diff --git "a/EFG_WikiDemoCorpus/xml/0911attacks_E_4578892.tei.xml" "b/EFG_WikiDemoCorpus/xml/0911attacks_E_4578892.tei.xml" new file mode 100644--- /dev/null +++ "b/EFG_WikiDemoCorpus/xml/0911attacks_E_4578892.tei.xml" @@ -0,0 +1,1698 @@ + + + + + + + Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 15 + + + French-German-English Project Comparable Wikipedia Corpora 2019; +Leibniz-Institute for the German Language and Université de Toulouse Jean Jaurès + Mannheim + Toulouse + + 4578892.tei.xml + + +

Following Wikipedia.fr recommendation this corpus (and all its related contents) can be freely distributed under CC-BY-SA 3.0: Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike.

+ + + + + + + + JzG et al. + Collaborative authors + + Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 15 + + 4578892 + English + + + Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia + English language version + + Wikimedia Foundation, Inc + + + + + + + enwiki-2019-08-01-pages-meta-current + Dump file + enwiki-2019-08-01-pages-meta-current + + Wikimedia Foundation, Inc + + + + 2019 + 08 + 01 + + + + September 11 Attacks + + + + + + + 2017-11-30T23:36:08Z + + + + + + +
+ September 11 attacks/Archive 15 + + {{Automatic archive navigator}} +
+ "allegedly" + +

I am a newcomer to this article, having taken a look at it in response to the RfC. I notice that there is now something of an edit war over this sentence: "The 19 conspiring hijackers who "allegedly" carried out the attack were affiliated with al-Qaeda, a well-organized Islamic terrorist group led by Osama bin Laden, a former Saudi national whose citizenship was revoked in 1994http://www.fpa.org/newsletter_info2478/newsletter_info_sub_list.htm?section=Profile%3AOsama%20bin%20Laden." It seems to me that the use of the word "allegedly" ought to be something of a no-brainer, since the matter has not been settled in a court of law and there is assuredly an ongoing dispute about exactly what took place that day. To object to the use of the word "allegedly" strikes me as POV-pushing, but obviously there are a number of editors who strongly disagree. I would like to hear the rationale for striking this word from the aforementioned sentence; it seems to me that it ought to appear more often throughout the article. --Herschelkrustofsky HK 01:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

It has also never been settled in a court of law that we landed on the moon. Did we "allegedly" land on the moon? It was also never settled in a court of law that Columbus landed at Hispaniola. How is law a prerequisite to establishing fact? The academic and scholarly consensus supports the majority of what occurred in this article, including that 19 hijackers hijacked four planes and carried out the subsequent attacks.

+ + +

--Mmx101:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

First, as MmX1 points out, many things other than a "court of law" establish a fact. The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States had the competence and authority to be determiner of facts, and the article presents the conclusions of fact they made as fact. Secondly, while bin Laden initially denied involvement, he has since admitted to his role in the attacks. The "dispute" as you characterize it originates with POV-pushers who seek to give greater prominence to several incompatible conspiracy theories, i.e.: aircraft were "not" involved, aircraft were involved but the 19 hijackers were "not", the 19 hijackers were involved but the greatest damage was done by pre-planted "demolition charges" in the building, the government had complete "foreknowledge" of the attacks, etc. A consensus of editors here rejects labeling the 19 hijackers as merely "alleged" but established as fact. The real dispute is over whether the current internal link to the 9/11 conspiracy theories article disputing the conclusions of the 9/11 Commission is the due weight called for according to Wikipedia policy. Patsw patsw 02:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

It's "'not"' an allegation - it's that simple. A few details are uncertain, sure, because terrorist attacks are messy. Some people pursuing nonsense conpsiracy theories does not mean the essential story is in dispute. Peter Grey02:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

I'm pretty sure several courts of law have made relevant rulings in a variety of countries affirming the "allegations". Keithd keith 12:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

Would there be anything wrong, then, in qualifying the intro by saying "according to the conclusions of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, the 19 conspiring hijackers who carried out the attack were affiliated with al-Qaeda, etc."? Like I said, I am new to this article. I don't endorse any of the conspiracy theories you mentioned, but on the other hand, I am not comfortable giving my unqualified endorsement to the government's conspiracy theory either, particularly in light of this administration's track record on other issues. --Herschelkrustofsky HK 13:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

The consensus is too broad to be represented by one commission. Peter Grey14:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

In the case of crimes, it certainly seems reasonable to require a court judgement before simply stating that someone is guilty without qualification. For example, suppose that there was a consensus that Bush was guilty of war crimes, but he had not been tried and convicted. Would this go in the article on Bush without qualification? Should we say that Saddam Hussein is guilty of war crimes on his page before the result of his trial?

