the new google links I provide about their protected areas.--MONGO 03:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I doubt Parks would be interested, but the other feds might give you the big bucks, especially if you show them some your work. It looks like a growth industry for sure. Have you written anything about motorized use? If so, where can I find it? BTW, if you are interested, here's that Popular Mechanics article.[4]. SkeenaR 03:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it (maybe I'm missing something) this 6492 word debate has been over "conspiracy theory" versus "controversy". By any objective measure, there is no case for claiming a good-faith controversy. There are many legitimate questions that can, and should, be asked, conclusions that should be double-checked, and so on. The conspiracy theorists do not do that - they give us nonsense like "a puff a smoke proves there were demolition charges and therefore a conspiracy", when the photographs clearly show dust falling, not heated gas rising. And if I may add a personal comment, I find it absolutely disgusting that people would attempt to co-opt the deaths of thousands of innocent people merely to provide an outlet for their paranoid delusions. Peter Grey 06:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think it borders on the heinous as well. Imagine a family member of someone who perished in the attacks and they come here and were to find (in what is sometimes recognized an authoritative source, namely Wikipedia), a lot of misinformation that controlled demolition or a government conspiracy is the reason these things happened. As has been mentioned time and again, we already have suitable articles that detail ad nauseum all the quirky little bits of misinformation the conspiracy theorists want. It seems preposterous for anyone to think that anything more about this junk science is going to go in this article...not unless they come up with some facts to support their arguments.--MONGO 07:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, you mean like Barry Zelman, who lost his brother, and Bob Mcalvane, who lost his son, and both participant in the The Citizens' Commission on 9-11, claiming the USA government is responsible? --Striver 13:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, right, i forgot, they are tin-foil crackpots. I wonder who is really dissresprectfull here? --Striver 13:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't call them that...but I feel sorry for them that they might think the government was behind the attacks. It was Moslem extremists...does that hurt your eyes to have to read the TRUTH?--MONGO 13:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, if i found a shred of evidance supporting that conspiracy theory. --Striver 13:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Your unwillingness to acknowledge the evidence is your personal perogative, but it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Peter Grey 15:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Could you please inform me of one example of such evidence? One unarguable evidence is enough, do you know any such? --Striver 20:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

It's funny how may of the so-called "moslem" (sic) terrorists who hijacked the palanes are alive and well and deny any involvement. Also funny that they used to live just around the corner from CIA offfices, also funny that their flight school trainers say they couldn't possibly have flown a commercial jetliner. Also kinda funny that asbestos was in the WTC and that the insurance policy was increased just prior to the attacks. I wonder what the asbestos cleanup cost on a building that size is? And the '01 bear market profits from people and corporations who seem to have had inside information, they must have been told by Al-Quaeda about the attacks, or just been good guessers. funny how the dept of homeland security didn't even exist before 9/11 but here we have someone who works for them openly editing the article, but always with an eye to removing any mention of facts that look a little sketchy in the light of the 9/11 report. Funny how those who hold to the 'official report' are glad to believe a few blurry photos as proof, but that they are unwilling to do the math on the physics involved, and funny how GW Bush tried to keep a straight face for the schoolkids and outright lied about seeing the first attack live on tv, and when he saw it and when he was told about it, they didn't scurry him off to a safe location, if it were actually true the US was under attack by foreign terrorists. Funny also how many terrorist camps are actually former CIA training camps and how many terrorists have CIA connections and how few terrorists there are who haven't a connection to The "big secret at Fort Bragg" where so many death squads were trained for 'our' allies, and funny how we have less freedom now than we ever did, and how Bush and his ilk keep saying they hate our freedoms, but they don't clue you in that the they is the corporations and cronies pulling pinnochio's strings, and that when they say 'our freedoms' they mean, US, the peole they are telling these lies to, and funny how Bush got his millionaire start in the oil business not with dad's money but with money from the Bin Ladens, and how their family was able to fly on a day when the Air Force was grounded, and funny that the Air Force was diverted from the area for the most part when the 'hijacked' planes were still flying and funny that the planes that remained weren't scrambled, and funny how hasty the cleanup of the attack sites was, and funny how little actual information exists, so that we need to write an article based on only speculation and unsupported assertion, even though it might be the most important set of events to have happened within most of our lifetimes, and how funny on top of that that we never even counted the votes for the last 2 presidential elections, and so we are completely at the mercy of whoever the cronies and backdoor men want to place into the office of the president, and even funnier how, when they can completely control the media and the results of the election, that they are still so concerned with this particular little website, if wikipedia is so ridiculous as they make out, why do they have government employees editing it on the clock, and oh yeah, since they control the elections and the news, its terribly funny that they picked such a silly sot to be president, and didn't do much in the media to not make him look like an idiot, and they let him use phrases like 'we need a regime change' unless it's all a joke to them. It's just funny, all of it. Ha. Ha. Ha.Pedant 00:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPA.--MONGO 03:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

medcabal

Hello all --

I was called in as part of medcabal -- see here. Everyone please read the "tips" following my signature.

The argument here seems very limited: what to call the section discussing a grab bag of very minority viewpoints that suggest some group or other hid knowledge about the attacks, and that there is some wildly different "truth" being concealed.

I would suggest the following version instead:

Theories involving a U.S. government conspiracy

Since the attacks, a small number of people have suggested that the presentation of the events above is seriously flawed. These include those that suggest that individuals in the government of the United States knew of the impending attacks and failed to act on that knowledge. Those questioning the mainstream account of 9/11 have speculated that the collapse of the World Trade Center was caused by explosives, that a commercial airliner did not really crash into the Pentagon, and that United Airlines Flight 93 was shot down. The vast majority view these suggestions as conspiracy theories in the perjorative sense. See 9/11 conspiracy theories for greater detail on these views.

It would be incorrect to describe this section as "controversy", because the conspiracy theorists are not taken seriously by anyone in the mainstream. i.e., there is no controversy from the POV of the vast majority.

Does this help us resolve the problem?

Sdedeo (tips) 18:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

First off all, thank you for collaboration, but I have to say: Sorry, But No, that doesn't helps anything.On my mediation request I clearly asked for a non-American and non-anti-American mediator. Please respect that in the name of neutrality. From your user page I supose that you live/ are from Manhattan. If I'm right, please bring here a non-American mediator.

Thanks, Normal nick 19:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Bullshit. A priori excluding Americans in the name of "neutrality" is not helpful. Being American has no bearing on one's views on 9-11 (just look at the nationality of those on the various conspiracy lists being AfD'd). Sdedeo made a good faith attempt to mediate this and your rejection shows that you are not interested in getting consensus, just getting your way by crying for an admin. Moreover, his user page indicates he's also familiar with Cambridge. How do you know he isnt' a foreigner studying/working in the US? --Mmx1 19:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I have to say that this demand for a non-American mediation is anti-American by it's very nature. You're assuming that an American cannot hope to be unbiased in this matter. If that is your assumption, then I can see no good to come from mediation with you.--MONGO 19:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

From WP:NPOV:

• "Yes, it is, especially when dealing with articles that require an international perspective. The presence of articles written from a United States or British perspective is simply a reflection of the fact that there are many U.S. and British citizens working on the project, which in turn is a reflection of the fact that so many of them are online. This is an ongoing problem that should be corrected by active collaboration from people from other countries. But rather than introducing their own cultural bias, they should seek to improve articles by removing any examples of cultural bias that they encounter, or making readers aware of them."Normal nick 19:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPOV#Undue_weight and WP:NPOV#Pseudoscience are relevant here. If you want American bias here, we should just cut out the "conspiracy theories" section completely. Instead, we are including this section and link to the main 9/11 conspiracy theories article, to allow a broader range of viewpoints. This section uses summary style, in accordance to the Manual of Style, and the title of the section is so named, as that's what the subarticle is called and is about. -Aude (talk | contribs) 20:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Mainstream news media worldwide do not embrace the conspiracy theory arguments. This is not a cultural issue, it an issue of facts. I repeat the definitions of these terms for your better understanding. Conspiracy=three or more people conspire to perform an act. Theory=unproven allegation or assumption that has yet to be proven and accepted overall. Controversy=two or more identified sources or pieces of information that have essentially equal weight and are in conflict with one another. Lastly, no one has proven that any government coverup, any controlled demolition or any other evidence has a basis in fact that would refute the findings of tens of thousands of investigators, researchers and the media.--MONGO 20:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

A very basic principle of wikipedia is that we must assume good faith. Nick, you are out of line to guess at where I am coming from and to assume that I am not acting in good faith in trying to help. That said, because medcabal is purely informal, since you reject my offer of assistance, there's not much I can do; I'll put a note as to your demands on the cabal page -- it's possible that someone else won't view them as problematically as I do.

If you cannot act in accordance with wikipedia principles, someone will eventually ask for a formal mediation.

Sdedeo (tips) 20:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I know you are acting in good faith. But it's bad that I required for moderation and that moderation itself is biased by the place where you live. And note: This ain't the kind of bias you may have conscience you are acting acording to. I simply didn't find it right that ignored that request of mine. But, if my suposition about the place where you live/'are from' is wrong, I've nothing left to do than accept you as moderator. And then my position will change from the one i just expressed. Normal nick 22:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Sdedeo, i would like to thank you for your time and suggestion, and i gladly accept it. I will implement your suggestion. --Striver 20:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that's not the correct way to proceed, per Kmf164 above. They are not conspiracy theories in the perjorative sense, but in the technical sense. Sdedeo's proposed heading could easly be read as saying conspiracy theory is no more than a theory about a conspiracy, which is incorrect. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I change my opinion about the mediation, and I'll gladly accept our moderator proposal. I just don't understand this last thing you are talking about Harrison, Why is it incorrect? Isn't that article talking about theories about conspiracies? What information is lost in this transition? Normal nick 23:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Nick, just to be clear: your demand for a moderator with a particular viewpoint or racial/national background is completely anathema to the way wikipedia works. You may find a different project elsewhere on the web more amenable to your goals.

You may be unclear somewhat on how things function here, which includes a deep belief that people working together and following very broad guidelines leads to an excellent encyclopedia; if you are willing to drop this request, let me know on my talk page. Yours, Sdedeo (tips) 22:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey.. Calmdown, I just wanted a moderator that would be culturaly neutral, not a moderator with a particular point of view. Having here an American Moderator is almost so unfare than if it was a muslim. I don't want a particular viewpoint from you, but at least, you should be culturaly neutral, in order to somehow challange Wikipedia's problem i've quoted above from the WP:NPOV article. That's why i made that request some lines above in this conversation. I know that this reaction of mine sounds very unpolite and controversial no matter how politingly i try to write it. But under the light of what I'm talking about it is quite reasonable. Normal nick 23:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

That's incredibly offensive to both Americans and muslims. --Mmx1 23:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

What? To say that the place where you are born makes you biased about certain issues?

Why?Normal nick 23:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

It is offensive to claim that ALL Muslims and Americans have such strong biases that they can't make reasonable decisions about 911. Especial over something so blatantly obvious as a conspiracy theory which has been debunked by experts.--146.244.137.154 23:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Then, sorry if i ofended you, even though, I should note that I, as Portuguese, probably have a strong bias when talking about the Carnation Revolution or the Portuguese Colonial War. What i said had no meant to offend anyone. Normal nick 00:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Hypothetical - Moved from my talk page

Moved this here as it relates to the content of this article and I don't want to have to repeat myself more than necessary.

If I a car crashes into a bank, is it an "attack on the United States"?

If there were unidentified people on board not known to have been at the wheel, was it the unidentified people who crashed the car?

If the bank turns to dust after numerous witnesses describe the events as having seemed like the bank was blown up by explosives, and no bank has ever turned to dust because of a car crash before, would you describe that 'turning to dust' as a "collapse" ?

If four cars disappear, and then later four cars crash, would YOU assume it was the same four cars... and if the people who disappeared in the first 4 cars were never seen again would you state as a fact that they died in the 4 crashes, even though there were no bodies found, nor other evidence?

If the unidentified people on board not known to have been at the wheel were said to have been Mr Brown, Mr. Smith, Mr. Jones and Mr. Green by people who had no evidence, AND later Mr Brown, Mr. Smith, Mr. Jones and Mr. Green turned up in other places AND there is no proof that any of them worked for Mr. Fizzle, would it be correct to say that they were the ones who crashed the cars, and were doing so under Mr. Fizzle's orders? Would it not be just as meaningful to say they either worked for Mr. Fizzle or a rival bank? Especially if there was evidence that Mr Brown, Mr. Smith, Mr. Jones and Mr. Green were impersonated by Mr. X, Mr. Y, Mr. Z, and an unknown person, all of whom were suspected of working for the rival bank?

This is regarding your unsigned comment on my user page and your rash characterization of my good edit as vandalism.

Please sign all comments, per wikipedia policy.. Please refrain from calling me a vandal, per wikipedia policy. I will refrain from calling you a misguided fool, per wikipedia policy.

If you have any good evidence that there was any factual error in my evidence, I would be very happy to see it. Are you interested in seeing evidence contrary to your point of view? Or is it perhaps your mission to delete any assertion that it was not a foreign terrorist attack that occured on 9/11/2001 but actually a well-coordinated group of covert operations intended to justify the United States going to war against several uninvolved nations for the purpose of establishing economic and military bases of operation for the economic gain of multinational NGO's?

I welcome further discussion in the former case. Pedant 18:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Factual errors? How about some proof that it was a "controlled demolition"? Not speculation about dust puffs or steel temperatures or trying to pass off water inspectors as steel engineers. No, the academic and scientific consensus is that two planes crashing into the towers brought them down, and unless you present credible evidence to the contrary, putting in your POV against the consenus of both the academic community and the editors of wiki is vandalism. That's where I stand; Don't post here again about the conspiracy theory - go talk abt it on the article's talk page instead; I don't have the patience to debate it personally with every Smith, Jones, and Green that gets it into their head that they know better than civil engineers.

--Mmx1 18:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree with you (Mmx1) that it amounts to vandalism in the general sense of the word, but under WP policy Pedant's edit would be considered a NPOV violation and a Mistake. Esquizombi 18:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, it's not even POV. The temperatures required to create pools tons of molten steel are not opinions. Definitely aircraft struck the buildings. There has been no evidence that it was the 'hijacked aircraft' that struck the buildings. No forensic work was done on the crime scene. No bodies or parts of plane passengers were found in Pennsylvania or at the Pentagon. It is not possible for buildings to fall at free-fall speed unless they are not supported. I'm not trying to push a POV at all, just alternative explanations that are equally provable as what was in the article. Note my edit was "this OR this" certainly something happened, but it is not certain it happened as the article stated it was before my edits. I'm not a vandal. One day that article will include the more likely truth, not just what was rammed down our throats by collusionist media puppets. Imagine how the articles on JFK's assassination would have looked had they been contemporaneous with the assassination. They called people conspiracy nuts who claimed there was more than one assassin in the team, but the official report said that Connally and Kennedy's wounds were from one single undamaged bullet. That assertion no longer has any credibility whatsoever. Whether you believe it or not, it is absolutely impossible, physically, structurally etc, for the towers to have collapsed to dust, at free-fall speeds, and leave a pool of molten steel weeks-months (depending on different reports) later. Why do you think all that rubble was scooped up and carted off, if not to cover up the crime? Also it is inherently POV to state that is was an attack "on the United States", The Pentagon is a US target, the WTC was a commercial target, it would be just as accurate or actually more so to say "two attacks on property of the WTO and one attack on property of the US" and attacks on the respective airlines. Of course it was a conspiracy, and of course the discussion about it is theory, until more facts are known it will remain theory. The whole article is of necessity a conspiracy theory, the term conspiracy theory is essentially meaningless, unless it is used as you use it, as a way to merely disparge one possible explanation of events most of us can have no more than theoretical knowlege of, because the evidence has been, in a literal sense, covered up. But I'm not a vandal, and I made my edit very carefully. I would no more vandalise Wikipedia or its sister projects than I would rape my mother. It is very hurtful of you to call my actions vandalism. If you value wikipedia as much as I do, you would never call a fellow editor a vandal without clear-cut reasons. One day you will look back on this and regret your behavior, but today, you are behaving as a misguided bully. Pedant 19:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The debate over the proper wording has been discussed ad-nauseum on that article's talk page. To edit the intro to such a prominent and controversial topic without even commenting on the talk page (I won't assume anything about whether or not you read it), does constitute vandalism. It's not just POV of your content, which would be excusable if there was some debate on the talk page. It's not like you're a newb that doesn't know about the talk page and consensus. You have been here long enough to know better. Anon putting in POV is NPOV violation. Established user defying consensus and DAILY discussion on the talk page - vandalism.

As for the "attack on the US" hair-splitting, attacks on prominent institutions is typically considered an attack on the nation, particularly as they were on different types of installations. It clearly wasn't just military or financial concerns they were targeting, so the common thread is bigger than just financial or military. Unless you believe that the attacks weren't coordinated or had one backer? --Mmx1 19:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes I definitely do believe that the attacks were coordinated. I also think that it's inconceivable that the attacks were not also coordinated with the 'training exercises' that put the US Air Force in a position of not being able to respond to the attacks. Another part of the coordination must have been the numerous violations of standing orders and procedures in place for response to just such an emergency as aircraft hijackings. The lack of investigation and the hasty cleanup of the crime scene seems to be obviously of a part of the coordination of the attack. Unless you propose that Al-Quaeda has moles in place at numerous key positions in the Air Force, at NORAD, in the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in the Secret Service, at the NTSB etc, then it seems an untenable position to state unequivocally both that the attacks were by agents of Al-Quaeda, and that they were attacks ON the USA, since the above key positions are WITHIN the United States. If I set my house on fire because the asbestos in it would be too costly to remove, shortly after increasing the insurance coverage, would you say that I was attacked? NO. If in the process of investigating the collapse of my house it was noted that during the fire, the support structure had been intentionally removed, would you ignore that? One day you will look back on this exchange of comments, and realize that you were willingly closing your eyes to what should have been glaringly obvious.

I was not 'putting in POV' as you put it, I was removing it. Where is the credible investigation that shows that the aircraft which were ostensibly hijacked were the aircraft that hit the WTC, and the Pentagon? Where is the documentation of what hit the Pentagon, being as how it is one of the most well-surveilled military installations in the world? Why is there no picture of a commercial airliner approaching the Pentagon. I watched the second plane/tower collision live on television, and I saw no Airline markings. Hundreds of cameras caught the impact, yet not one of them shows the slightest trace of commercial airline markings. It is just assumption that the missing 4 craft were the same as the ones that crashed. Assumption is not neutral point of view and is not encyclopedic. Pedant 22:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Credible investigation? Oh, I dunno, the ATC records, the forensic evidence, the fact that the hijacked planes dont' exist anymore and the passengers are dead? "Violations of standing orders and procedures"? Like letting the planes land so we could negotiate for hostages? That was the standing procedure. Indeed, three of the Four planes landed exactly as the hijackers intended. Thank you for opening your mouth and removing any doubt. I no longer need to assume AGF nor take your viewpoint seriously. --Mmx1 22:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Cite the ATC records. Cite forensic evidence. What is your source for 'the fact' that the planes don't exist? Show some evidence that the passengers are dead, there were no bodies in Pennsylvania, you have any evidence that there were? There was no standing order to let the planes land and negotiate. Violations of standing orders like: assume in such and such a case that the plane is hijacked. In the case of hijack scramble planes. In the case of credible threat shoot down the planes. Those were the standing orders and the ordained procedure. Yes, you do need to assume good faith. I'm a good editor, and as you yourself have noted I'm not some newb. My record speaks for itself. I'm dead serious, and I am actually convinced by all that I have had presented to me that the events are being misportrayed both by our article and by the mainstream corporate media. If necessary I will dig up and cite the standing orders that say scramble planes, shoot the aircraft down... the orders were simply ignored and there is no wiggle room in those orders. And yet nobody was fired or court-martialed for their clear dereliction of duty. I'm not the only one who holds to these views, there are quite a few families who have yet to receive any remains of their allegedly dead loved ones. If you want ,you can continue to throw around phrases like "the fact that the hijacked planes dont' exist anymore and the passengers are dead?" but facts can be substantiated, and if they are not, then we have an obligation not to use the word fact when referring to unsubstantiated claims. Your veiled insults are uncivil, and I request that you return to civility. Pedant 00:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I call a spade a spade. You're telling me Todd Beamer, Barbara Olson, et al just dissapeared? Were murdered and buried in an unmarked plot? Or in hiding somewhere? If you think the standing orders were to shoot down hijacked planes, then you're misinformed or delusional. Please, do dig up the orders if you can. --Mmx1 00:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is constrained by a set of policies and guidelines that help us in our goal of writing an encyclopedia. These include using reliable sources and no original research. This article needs to stick to these policies and guidelines. It's not up to us to use Wikipedia to prove that the "mainstream media" is misportraying anything. -Aude (talk | contribs) 00:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

A talk page like this is to be used for presenting new material for the article or critiquing the material already in the article. Text like that above -- presenting a argument without verifiable, reliable sources -- belongs in a blog or discussion board. patsw 03:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

suggested link

I'm shocked at how many people seem to be ignoring all of the true evidence regarding the events of September 11th. It is a dishonor to all of those who died to ramble on about conspiracy theories which have no validity. As such, this link should be added. Conspiracy theories debunked —This unsigned comment was added by 146.244.137.154 (talk • contribs) .