+

Perhaps this is going too far, but is it not potentially libelous to accuse people of having committed crimes when there has not been a court judgement? (The issue is obviously academic in this case mdash; no-one is going to get sued mdash; but I think the point still stands.) Cadr18:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

Well, technically, were the charges untrue, you could very well sue the media, the 9-11 commission, and whoever else, for defamation if you had evidence to the contrary. That...hasn't happened. Prosecuting dead people is a bit stupid; in these cases an investigation is usually launched in lieu, which in this case was the 9-11 commission. --Mmx118:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

Good point, but I'm still not convinced that the outcome of such an investigation ought to have the authority it's being given here. I don't personally doubt that the planes were hijacked by the people named in the 9-11 comission's report, though I think the involvement of OBN is debatable, given that he initially denied involvement (unusual for a terrorist group) and then confessed in a moderately dodgy video. Also, I thought the statement that Al-Qaeda were "well-organised" was somewhat controversial. That phrase could surely be deleted without any loss to the article. Cadr18:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

Our standard should be the judgement of history, not just courts. How is admitting facts are common knowledge but still refusing to present them as such not being simply pedantic? As for court cases, there's Zacarias Moussaoui and the spanish convictions off the top of my head. Keithd keith 00:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

NPOV is a pretty pedantic policy. I admit to being wrong regarding the hijackers, but I still stand by the points re OBN and "well organized". Cadr01:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

If you actually embrace the pedantic application of NPOV ad nauseum, then you will need to put "alleged" before every single subject and predicate in the wikipedia. btw what is OBN? Keithd keith 02:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

Yes, but if there is a dispute over whether or not "allegedly" ought to be there (as there isn't, I expect, for George Bush's birth date or the definition of "prime number"), that suggests, on the face of it, that "allegedly" ought to be in there. OBN is Osama bin Laden; sorry, I thought it would be obvious from the context. Anyway, as I said, I don't think there ought to be an allegedly qualifying the involvement of the hijackers, but maybe some other areas of the article need to be hedged. Cadr19:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + + + "Allegedly" is not neutral. It is an affirmation of doubt. + The claim there is a dispute is not neutral. It is an affirmation of doubt or contradiction on the part of those who have a dispute. The question is whether the mention of the conspiracy theories presenting the dispute in the article gives to it due weight according to Wikpedia policy. Patsw patsw 20:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC) + + + +

"Allegedly" simply means that the thing in question has been alledged. The claim that there is a dispute is perfectly neutral if there is in fact a dispute, as stated in the NPOV policy. It's certainly disputed that Al-Qaeda is well-organised, and there's never been any hard and fast evidence that Osama bin Laden planned 9/11.Cadr20:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

There are several tapes of Osama bin Laden admitting to planning the attacks, and there is a tape of the hijackers in an al Qaeda camp. That's hard and fast evidence. Rhobite21:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

Not really, given that tapes are easily faked, and bin Laden orginally denied responsibility for the attacks http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.binladen.denial/. Even if we assume the tapes are real, the fact that bin Laden has "both" denied and andmitted to planning the attacks would just go to show that you shouldn't believe a word he says! Cadr03:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

x patsw is correct. The article already gives enough attention to conspiracy theories, maybe too much. Tom harrison Tom Harrison 21:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + + + There is more than one clue pointing to bin Laden's involvement; marginal doubts about a single clue do not throw the narrative into doubt. The conspiracy theories are merely modern fairy-tales - they are based on fear, not on facts. Peter Grey05:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC) + + + +

There are plently of clues pointing to bin Laden's involvement. There are also plenty of clues suggesting that George Bush has lied to the American people regarding evidence for WMDs, etc. Wikipedia ought to treat both cases in a similar fashion -- by listing the evidence, but not making any allegations unless the facts are beyond doubt.

+

I also don't see how conspiracy theories are based on fear. Cadr18:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

Inserting "Allegedly" is POV per those arguments above. As for conspiracy theories based on fear, yeah, a lot of them are, especially those that accuse the government of placing charges or planning the attack or similar such ideas. They're all rooted in fear of the power and reach of the U.S. government. Other conspiracy theories, like the old " 'Twas the Jews!" fallback, are based more on cross-cultural tensions, not like that's a whole lot better. But this sub-thread is getting off-track. There's simply way too much evidence (including his own admission) that OBL was involved for the article to imply that there's significant doubt by inserting "allegedly". I think mentioning the conspiracy theories at all is probably as much or more than some of them really deserve. x JDoorjRRR_User:JDoorjam/Esperanza_RRR aJDoorjam m 18:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

Why is inserting "allegedly" POV? These things have been alleged. Some people dispute them. If we make it clear that they're alleged by generally reliable sources, there's no POV issue.