I think we link to that from 9/11 conspiracy theories. The conspiracy theories as well as the reaction to them should go there. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

My God, im shocked to see poeple link to that piece of garbage. Did you know that it states that there was one single airplane intercepted prior to 9/11? In fact, over 60 happened just the year before 9/11! --Striver 15:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

My Allah, even if your claim was true, it wouldn't make the entire piece garbage. I don't have time to investigate all of your wild claims and get into the maze-like psyche of a conspiracy theorist. The point is that there is overwhelming expert consensus regarding the validity of mainstream 911 accounts. The page 9/11 conspiracy theories is highly convoluted and full of debunked theories, therefore, overall, it is not a representation of controversy, but a representation of confused reasoning.--146.244.137.154 22:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

medcabal redux

Hello all --

Just to recap. I was called in as part of medcabal -- see here. Normal nick previously objected to me serving as mediator because I was unwilling to identify my nationality; after some discussion, however, Nick's now OK with me serving as mediator; see User_talk:Sdedeo.

Let me just repost again, with a clean slate.

The argument here seems very limited: what to call the section discussing a grab bag of very minority viewpoints that suggest some group or other hid knowledge about the attacks, and that there is some wildly different "truth" being concealed.

I would suggest the following version instead:

Theories involving a U.S. government conspiracy

Since the attacks, a small number of people have suggested that the presentation of the events above is seriously flawed. These include those that suggest that individuals in the government of the United States knew of the impending attacks and failed to act on that knowledge. Those questioning the mainstream account of 9/11 have speculated that the collapse of the World Trade Center was caused by explosives, that a commercial airliner did not really crash into the Pentagon, and that United Airlines Flight 93 was shot down. The vast majority view these suggestions as conspiracy theories in the perjorative sense. See 9/11 conspiracy theories for greater detail on these views.

It would be incorrect to describe this section as "controversy", because the conspiracy theorists are not taken seriously by anyone in the mainstream. i.e., there is no controversy from the POV of the vast majority.

Does this help us resolve the problem? Can people help me better understand what the problem is?

Sdedeo (tips) 23:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

more importantly, they are not taken seriously by the experts who actually analyzed the events first hand.

I'm happy with that title. It solves the initial problem I talked about. Harrison, up there you said you don't agree with the change, but i couln't understand why you are against. Can you please elaborate on that? Normal nick 23:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Some of the 9/11 conspiracy theories article discuss theories involving the Saudi Royal Family, and those involving Israel. So, the title doesn't quite encompass what the subarticle is about. -Aude (talk | contribs) 00:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

But isn't that a problem related with that article in itself? The matter here is: Why should(n't) we change the title to Sdedeo's proposal? Normal nick 00:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Edit conflict - The article title 9/11 conspiracy theories is broad enough to encompass what that article is about. Here, we use summary style to give a brief overview of the topic and link to the subarticle. The title of the section should be consistent with the subarticle. While much of the subarticle discusses "U.S. government conspiracy", the title is nonetheless too narrow and not encompassing. -Aude (talk | contribs) 00:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kmf164 -- a good point. Perhaps the title should be "Theories involving U.S. and allied government conspiracies"? I would be fine with either. Sdedeo (tips) 00:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. This would be more acceptable to me. -Aude (talk | contribs) 00:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The other issue relates to the word "pejorative" (also note spelling). I don't quite agree with that. "Conspiracy" is also a legal/technical term - Conspiracy (crime) and Conspiracy (civil). The term is not necessarily pejorative. -Aude (talk | contribs) 00:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

"Conspiracy" is not the issue, "Conspiracy theory" is the problem, the phrase has a connotation of "nut case weirdo assertions with no credibility", see our article Conspiracy theory, which states that it has a pejorative connotation. What would work is "alternate theories of the events", or some similar wording without the negative connotation. In the absence of proof to the contrary, many of the "alternate theories of the events" deserve serious treatment. There are political reasons for the mainstream media to omit serious discussion of "alternate theories of the events", reasons that have nothing to do with the validity of the theories. The absolute truth is we don't know what happened, so all we have are theories. Some of the theories are just more accepted. The theories all fit the phrase 'conspiracy theory', but certain theories are being treated as fact, and others are treated as nutty assertions. Remember that 'conspiracy theory' came in vogue following the JFK assassination, and was used to represent theories contrary to the Warren Commission report, which claimed that all the wounds from JFK and Connally, AND the bullet hole in the windshield, and the 'shrapnel wound', ALL came from a single bullet, found on a stretcher, in pristine undamaged unbloody condition. We all know now that the truth differed from the mainstream accepted 'facts' but at the time, anything but the 'single bullet theory' was dubbed a 'conspiracy theory', a term I believe was intentionally introduced to the public conscioussness to discredit anyone looking for the real truth. I propose that we all take a step back and really attempt to edit this article with a neutral point of view. Eventually we will know the truth, and I would prefer that if it is found that the 'facts' we are accepting are found to be untrue, that our original article will still stand as a credible scholarly dissertation, and not a joke.Pedant 00:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the spelling correction! "Conspiracy theory" has a definite meaning, and I think it important to include the phrase "pejorative" so as to indicate that the majority of people take a "dim" view of these notions. Pedant, please note that the article does not endorse either view, only that it describes (I believe accurately) how these theories are viewed by others.

So let me just check -- are people OK with the current version? We may have resolved this issue and can move on to more fruitful things. Kmf164 (and others) if you want do cut and paste my suggestion above and make any minor edits you think necessary.

Sdedeo (tips) 01:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not support that proposal. These are not conspiracy theories in the perjorative sense, but in the technical sense. The heading you propose could easly be read as saying that a conspiracy theory is no more than a theory about a conspiracy, which is incorrect. A conspiracy theory is a particualr type of narrative with recognizable features. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Tom, I understand your point. This brief section is like a pyramid. The heading describes what is going to be discussed: theories about US/allied conspiracies. The paragraph then explains that these theories are regarded by the majority as conspiracy theories with the features you discuss. Does the structure of the article make more sense now? Since both you and Kmf don't like the word "pejorative" for reasons I now see, I'm fine with removing it. Sdedeo (tips) 01:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Just for clarity, here is the now current version following input from Kmf, nick, Tom. Any other suggestions for alterations?

Theories involving U.S. and allied government conspiracies

Since the attacks, a small number of people have suggested that the presentation of the events above is seriously flawed. These include those that suggest that individuals in the government of the United States knew of the impending attacks and failed to act on that knowledge. Those questioning the mainstream account of 9/11 have also speculated that the collapse of the World Trade Center was caused by explosives, that a commercial airliner did not really crash into the Pentagon, and that United Airlines Flight 93 was shot down. The vast majority view these suggestions as conspiracy theories. See 9/11 conspiracy theories for greater detail on these views.

Sdedeo (tips) 02:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I think that is a step in the right direction. How about this:

Speculation about U.S. and allied government complicity

{{main|9/11 conspiracy theories}}

Since the attacks, a small number of people have suggested that the presentation of the events above is seriously flawed. These include those who suggest that individuals in the government of the United States knew of the impending attacks and failed to act on that knowledge. Those questioning the mainstream account of 9/11 have speculated that the collapse of the World Trade Center was caused by explosives, that a commercial airliner did not really crash into the Pentagon, and that United Airlines Flight 93 was shot down. The vast majority view these suggestions as conspiracy theories.

Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Quoting Kmf:

"WP:NPOV#Undue_weight and WP:NPOV#Pseudoscience are relevant here. If you want American bias here, we should just cut out the "conspiracy theories" section completely. Instead, we are including this section and link to the main 9/11 conspiracy theories article, to allow a broader range of viewpoints. This section uses summary style."

• I feel that a link to some "controversial page" should be included. Normal nick 02:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Great, that looks good to me. I made a minor edit to the title to take into account Kmf's note that some of the theories suggest the Saudis, Israelis, etc., but I am happy with this. Let's wait for Kmf and Nick to weigh in, but we may have a winner. Sdedeo (tips) 02:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC) harrison|Talk]] 01:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Mongo and others: please limit your comments in this section to this particular paragraph and small scale debates about the phrasing. Mongo, in the interests of keeping everything running without confusion, I have moved your comment to a second section. Thanks, Sdedeo (tips) 02:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The next time you move my comment like that will be the last time you do it. I didn't solicit your assistance in this matter and I absolutely do not agree with appeasing those that wish to believe the impossible by altering the current wording or title of this section. We do not give undue weight to nonsense. Wikipedia is doomed if we do so.--MONGO 02:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, what MONGO mentions is relevant to this section, particularly the renaming of the section. Lets not get so tied up in language that we forget the facts.--Mmx1 02:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Mongo, please remember to be civil and not to threaten other contributors. I'm trying to keep the debate focused so we can move on to other things. From your remark here I get the sense that you are not OK with the current title. To me it seems fine: it does not give undue weight to anything, but rather explains how "Speculation about U.S. and allied government complicity" is viewed. I understand that you view these theories with great distain and anger, but our job here is to be very neutral and dispassionate about what people think.

Nick, I am not sure what you mean in your comment: the current title of the main page is "9/11 Conspiracy Theories"; I don't want to get into a debate on that -- if you want to suggest a page move, you will have to have a discussion with the people who have worked on that page. We're trying to stay focused on this little paragraph. Sdedeo (tips) 02:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

It was uncivil for you to move my comment elsewhere. My comment was not a threat for I view you moving my comment as incivil and as rude, so you won't be doing it again. You are correct...I do not agree with any changes from the current edition...do not tell me that I am not being neutral when I insist that unproven unscientific nonsense and innuendo not be in this article. It doesn't matter what people think...all that matters is we state the facts...which would be: "lots of folks believe the government was behind the attacks...but they have zero proof to back up this belief...this can be compared to UFO's and the Loch Ness monster...some people just want to believe in the impossible, some hate the U.S., some are simply ignorant of the truth, and some are just POV pushing trolls." When we reword the passage that way, I'll be most happy. Therefore, even in it's current version, I feel I already have compromised.--MONGO 02:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I think I understand, and it's one of the things I was afraid of; that this is another attempt to get rid of conspiracy theory in article titles, now using this page as the venue. I tried to approach this in good faith and offer a compromise, and now I see that it can be used as a lever to try to move 9/11 conspiracy theories to, what? 9/11 theories involving a U.S. government conspiracy? Is that where we are headed? At this point I'm not willing to support any section renaming. I'll check back in the morning. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Upon further thought (irregardless of MONGO's comments), I'm thinking that the title for the section, while accurately summarizing the subarticle, is perhaps a bit wordy. I think this may better fit in the first sentence in the paragraph, and the title of the section should just reflect what the subarticle is named. How about the following:

9/11 conspiracy theories

Main article: 9/11 conspiracy theories

Since the attacks, a small number of people have raised doubts and theories about U.S. and allied government complicity in the events. These include those who suggest that individuals in the government of the United States knew of the impending attacks and failed to act on that knowledge. Those questioning the mainstream account of 9/11 have speculated that the collapse of the World Trade Center was caused by explosives, that a commercial airliner did not really crash into the Pentagon, and that United Airlines Flight 93 was shot down. The vast majority view these suggestions as conspiracy theories.

-Aude (talk | contribs) 02:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Mongo, I apologize if you felt I was behaving uncivilly -- that was not my intent. Wikipedia contains a great deal of information on things that are "unproven unscientific nonsense and innuendo" -- that is one of the reasons it is valuable. It attempts to portray these views in an NPOV and dispassionate fashion. Do you feel the current paragraph endorses either side? Can you tell us which particular sentence does so? I'm going to say right now that the final paragraph will look different from the current paragraph; that is just the nature of a WP dispute.

Kmf, you know that others will object to the heading "9/11 conspiracy theories", which was the origin of my coming here. Can we instead use the more general title 'Speculation about U.S. and allied government complicity"? Both you and Tom have previously endorsed this version, and for reasons I've explained above (the "pyramid") I think it is better.

Sdedeo (tips) 02:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks better. For the record, I am opposed to any change of the section title but open to a rewording of the content. --Mmx1 02:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Guys, Tom, Kmf and I have previously come up with an alternative title that others who you previously disputed with are OK with. If you now want to go back to the original title, we will be back where we started. Kmf, Mmx and Mongo, I suggest you talk together and come up with something you would be happy with. Post the version here, edit it amongst yourselves. Meanwhile, I will check back in tomorrow (afternoon CST) and see if we can build a compromise from there. Sdedeo (tips) 02:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I was more supportive of a section title that included both the terms "theories" and "conspiracies". Also, take a look at the article's TOC, where all the section titles are fairly short and concise. Such a long title doesn't quite fit, while the phrase fits well in the first sentence. -Aude (talk | contribs) 02:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Kmf, I see what you are saying but nearly always in these disputes a compact and elegant prose style must take a backseat to acheiving a successful and worthwhile compromise. (This is probably why the phrase "encyclopedic prose" does not inspire joy in the common reader.)

Also: in the interests of my sanity. Just to reiterate: we are only discussing this particular paragraph. We are not discussing the title of the main article 9/11 conspiracy theories. Please make your decisions in this mediation based on what you feel would be compromise without violation of WP:NPOV. Thanks, and good luck -- Sdedeo (tips) 02:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The language of US/allied shouldn't be in the title as that's only a part (a large part, but not all) of the conspiracy theories presented. Financial cabals are a pretty popular blame group, too. --Mmx1 02:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Are financial groups named in the main 9/11 conspiracy article? Can you come up with a new title that is both descriptive, not unnecessarily broad, and is not "9/11 conspiracy theories"? I've made a new section for people to put proposals in. OK, I really am going out now (to my local pub!) Sdedeo (tips) 02:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

There's a big deal made of Larry Silverstein's insurance of WTC7 and of some transactions made the day before. There's also talk about reinserting mention of some alleged discrepancy with the gold ingots stored under the WTC. --Mmx1 03:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

No renaming or alterations to Conspiracy theories section

The subheading is going to remain titled as Conspiracy Theories because that is what they are...until any proof...any at all is provided that there was a government coverup, that there was controlled demolition, that there was any deliberate attempt by the government or covert operatives within the government to do these things. No one has provided any proof of anything..just their unscientific opinion and a bunch of hot air. The facts are thus: Islamic terrorists hijacked four wide body jets on the morning of 9/11/2001. On hit the north tower of the WTC, another hit the south tower, a third hit the Pentagon and the fourth crashed in a field in Pennyslvania after passengers tried to retake control of the plane. The WTC towers collapsed due to the impact of wide body jets flying into them at high speed and the resultant fires. Building 7 of the WTC was damaged on it's southwest corner with between 10 and 14 floors seriously compromised and fires that raged in the building for 7 hours, resulting in it's collapse. The pentagon had fire and structural damage to all five rings of it's side and a portion collapsed subsequently. Aircraft parts were found at each site. The FBI and other federal agencies have proof that Atta called from a phone oin his flight to another hijacker on a different plane just before he took the plane. The are over 30 recorded cell phone and airphone calls that were from passengers on the planes, all stating that they had been hijacked. Conspiracy=three or more persons plan to do something. Theory=unproven information...therefore not a fact. Controversy=two or more facts or an overlap of scientifically sound evidence which conflicts with each other. There is no controversy aside from what folks used to seeing bloggish nonsense all over the web wish to also see in this article. As Jimbo Wales has stated...we make the internet not suck...as far as these ludicrus websites that pollute the web with their nonsense about a government coverup, they all suck... our job is make sure this article doesn't suck like the rest of the web...so no, the subheading conspiracy theories stays. Take your nonsense to the articles that address nonsense appropriately in the linked conspiracy theory pages. I am not open to mediation on this matter.--MONGO 02:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Mongo, I just want to encourage you to continue working with the medcabal we have going here, just as Kmf, Mmx, Tom and Nick have agreed to do. Really the only other option is a formal dispute, and you may want to read User_talk:Sdedeo#I_owe_you_five_bucks on that question. Sdedeo (tips) 02:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Not interested...I'll bang my own drum on this one I guess. I see no reason to compromise the section just to appease those that want the article to more closely resemble some nonsensical blog or unscentific website that is controlled by a webmaster. Nothing the conspiracists have to sell is worth buying...it's not my fault they have been misled by junk science, but it is my fault if they were misinformed from this website, which is what would happen if I agreed to alter the title and wording of this section in dispute.--MONGO 03:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Mongo -- just to be clear: are you refusing to work with me and others in this mediation? If so, I will have to withdraw. I will strongly suggest that you try mediation to see if it works, and not to view the essential wikipedia process of discussion and evolution as "appeasement." Please give me a firm yes or no. Sdedeo (tips) 03:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

"I'm going to say right now that the final paragraph will look different from the current paragraph; that is just the nature of a WP dispute." I find this disturbing. Improvement is fine; evolution is fine. Compromise with anyone who drops in and demands it, regardless of the merits, is not. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect to the process of mediation, the presence of one or several dissenters, no matter how loud, does not automatically nullify the status quo and require us to move to a compromise position. The goal of wiki should not be mollifying everyone, but accuracy. So far I've not seen any evidence presented that nullifies the status quo position that alternate theories qualify as conspiracy theories, only the POV of one editor (as seen above under Hypothesis - moved from my talk page) that is factually wrong. In that light, I have no problem rejecting his demands outright and reject any attempt to accomodate him. I will not take a hardline stance against any rewording of the article, but I agree with MONGO in spirit. Any rewording that places the alternate theories on anything near equal status will be rejected by myself.

Hah, looks like Tom beat me to it.--Mmx1 03:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Tom, just to be clear and repeat myself: I am not suggesting that we "appease" anybody in a way that violates the principles of wikipedia. However, I am stating facts when I say that when you are in a dispute with someone over an article, it is in the nature of things that the end result will be an article that differs -- hopefully in an improved fashion -- from the one you began with.

In the case of a few editors wielding misinformation, the "do nothing" option should never be overlooked. --Mmx1 03:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Mongo, still waiting to hear from you. Sdedeo (tips) 03:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

We are losing focus here. You are all making good points, and the "do nothing" option is on the table. Mongo, please tell me if you wish to continue participating in good faith in the mediation. I clicked your user page, and discovered that not only are you an administrator, but you also are member of the "Wikipedia:Harmonious_editing_club". Right now, I am assuming that everyone except possibly Mongo is "on board" with the mediation, and I am making a new section for you to put a suggested paragraph in. We can then wait. Sdedeo (tips) 03:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I recognize I take a hard stance and in fact, I prefer no link even to the conspiracy theory stuff...but I do recognize that this would be wrong as there are those that simply do believe in a government coverup, etc. I work in the concensus...so I vote for no changes, or for KMF164's suggestion below.--MONGO 03:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, Mongo, great. I interpret your paragraph here to mean that you do wish to continue mediation in good faith. If this is not the case, tell us. We can all go ahead, and I can go here for the evening. (Man, that page needs work.) Sdedeo (tips) 03:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

April 5+ try number 2

I (Sdedeo (tips) 03:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)) am going to be proactive. Here are two versions we already have; please feel free to add new ones. I really, really am going to the bar now. OK:

number one: proposed jointly by Kmf, Tom, Nick and I:

Speculation about U.S. and allied government complicity

{{main|9/11 conspiracy theories}}

Since the attacks, a small number of people have suggested that the presentation of the events above is seriously flawed. These include those who suggest that individuals in the government of the United States knew of the impending attacks and failed to act on that knowledge. Those questioning the mainstream account of 9/11 have speculated that the collapse of the World Trade Center was caused by explosives, that a commercial airliner did not really crash into the Pentagon, and that United Airlines Flight 93 was shot down. The vast majority view these suggestions as conspiracy theories.

number two: proposed by Kmf:

9/11 conspiracy theories

{{main|9/11 conspiracy theories}}

Since the attacks, a small number of people have raised doubts and theories about U.S. and allied government complicity in the events. These include those who suggest that individuals in the government of the United States knew of the impending attacks and failed to act on that knowledge. Those questioning the mainstream account of 9/11 have speculated that the collapse of the World Trade Center was caused by explosives, that a commercial airliner did not really crash into the Pentagon, and that United Airlines Flight 93 was shot down. The vast majority view these suggestions as conspiracy theories.

• I Conssider a link to 9/11 conspiracies theories or Researchers_questioning_the_official_account_of_9/11 a necessary thing.Normal nick 07:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

(Don't worry: the "{{main|9/11 conspiracy theories}}" is the thing that provides that link.) Sdedeo (tips) 08:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I object to the word 'small' in the phrase a small number of people(thousands to hundreds of thousands is not a small number, and is not either an accurate number as we have no figures as to how many beleieve which of ANY of these theories, including the mainstream theories), as well as the word 'vast' in the phrase The vast majority view these suggestions(for the same reasons as statesd above re: 'small'. I also object to the much-overused and negatively connotive phrase 'conspiracy theory' as discussed ad nauseum previously (conspiracy theory is also an accurate description of the mainstream theory, etc.). I would suggest Most people expressing an opinion on the matter place no credence in these alternate explanations. In fact, I would write that paragraph as :

number three: proposed by Pedant:

Since the attacks, a number of people proposed alternate theories about these events, such as suggesting: that the WTC buildings 1,2, and 7 were intentionally demolished for some reason; or that some group within the U.S. government either had foreknowlege of or were actually complicit in the events of September 11, 2001. Some have speculated that because of the absence of photographic evidence, that something other than a commercial airliner struck the Pentagon, and some suggest that United Airlines Flight 93 was shot down. Most people expressing an opinion on the matter place no credence in these alternate explanations.

I think that paragraph, while not treating the alternate theories as crazed ruminations of tinfoil hat wearers, also makes it clear that these views are not widely held. I think even those who adamantly maintain that the mainstream accepted theory is pure fiction would accept that wording and that it is a good compromise solution that those who staunchly support the mainstream theory can not in good faith object to... comment?Pedant 07:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this version is going to be accepted. It makes no reference to the key idea that these explainations are considered conspiracy theories in a technical sense. It also goes into great detail about one particular theory, while leaving out a wide number of others. As mentioned above, people think the Saudis were involved, the Israelis, the banks... the list is endless. Sdedeo (tips) 08:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

number four: proposed jointly by Kmf, Tom, Nick and Sdedeo, and then reelaborated by nick:

Speculation About Conspiracies

{{main|9/11 conspiracy theories}}

Since the attacks, some people have suggested that the presentation of the events above is seriously flawed. These include those who suggest that individuals in the government of the United States knew of the impending attacks and failed to act on that knowledge. Those questioning the mainstream account of 9/11 have speculated that the collapse of the World Trade Center was caused by explosives, that a commercial airliner did not really crash into the Pentagon and that United Airlines Flight 93 was shot down. This speculations provided a base for several conspiracy theories.

• I Conssider a link to 9/11 conspiracy theories or Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11 a necessary thing. Normal nick 07:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

As I said above, this paragraph is unlikely to be accepted by others because it does not reference the crucial idea that these are considered conspiracy theories in the technical sense. Sdedeo (tips) 08:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I just changed my proposal according to your claim. Normal nick 10:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• I'm open to any title that doesn't include the sequence of words "Conspiracy Theories". Normal nick 08:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is going to be the sticking point, it seems mainly between you and Mongo. Given the passions arising here, I am going to say that we will go with U-1 consensus: i.e., as a mediator I will support (and consider discussion finished) when a suggestion produces something that "U-1" (unnanimity minus one) supports as long as I personally feel that the suggestion is not a bad one (and I am largely flexible.) Both you and Mongo will need to discuss further with other folks here what you think the most NPOV route to go is. Good luck, Sdedeo (tips) 08:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

At best, if we all work really hard, we can work out a compromise that doesn't make the page any worse. Then what? Next week, anyone else can show up and again demand compromise. Further, I have concerns that changing this section title will later be used as precedent for removing conspiracy theory from article titles. Having thought about it, I support maintaining the language now in the article. Any compromise wording needs to title the section conspiracy theories, needs to include a link to 9/11 conspiracy theories as the main article, and needs to minimize description of the theories. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Tom. I am amazed that the opposition to the current wording seem to find it so perjoritive. I've explained in English what the three words mean and calling the psuedoscience version of what happened on 9/11 Conspiracy theories is absolutely correct English. The belief that there I see no reason to compromise much either in the titling or the wording of the passage and feel that it's current form is correct in accordance with the facts of the case. Next thing you know, others may entertain the hope of adding passages that indicate that the planes that hit the buildings werre not the same planes that did so becuase they were switched out for "unmarked" planes...at that point we'll have to change the title of the passage to read as Wide-eyed fairy tales--MONGO 13:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't (never) agreed with #4. "some people" - it's a "small minority", or "a small number of people". And, "This speculations provided a base for several conspiracy theories" doesn't quantify the fact that the "vast" or "large" majority discount these theories. -Aude (talk | contribs) 13:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

"Some people", is a Significant Minority: WP:NPOV

• "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents"

Nor do I agree with the section title. It's correct to describe these as theories — a term that's missing in the section title. -Aude (talk | contribs) 13:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

As i said, I'm open to retitling as long as it doesn't includes the wording "conspiracy theories". I find "Theories about conspiracies" adequate. Normal nick 20:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I, together with User:Normal nick object to the use of the word "conspiracy theory" in the section.

Evidence that support explosives used in the building: The freefall of the buildings - gravity can not at the same time bring down a tower at free fall speed, and at the same time pulverize most of it - it is just physicaly impossible, just as your head dropping through your body at free fall speed and pulverizing it at the same time is impossibel.

Evidence of we holding this view not being a insignificant minority: many of the people of the People questioning the 9/11 Commissions account

Other useres that would probobly object on the same grounds include: User:bov, User:Pedant, User talk:Ombudsman, User:Siva1979, User:SkeenaR and User:Hyperbole --Striver 16:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Live long and prosper!

and don't forget User:Kaimiddleton, User:Zen-master, User:EyesAllMine, User:Adam Adler, User:ILovePlankton, and User:Blackcats (unless of course, that he is also User:SkeenaR in my twisted sockpuppet theory world). Oh, BTW, thanks for contributing to my inhalers list Stive-man, it's now complete!  : ) Morton devonshire 00:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget this guy!!! User_talk:198.207.168.65 --SkeenaR 01:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• The conspiracy theory "support" is vastly overstated. There are many people asking questions like whether there were poor decisions made or even negligence by various people before or after the attacks, or whether the fact of the incident has been used for political purposes. (These questions are only indirectly related to this article.) It's not a genuine good-faith controversy when people accuse the US government of premeditated murder based solely on a completely wrong understanding of building collapse. Peter Grey 18:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. As just said, there are at least two different things regarding the opposition to the official account:

• Opposition to singular facts that don't directly mention any conspiracy.
• Conspiracy Theories based on the previously mentioned oposition.

As I already stated once, not distinghishing between these ones is commiting a (black and white)fallacy.

This is the reason why I oppose to the current use of the wording "conspiracy theories".

April 6+ and pause for a week

I get that people are irritated by the whole discussion here.

I began with a very simple suggestion, number one, that satisfied most people -- I think everyone but Mongo, which is fine for U-1.

Speculation about U.S. and allied government complicity

{{main|9/11 conspiracy theories}}

Since the attacks, a small number of people have suggested that the presentation of the events above is seriously flawed. These include those who suggest that individuals in the government of the United States knew of the impending attacks and failed to act on that knowledge. Those questioning the mainstream account of 9/11 have speculated that the collapse of the World Trade Center was caused by explosives, that a commercial airliner did not really crash into the Pentagon, and that United Airlines Flight 93 was shot down. The vast majority view these suggestions as conspiracy theories.

I'll ask again. Who objects to this? I've added a link. Re: a previous comment that people think groups other than governments (banks) were involved, this doesn't seem to be a main theme in the theories, so I think this title is OK.

As for the question of "small number" versus something else, I think it's pretty clear that we would need explicit sources for anything explicitly claiming a number greater than the number of "researchers" listed in the Researchers_questioning_the_official_account_of_9/11.

Sdedeo (tips) 20:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I voiced my objections regarding the title. "speculation about...complicity" still gives undue weight to the allegations of complicity; moreover, the conspiracy theories do not all make the jump from questioning the link to assigning culpability; the majority are focusing on perceived technical problems of the account. "Conspiracy theory" is still a more accurate header --Mmx1 20:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

As I already stated: "there are at least two different things regarding the opposition to the official account:

• Opposition to singular facts that don't directly mention any conspiracy.
• Conspiracy Theories based on the previously mentioned oposition.

As I already stated once, not distinghishing between these ones is commiting a (black and white)fallacy.

This is the reason why I oppose to the current use of the wording "conspiracy theories". Please try to do the littlest modification to the currently proposed article so it fits your point of viewNormal nick 20:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm in favor of editing the article changing the current version to the one currently proposed by Sdedeo, currently omiting the quantification of the minority. The word "small" deserves a discussion: I'll try to get the necessary info about the minority, in order to evaluate if it is small or significant. Normal nick 20:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

OK. We are at an impasse now. I've never really encountered this before when I've mediated. Who knew 9/11 would be so controversial. (Joke.)

What I am going to do here now is wait a week. In the meantime, we will all let the current "conspiracy section" header stand. This includes anyone who has participating in the mediation.

I will come back on April 12 to see if the same group of people still care about this issue to the extent they do. I know some people feel like they are holding back the floodgates of crackpots, which is silly, and I know others feel like they are being insulted or something similar. I encourage everyone to soften up.

There is really nothing I can do. If you want to drop me as a moderator, let me know. You can reapply to the medcabal. I'm sorry, I just don't know what else to do but wait. Mmx, if you want to change your position, let me know, because we can then still proceed. Otherwise, we'll just wait.

Sdedeo (tips) 20:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Sdedeo, for your work. I do want to say that I also object to this wording, as I meant to make clear here. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I have concerns about the suggested title too. These are theories about conspiracies that are talked about in the subarticle. I'm fine, however, with incorporating some of the suggested wording into the paragraph (as I suggested above). Thank you for your time, weighing in on this. -Aude (talk | contribs) 20:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Sub-Sectioning

I agree with that last arguments of yours. And they conflict with mine regarding that the versions you propose contain a black-and-white fallacy. I have one sugestion that may solve this problem:

• Recalling this section "Controversy" BUT:
• Adding the two subsections: "People oposing to the official Account" and "Conspiracy Theories".

I hope this is prone to a consensus. If you don't agree, please explain why so we can reach somewhere. Normal nick 21:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Why isn't anyone commenting on this? I guess this can be seen as the "cataloging" info Sdedo has mentioned.Normal nick 21:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with two subsections, just for the reason that this article is quite long as it is. There's no good way to really summarize the People questioning the 9/11 Commissions account article as it's just a list. But, where the paragraph says "...questioning the mainstream account...", that could be wikilinked to the "People questioning the 9/11 Commissions account" if it's kept or the "Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11" article. -Aude (talk | contribs) 21:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• It doesn't work because this article is about a particular historical event, not specifically about the "official account" of that event, which has its own article. Peter Grey 02:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Proposal Zero

The version as of 23:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC):
Conspiracy theories
Main article: 9/11 conspiracy theories
Since the attacks, various conspiracy theories have emerged. These include speculation that individuals in the government of the United States knew of the impending attacks and failed to act on that knowledge. Those questioning the mainstream account of 9/11 have speculated that the collapse of the World Trade Center was caused by explosives, that a commercial airliner did not really crash into the Pentagon, and that United Airlines Flight 93 was shot down.

• This is the version I support. Peter Grey 23:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• I support this version as well.--MONGO 02:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• I've seen nothing proposed that's not worse than this. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Object to the archiving of 'carefully selected portions' of this discussion

I object to MONGO's archiving of selected portions of this discussion, it seems to me that he is trying to cover up the discussion of the appriateness/inappropriateness of someone who claims to work for the Department of Homeland Security editing an article about the event that sparked the forming of that department. To me it seems that a lot of the editing of this article and the careful excision of only selected portions of this discussion is motivated by very specific goals, not the goal of producing as clean fact-based article, but a goal of discrediting anyone who doesn't agree with the 9/11 commission report's findings. When archiving discussion, is it not appropriate to archive the entire discussion and not just portions? Pedant 07:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

We can all look up the history, there was nothing 'selective'. Peter Grey 07:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

As it was done to me before in this discussion, i sugest you to assume good faith. Normal nick 08:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I see nothing inappropriate in the archiving. Sdedeo (tips) 08:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I saw it as nothing but a long rant that was supported by nothing but opinions and came close to simply deleting most of it, and instead I have been the one to try and do most of the effort to keep this page a manageable size by archiving. Whenever someone comes to this page with some kind of pronouncement that the planes that hit the buildings were not the planes known to have done so, but instead were other planes that were switched out, I know we are dealing with a very far out version of what didn't happen.--MONGO 13:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

This page was archived just a few days ago. The conspiracy theorists will be upset when they see that things like THIS were immediately archived. I'm sure any self respecting conspiracy theorist would be. Also this:

• "The War Department is planning to insert itself into every area of the Internet from blogs to chat rooms, from leftist web sites to editorial commentary. Their rapid response team will be on hair-trigger alert to dispute any tidbit of information that challenges the official storyline."

[5]

and this:

"examples of information war listed in the report include the creation of “Truth Squads” to provide public information when negative publicity, such as the Abu Ghraib torture scandal, hits US operations, and the establishment of “Humanitarian Road Shows”, which will talk up American support for democracy and freedom"[6]

Some will say that this is Orwellian style censorship. SkeenaR 22:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you accusing me of something? I really want to know, as it is a personal attack if you are and I will deal with it appropriately. The page was long, I have been doing the archiving...that part of the discussion was 50 kb in the past...are you suggesting that I am some kind of government paid operative sent here to spam this article? If that is the case, then prepare your case and prepare to defend such an allegation. The belief that I am paid to post information here is definitely a conspiracy theory.--MONGO 02:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Um...yeah. Read carefully, there are no accusations or personal attacks here. Sorry if you misunderstood, I'll try to be more clearer later. But please, no legal threats allowed on Wikipedia. SkeenaR 03:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't play games with me...I meant prepare your defense for arbitration. You and Pendant better read carefully...innuendo or accusations that I am a paid webspammer with zero proof is a personal attack. You can say whatever else you want, but I do not have to tolerate misrepresentations of this nature.--MONGO 03:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Everyone please don't argue about this -- just let it go. I promise promise that the archiving is just fine. I also want to note that accusing other editors of bad faith is really not OK. Sdedeo (tips) 14:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I restored my old archiving back to this page...now the page is 127kb long. I also recently created an archive at Collapse of the World Trade Center as that talk page was 271 kb long...archiving is normal to keep active discussion pages from becoming too big, for those that misunderstand why I archived.--MONGO 19:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Pics

something less controversial. Are there any pics of the first plane hitting? I can't find any on Wikipedia, so it may be that if they do exist, someone needs to upload them. --Midnighttonight 09:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

A screen cap from one of the two videos known to have captured the event may be allowed for demostration purposes, if such a screen cap can be found.--MONGO 13:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

two suggestions

Hi all, Sdedeo peeking in. Two thoughts:

1. the short para should represent the article of 9/11 conspiracy theories as accurately as possible.
2. I believe the long-term solution will be to have the 9/11CT stuff mirror the way in which we handle the JFK assasination theories as closely as possible. Not saying we should aim for that in this particular dispute, but we should be describing, cataloging, handling and discussing these fringe theories in the same way we do the JFK material.

OK, will step back out again -- just two suggestions to help. I'll come back on the 12th and we can start again proper.

Sdedeo (tips) 14:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

911 Conspiracy theory

I've noticed that many conspiracy theorists (not all) seem to be obsessed with biases, but fail to see their own. They seem to think that any information which comes from inside the government comes from people with ulterior motives and cannot be trusted. Ironically, it is those within the government who would best understand how the government actually works. How strange that there isn't a huge movement by leading democrats to try and uncover the right wing conspiracy of 911. I mean, everyone knows about bill Clinton getting a blow job? It’s not like there isn't party warfare. Are the republicans just that much better at uncovering and covering lies? Or could it be that there isn't a big secret waiting to be revealed by the glorified anarchist "V". Maybe, instead of focusing on the motives of government officials, these conspiracy theorists should take a look at the biases of the 911 conspiracy theory websites whose authors are making money by selling books and coffee mugs. The page 9/11 conspiracy theories tries to put theories about a missile intercepting the pentagon on equal footing with what really happened. It's absurd. If you want a page about alternate scenarios, get rid of the nonsense, or make it clear that such outlandish ideas have been debunked. Quite frankly, I think conspiracy theories are too generous a term. Debunked speculation is actually a more appropriate label for the page.--146.244.137.154 23:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to agree. I've discussed many of the "points" brought up by the theorists with a lot of people I know and I am usually responded to with a laugh. I mentioned that Charlie Sheen, et al may also agree with the theorists and the responses I get range from, "is he on drugs" to "he must be an idiot".--MONGO 00:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Questions about car bomb rumor on 9/11

When I first heard of the attacks, a car bomb was also mentionned. I believe they claimed it was in New York. Has anyone else heard of this? Evilbu 17:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I remember an initial report of a car bomb in central Washington, D.C. - very old versions of our Timeline of the September 11, 2001 attacks include the mention of a report of a car bomb at the State Department at 10:35 am. I wonder why that article was cut down so much. Rmhermen 18:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

So a car bomb was reported in the news in DC? But, of course, there wasn't any? That could be relevant~~

Terrorism

Hi, I think it violates WP:NPOV by calling them terrorist attacks, and calling al qaeda a terrorist organization. It is better to remove terrorist from terrorrist attack and call al qaeda a fundamendalist group, as it is called on its article page. Nr9 10:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

It does not violate the NPOV. The article is written to provide facts. As such removing content you or anyone else doesn't like makes the article inaccurate. --Scott Grayban 10:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV claim

This article does NOT violate the NPOV. It was clearly a terrorist attack on the U.S. User:Nr9 you need to stop removing all references to that. If you don't like the facts don't read it and create your own *facts* on another page. --Scott Grayban 10:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Terrorism implies it was meant to terrorize people. Other people have different opinions and think it is a crusade or struggle against american imperialism. NOte that http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Al_Qaeda avoids calling them a terrorist group directly, instead saying that the United States refers to them as a terrorist group. Nr9 10:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference between the page Al_Qaeda and this page. This article pertains to the attacks on U.S. soil and that was clearly a terrorist attack. You can dispute this article in proper ways if you think the facts are wrong. Changing the content to fit your thoughts is not correct. --Scott Grayban 10:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

How is it clearly a terrorist attack? I can easily see that it is an attack, but I don't see that it is necessarily meant to terrorize. How can I dispute this article? 70.137.187.146 16:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

"How can I dispute this article?" You're doing it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, more explicitly, the facts do not say that it is necessarily a terrorist attack meant for the purpose of terrorizing people. It may be an attack just to destroy american buildings for the sake of destroying american buildings, or a take for the purpose of jihad. It is not correct to assume that the goal of the hijackers is to terrorize people. I doubt they think that terrorism works as a propaganda anyways, as it usually backfires. Attacks on american soil are meant solely to destroy american buildings and kill american people, not to terrorize them. 70.137.187.146 16:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

It's clear to me that the 9/11 hijackers were terrorists, and that Al-Qaeda is a terrorist organization. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Just as it is clear to some the 9/11 hijackers were jihadi (or strugglers) and the al qaeda is a struggler against american imperialism. This type of wording is simply not NPOV. Nr9 16:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

And what do they call it when they kill each other because they don't belong to the same "class" of Muslims? A struggle also? The concept of justifying killing is beyond normal thinking here. To hide behind a religious book and call it a "struggle" when its clearly murder is a real shame to the Islam religion. I have many friends that are Islamic and it disgusts us that these types of people are so willing to trash the Islamic faith in such a manner. And why is it called American Imperialism? Because we prosper and the middle east countries don't? That there fault not ours. They are fighting against a system that would help them. Instead countries like Iraq refuse that help and want a person like Saddam back in power that mass murdered thousands of people and most times just for fun. Don't blame your issues on Americans or British because we didn't start that. You country people did and that's a fact. We didn't vote Saddam in his country allowed it. And when he was threatening all the countries around with a war I didn't see Osama or these other factions trying to get rid of him. So don't blame Americans for your problems. What happened 9-11 was clearly a act to terrorize the American public. Show me/us proof that all those people killed were soley connected in any form to whatever issues those terrorists claim? --Scott Grayban 06:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Thankfully the "American imperialism" debate belongs in a different article. Peter Grey 06:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I think calling something with a negative connotation such as terrorism is clearly not NPOV. Its the same thing as if the article was "The September 11 attacks were a crusade against american imperialism." It is NPOV to just call it "attacks." Clearly, people in the Al qaeda would not call it terrorism. Nr9 16:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, we've been over this before...and the concensus of editors supported the usage while those with an anti-American attitude didn't. 70.137.187.146 is wrong...they did the act to terrorize...high profile targets, cherry picked for maximum impact...absolutely this is terrorism. They were absolutlely trying to kill as many people as possible on 9/11, especially in NYC. Examine the UN accepted definition..."terrorism is an act of premeditated violence during peacetime." is essentially what it states.--MONGO 17:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Why is it not jihad then? It is arguable that the world is never at peace with American imperialism pushing the muslims over the edge. The editors are all influenced by American propaganda. I don't see this as a good measure of NPOV.Nr9 17:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The idea that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter is not an expression of careful neutrality, it's an inflammatory claim of moral equivalence. If you have a citation from some reliable source saying the 9/11 terrorists were gallant freedom fighters, quote it and we'll see if there's a consensus for including it in the article. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Look, america's missile attacks can be claimed as some to be Terrorism too.. there is unlikely to be consensus to remove terrorism because most people on here are exposed to American media which calls these attacks terrorism. if this encyclopedia was in arabic, i'm sure people will calal them jihadi too. This facts makes this language usage violate NPOV. Calling people names like "terrorist" is childish when it comes to an encyclopedia. Nr9 17:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

We also know that there is non consensus for calling it "terrorism" why should it be included? Nr9 17:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying there is not a consensus to call 9/11 an act of terrorism? Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of the motives of Al Qaeda, the tactic used was terrorism. One could argue the Pentagon was a valid military target - the World Trade Center was attacked only because of its symbolic value. Peter Grey 17:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

terrorism in american heritage dictionary is The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons. note the word INTENTION. i doubt the fundamentalists have military tactics. they are doing it just to kill americans. the use of the word "terrorist" is contentious and should be removed Nr9 17:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I am an american and not a muslim or arab or anything. I just don't want to see wikipedia being used as a part of the american propaganda machine by calling people "terrorists". Nr9 18:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Saying that Al Qaeda members don't qualify as terrorists because they don't have coherent strategic objectives (which they actually do, of course) is hardly neutral point-of-view. Peter Grey 18:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The word terrorist is hardly a neutral word. Its like calling americans infidels. 70.137.187.146 19:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Wiktionary defines Terrorism as the following:

1. The act of deliberately commiting an act of violence to create an emotional response from the victim in the furtherance of a political or social agenda.
2. Violence against civilians to achieve military or political objectives.

The use of "terrorist" attacks is proper, according to the definition. --Mrmiscellanious 19:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

NO PROOF THAT THE ACT OF VIOLENCE IS TO CREATE AN EMOTIONAL RESPONSE. 70.137.187.146 02:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

It complies completely with the definition of at least #2. It is terrorism. --Mrmiscellanious 16:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

What, do you think it was insurance fraud? Even Bin Laden thinks it was terrorism. The burden of proof is show otherwise. Until then, it's terrorism. Peter Grey 02:20, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

No, I do not claim that Al Qaeda did not do it. I claim they did it, but it is not terrorism. No Bin Laden doesn't think it is terrorism, he calls it a "struggle." 70.137.187.146 03:53, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have a hard time grasping how this was not a terrorism incident as well. Even if one were to assume that that the attacks were not meant to create an emotional response, it is still terrorism to use "violence against civilians to achieve military or political objectives"SkeenaR 02:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

It is hard to define what are civilians and what are not. After all, civilians are still constituents of a gov't and they pay taxes to support the gov't. Jihad has long been declared. For some people, it has always been war. By the way, I have not seen this definition of terrorism in any other dictionary. If this definition is given, the US is also guilty of terrorism. 70.137.187.146 03:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

A neutral point of view does not mean "no point of view." The point of view that the attacks were terrorist is a widely-held opinion, a majority view, and the conclusion of the United States government. The point of view that the 19 identified were responsible for the attacks but the attacks were not terrorist is a point of view that has often been attempted to be presented in this article. The insertion so far has failed to reach a consensus among editors in this article. This has generally been because typically the authors attempt to define away terrorism rather than accepting a consensus definition for terrorism and applying it to the 19 hijackers. So such arguments that there's no such thing as terrorism belong in the Terrorism article, or that the conduct of the war in Iraq is terrorism belong in the Iraq War article. patsw 03:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The reason that the majority of you believe that these attacks are undeniably terrorism, is because of the US gov't and media, which keep repeating the word "terrorism" In many other countries, they are just called "the attacks" instead of "terrorist attacks." I don't believe that the wording in an encyclopedia should be guided by any particular gov'ts preferences. I do not object to a sentence saying "The US gov't considers these attacks to be terrorism." I do not see how one can object to having "terrorist attacks" modified to be "attacks" How would this edit make this article any less informative? 70.137.187.146 03:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

And that is your point-of-view. How ever this attack happened in the U.S. and our point-of-view deems it was terrorism. When a bomb is dropped by U.S. Forces we called murders, Jihad kills Americans and its called a "struggle" and they hide behind there religion to justify it. Americans call it terrorism because 1) It killed innocent people including children. 2) It was soley done to hurt our country and to cause mass histeria. Let me tell you something User:70.137.187.146 I was there. If freaked me out. I saw the last plane hit the tower and I watched people jump to there death because they didn't want to be burned alive. I smelled burnt flesh and tasted the dust. It scared me and that is terrorism. --Scott Grayban 09:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Simply saying it might not be terrorism isn't enough. Sure, bin Ladin can call it a 'struggle' in strategic terms; terrorism was still the tactic. Peter Grey 04:59, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Terrorism might not be the tactic. The attacks may just be to kill american people and destroy american buildings, and not necessarily to induce terror. 70.137.187.146 05:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

What happened 9-11 was clearly a act to terrorize the American public. Show me/us proof that all those people killed were soley connected in any form to whatever issues those terrorists claim? If you can't then its terrorism and murder. Or does Islam allow indiscrimate killing simple for ones citizenship? --Scott Grayban 06:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

these people are connected simply because they are constituents of a government with dubious foreign policy. A government is the responsibility of the people. If the people do not overthrow a government and choose to remain loyal to a government, then they are responsible for whatever their government does. this has nothing to do with islam. such an argument has been used by legitimate governments in wars in history70.137.187.146 08:51, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh my friend you are so wrong there. We vote our opinions here. You would be surprised how many even oppose the Iraq war. But even with all the people that are against it the majority rules. But you don't see us that are out voted going out and mass killing the ones that won. That's because we value our freedom. The ones that loss voice our rights in many forms by means of blogs, forums, and believe it or not the media. We wont over-throw a Government simply because it doesn't meet our expectations we work harder so that we can change the future. Did you know User:70.137.187.146 that in the U.S. that Mr. Bush is at his lowest percentage in American support? That is a major victory for the ones that lost trying to vote him out of office. That also means that more then likely there will not be a next President here that will be voted in that is a Republican. --Scott Grayban 09:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Repeat comments Peter Grey 02:20, 9 April 2006 (UTC) and Peter Grey 04:59, 9 April 2006 (UTC). Peter Grey 06:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I will be convinced if there exists a verifiable source that a al qaeda member calls himself a terrorist or those involved in islamic jihad call the 911 attacks terrorism. Otherwise, we must respect NPOV, and not only view this event from our side. There is a whole world out there with a different view towards 911. 70.137.187.146 08:54, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

And so again we must conform to your way of thinking? And that is NPOV also? --Scott Grayban 09:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, since it happened in the U.S., I'm sure that this article which discusses the U.S. incident should conform to U.S. sentiment. I would be inclined to believe that aside from countries that are hostile to the U.S. and those countries with Islam as their primary religion, that the attacks would be viewed as terrorism.--MONGO 09:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

That does not make sense. The War on Terror happened in the Middle East and Afghanistan, yet its article does not conform to Middle Eastern sentiment. Articles should be neutral. This one in particular, should not say that the attacks are "terrorist", as that is US sentiment. Why is the opinion of Islamic countries unimportant? They represent a large part of the world. calling the attacks "terrorist" is as biased as calling the attacks "jihad" Just because you hear it in US media everyday doesnt mean the rest of the world thinks that way. 70.137.187.146 09:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

9/11 happened in the U.S., not in Iraq or elsewhere...that is in the title of the article. It would be less descriptive to call them something they are not. Just to call them hijackers is a bit incorrect..they didn't do what hijackers have done in the past...take over a plane, redirect it and make some kind of demand. Instead, they killed the pilots and took over the control of the planes, using them as bombs to destroy cherry picked targets of maximum exposure and maximum impact...though the UN has not made an offcial declaration of what constitutes terrorism...the comment that terrorism is peacetime equivalent of war crimes certainly fits this situation. [7]--MONGO 09:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Well

Considering the fact that everyone was terrified on 9/11... hmmm...

Sensationalist Caption on First Picture

The caption on the first picture in this article:

"A huge plume of smoke and fire can be seen emerging from the North Tower. Following the attack on the North Tower, many broadcasters were showing live coverage when a second plane, United Airlines Flight 175 (pictured above), crashed into the South Tower."

Smacks of sensationalism: I don't see any fire and "huge" also sounds inflated to me, "large" would be a better here.

Any thoughts?

ryguillian 15:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

It was an unusually large cloud of smoke, even if that particular picture makes the size hard to judge. "Huge plume of fire", however, is incorrect. Peter Grey

Did Bush know?

Did Bush know about the attacks before they happened? Many people seem to think so. Hillary Clinton said so in a speech. Of course, she'd say anything to get herself in the news and further her own political agenda. But, did Bush know? I don't think he did. Even though he's made some prety dumb decisions in his life, I seriously doubt that he would make the super dumb decision to let this happen. It's like saying that Franklin Roosevelt knew about and approved Pearl Harbor. ITS JUST NOT TRUE!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.124.132.176 (talk • contribs)

1) The question is not whether he knew, but how much he knew. 2) This is not the place for speculating on what someone was thinking. Peter Grey 17:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Peter Grey, I am ABSOLUTELY POSITIVE that Bush did not know anything illegal about the attacks. I am aware that he asked to spend less on military funding soon before 9/11, but that does not make him a traitor. He did not betray his people at all in the way of knowing information about 9/11 that could have prevented it. And I will speculate all I want about what he was thinking, because I happen to be right. Also, I am in America, not Canada, so I know slightly more about it than you do. I also happen to be 14 years old.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.124.132.176 (talk • contribs)

Illegal is not part of the question that was asked. Peter Grey 01:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm American, I'm 19, I was older than you are now when the WTC attacks occurred, and I also know that ever since the dawn of time that governments know way more than what they tell us. I am a Civil Air Patrol cadet, so don't call me unpatriotic, but I'm also not a drone and I think for myself. Don't be so quick to dismiss anything. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 17:28, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Since the bombngs in 1993, when I was just 33, the WTC was always better protected from terrorist attack from the ground. Intelligence analyst did indeed see patterns in a few of the future hijackers and their travels in and out of the U.S. Immigration inspectors oftentimes do note numerous trips in and out of the u.s. by foregn nationals but the standard questions include, "how long do you plan to stay in the U.S?", "Who is your employer", "What is your business here", etc. which are easily lied about. Immigration Inspectors have 45 seconds to determine if an applicant for entry in the U.S. will be allowed to proceed or if they will be taken to secondary inspection for further questioning. If these hijackers demonstrated few red flags, they would have all easily been able to enter the U.S., a few had student visas. In at least one known example, the FBI was contacted about foriegn nationals attending flight school and only wanting to learn manuvering, not take off and landing procedure. There were a number of clues and tidbids of information the intelliegence community had, but none of them were enough to act on, even if combined.--MONGO 17:59, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The statements above "...because I happen to be right. Also, I am in America, not Canada, so I know slightly more about it than you do..." have no place on Wikipedia. To me they sound like a personal attack on Peter Grey. Being in America, consuming American media does not necessarily make one more knowledgeable about Bush, 9/11, or other such topics. -Aude (talk | contribs) 03:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Being 14 years old does not make you a authoritive contributor then. You have no "real" clue how the world is even run muchless the U.S. Gov. When you growup and have experienced real life then you can come back and make your claims. I am 42, did 20 years in the military and witnessed the attacks and lost a uncle in it. I am sure the U.S. Gov knew what was going to happen but because there is so much fighting between the Agencies, CIA and FBI, no one put the connections together until afterwards. That came out in the Congress Hearings. --Scott Grayban 06:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the government knew per se, as they only had limited clues that were not enough to raise suspicions above a miminal threat level. The feds get this level of threat all the time, even well before 9/11. I do agree wholeheartedly that the agencies tend, even now, to be somewhat possessive of "their" own intelligence gathering results.--MONGO 06:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello. It's me again. I am the kid who started this whole section called "Did Bush know?". Sorry about all that. I guess I got a little out of hand. The thing is, I just really do not appreciate when people keep things from me in an attempt to keep me safe. They think that just because I am under the age of 18, that I don't deserve to kow some things. I feel that this sort of thing has happened to the entire nation. They think that we do not deserve to know some things because we don't work in the White House or CIA or FBI. I want an end to the secrets. And an end to the lies. PLEASE feel free to comment!!!!!! Later!!! 70.124.132.176 02:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi: you'll find that the 9/11 pages are highly controversial. There is a subsection on the page here where conspiracy theories are mentioned. There's also an entire page called, appropriately enough, 9/11 conspiracy theories. I suggest that you focus your changes in these two places in order to get the most effect. And especially, post to the discussion area here. Make sure to source your comments (give reference to specific html links, for example: [8]). And most important of all, create a user ID under which you make your changes. Kaimiddleton 04:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

All and I do mean ALL Governements have secrets they keep from there citizens. From the U.S. to the U.K. to Saudia Arabia to even Iraq. How and what they use it for is up to them. Some use it to protect there country others use it to terrorize there country and I am sure all use it to hide there own illegal activities. People do not make war, Governements do. That is a fact of life and history has shown that. --Scott Grayban 08:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Even Iraq??,... Don't you mean especially Iraq.--146.244.137.197 22:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Later!!! User:70.124.132.176 20:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Please use this talk page for discussing editing this article and not general discussions on the September 11, 2001 attacks. patsw 02:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Health effects

There's a piece [9] that seems to figure in a little revert session. It doesn't seem very encyclopedic, but at the same time if there is some verifiable follow-up to the issues discussed, I'm sure there would be a place for it. Peter Grey 04:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I took it out, but I'm not against including the material if there are links to support it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Shukman, David (2006). "Problems mount from 9/11 fallout". BBC News / Science/Nature. BBC. Retrieved 2006-04-12.

medcabal back

Hello all -- I am back after a week to see if people are still interested in mediation about the 9/11 conspiracy theory paragraph. Looking at the discussion page here, it seems that things have moved on which is fine. If people still want my help, I'd be happy to join in -- just let me know. Sdedeo (tips) 18:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

OK -- haven't heard back, so I'll assume that things are moving along well. I'll strike off the medcabal; please feel free to reinstate if problems show up. Sdedeo (tips) 19:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

All is well...the truth has emerged...interestingly, it was here all along--MONGO 05:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Im still rejectnig the current branding of all alternativ theories with pejorative labels. --Striver 20:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Morning Shows

This section seems silly and unecessary. Perhaps it can be improved, but as it stands it is worthless (except as trivia). The first paragraph implies that Howard Stern was a source of comfort to many in New York and across the country, but certainly he was only listened to by a few. Secondly, the statement "to provide a voice of reason in the aftermath" is surely not a neutral point of view, no? Finally, it is not a overview of morning shows, only a breif statement about three, and three that are not particularly popular among most of the population I don't believe. Srnec 05:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Srnec, would you mind if I got rid of that section? I want to, but I just want somebody's approval. Since I seem to be a natural at upsetting people, I want to ask the advice of at least one registered user. I would REALLY appreciate it if I recieved a response from either you or somebody else. Please, everybody, feel free to respond, I do not want just Srnec's opinion, even though he was the one who started this section. If I do not get a response by tomorrow, which is April 17, 2006, I will delete this section. So, if you want this section to stay (even though I do not know why you would), please say something now. Later!!!! 64.12.116.201 01:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Well I have mixed feelings on this. I know for a fact, because my parents recored it all, that the Today Show also broadcasted during the attacks until the network broke in and took over. That isn't mentioned at all. --Scott Grayban 01:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The fact that 'morning shows' covered the events seems to merely be one of timing - it was morning in the western hemisphere. In other parts of the world, television for other periods of the day would have been pre-empted. I recall that in my area at the time, every channel covered the attacks except one that had children's programming.

Fair enough then. --Scott Grayban 05:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm okay with deleting this section (or moving it somewhere). This section doesn't mention the Today Show or other major broadcasts, but rather Howard Stern and a couple other less notable morning shows. -Aude (talk | contribs) 23:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and cut this section. In the scheme of things, these morning radio shows aren't of enough importance to merit that much space here in this main article. -Aude (talk | contribs) 02:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

4th plane and the general government shootdown of passenger aircrafts authorization censorship on wikipedia

Some "trolls" here are trying to hide (move to 9/11 conspiracy ghetto) even the plain and corroborated fact that the government authorized passenger aircraft shootdown during that day! The legitimate question remains though is it true that the government didn't use that order afterall. For instance in Norman Mineta's Senate testimony he asserts that according to the orders given during the morning session in the White House bunker he eyewitnessed the 4th plane was ordered to be shot down. This Hamilton-Mineta clip is on the record/video for Christ sake..

What's the issue here about this? --Scott Grayban 00:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• It was a significant development, and should have a mention on the article. The problem is more the attempt to tie the orders to the crash of the 4th airplane, when the actual crash was unrelated to any authorization given to the military. The article also does not currently (01:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)) mention the shut down of US airspace, which was quite important itself. Perhaps there should be a few lines about the immediate reactions, like closing airspace, evacuations of buildings in Washington and in fact prominent buildings and landmarks across the world, and NATO's official response. Peter Grey 01:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

  Those are good points and they should be discussed...the airspace was shut down for a protracted period.--MONGO 01:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

From all accounts that I remember was Bush gave orders to shoot down the 4th plane if it got within a certain range although I don't remember what that distance was. But I can find out if that seems to be the issue. I have a buddy when I was in the AF still that was one of the fighter pilots involved with the protection of the White House during that time. --Scott Grayban 05:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I recommend this page for info on the shootdown/standdown issue. The trouble with the whole issue is that there are multiple timelines because the Commission created its own timelines which do not agree with NORADs. Bov 00:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

sorry about all the reverts

Sorry about all the reverts today. We seemed to have a few more vandals then usual hitting this page and if any of them did something wrong we are sorry. --Scott Grayban 20:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for better summarization of the article

• The article currently is very long with too much detail. Many of the sections can be combined into others and reorganized. Also, pictures tend to be a little disorganized with many randomely inserted into sections. I want this article to be featured so if you can help, please do so.--Ryz05 19:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I have created a Pending tasks box, which people can use to help in the improvement of this article.--Ryz05 20:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for new section names and reorganization

• The sections in the article is really disorganized. I propose a new organization and some change of names. The sections will be like:

1. Background- Who's accountable for the attack, what led to the attack (Motive), and what was United States doing at the time.
2. The attacks- What happened in the attacks. Section can include Other planned attacks, Collapse of the WTC, etc.
3. Aftermath- what happened after the attacks: international and national responses, War on Terror, Media, Fatalities, etc.
4. Memorials- subsections can include Arts and literature, etc.

Basically, this article can draw on some organization ideas from the featured article Attack on Pearl Harbor. --Ryz05 20:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I support the idea of better organizing the sections. I've made a few changes, including moving the "Fatalities" and "Survivors" subsections to "the attacks" section. These don't really belong in the "aftermath" section (as suggested above). And the "Collapse of the WTC" section, as discussed here is more focused on the follow-up investigations. As such, I think it fits better in the "aftermath" section and sequential to the "Congressional inquiry" section. -Aude (talk | contribs) 02:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Which tower?

Is that in the first photo? Wouldn't that be the second attack, since there's already smoke coming out of the other tower in the picture? Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 17:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Usage of terrorist...

Usage of terrosit in lead is unacceptable as pwer WP:NPOV. WP:NPOV is a non negotiable polciy. I know a lot of people are watching this article so I am not going to get involved too teribly much. Thanks --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 18:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I notice that even Al Jazeera refers to the "September 11 terrorist attacks", likewise the United Nations (pdf), and the vast majority of countries around the world do. -Aude (talk | contribs) 19:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I think use of the word terrorist is appropriate. Some may think the terrorists were Arabs plotting in a cave while I think it was elements within our own government, but the word seems to apply; here's from the terrorism page:

The term terrorism is largely synonymous with "political violence" or the threat of violence, and refers to a strategy of using coordinated attacks that typically fall within the time, manner of conduct, and place commonly understood as unconventional warfare. Kaimiddleton 21:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)