+

Some conspiracy theories are based on fear, but two points are in order. First, not all are, and it's intellectually lazy to make such questionable generalisations in place of specific, verifiable assertions. Second, it's not a conspiracy theory to say that Osama bin Laden might not have planned the attacks. If I said he didn't, but the Illuminati did...now we have a conspiracy theory. In fact, the idea that the attacks were planned by some multi-tentacled Al-Qaeda organisation is arguably a conspiracy theory based on fear (though, of course, a conspiracy theory which may turn out to be true). Cadr20:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + + + "George Bush has lied to the American people regarding evidence for WMDs" - irrelevant to September 11 (although probably highly relevant to some other articles). Peter Grey20:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC) + + + +

I know it's irrelevant to September 11. If you read what I wrote more carefully, I was compating the treatment of comparable allegations in terms of the controversy surrounding them across different articles, on the assumption that there ought to be some editorial consistency across Wikipedia. Cadr20:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

This article is for the mainstream account of September 11, 2001. If you have an alternate POV, there is a perfectly good place for your views at 9/11 conspiracy theories. Cheers. Morton devonshire21:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

No, this article is about September 11 2001. If it's about mainstream accounts of Septermber 11 2001, it should be so titled. Mainstream accouts will obviously get more attention in the main article, but they shouldn't be stated as fact where there is any significant degree of controversy. Cadr20:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

I also rather resent the implication that I'm a conspiracy theorist. I happen to think that the mainstream account is probably correct, but open to reasonable doubt -- something which should be reflected in the article. Cadr20:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

Actually, a conspiracy theory for 9/11 can't be a "personal" conspiracy theory but has to be verifiable, cited, etc. as any other information added to the Wikipedia must be. Patsw patsw 04:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

Where is the evidence? They claim its a matter of "national security" or "protection of privacy" yet the security camera picture of 'Atta' was in fact "'edited"' and his passport was 'thrown down' no doubt, to survive the crash and the inferno and fall to ground and picked up among the tons of garbage blowing around on the new york city streets... there is nothing yet proven in the minds of many except that our government lies, has lied and continues to lie! We what the facts, just the facts.

+ + +

"Al-Qaida conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui testified Monday that he and would-be shoe bomber Richard Reid were supposed to hijack a fifth airplane on Sept. 11, 2001, and fly it into the White House...Moussaoui told the court he knew the World Trade Center attack was coming and he lied to investigators when arrested in August 2001 because he wanted it to happen" (Yahoo! News March 27th, 2006). Now that this had beed established in a court of law, can we accept that Al-Qaeda is responsible for the events of 9/11? Slimdavey22:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

+ +
+
+ Someone put this in the article--[[User:Railsmart|Railsmart]] 17:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC) + +

The above paragraph Conspiracy Theories--Railsmart written by another person is incorrect / partially incorrect / The True Happenings on 9/11

+ + +

I would like you to please view this video it is approximately 1 hour 20 minutes long and will clear up what really happened with both the pentagon incident and the twin towers incident. This movie is the best conspiracy video out there about the 9/11 events i highly recommend you watch the video.

+

Below is the address to the video in order to fully understand the video you must watch it all:-

+

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5137581991288263801q=loose+change

+ + +

Yes, we can see it, and it was reverted. Is there a reason you're posting this here? --Golbez18:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

To spread the word of junk science, innuendo, misrepresentations of facts, solicit money...etc.--MONGO04:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

Loose Change asks some interesting questions, but unfortunately makes extremist allegations without a basis in evidence which then discredits itself, such as the idea that Flight 93 passengers were deboarded in Cleveland and then herded into an empty NASA research building, and then dissapeared. Most 9/11 researchers do NOT support ideas suggesting that planes did not the WTC towers or that planes were swapped or that missiles were fired, etc., but Loose Change treats all of these the same as all the other questions, and thus misrepresents the hard work of many people to get the best questions out there which are much stronger, such as the question of why the jets weren't scrambled, the WTC7 collapse oddities, etc. Bov18:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

+ +
+
+ "I am not involved" + +

Recently a "second" lengthy quotation of bin Laden's denial in the September 11, 2001 attacks was added. I recommend removing it. In brief: it adds nothing to the article and it gives undue weight to the denial statements as being truthful.

+

Bin Laden before September 11, 2001 boasted of his leadership of terrorist cells which had attacked the United States, and he made public threats against the United States, and consistently since December 2001 asserted al Qaeda as responsible for the attacks.

+

A double indirect statement (i.e. the BBC discerning "the street level in the Arab world") claims that the December 2001 tape in which bin Laden boasts responsibility for the attacks is "faked". This statement may reflect what the BCC believed the "Arab street" believed on December 14, 2001, but such an impression of a "faked" tape was transitory as bin Laden mocked the American armed forces attempting to capture or kill him in several tapes released throughout 2002. This temporary doubt of authenticity is not relevant to the attacks themselves which is the subject of the article. Patsw patsw 04:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

I'd say to take it out...unless someone can prove that it is faked and that would be interesting to see.--MONGO04:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

+ +
+
+ Description of conspiracy theories + +

I saw the changes to the couple of sentences trying to describe conspiracies and would like go ahead with those. Currently they do not reflect the actual theories:

+

1) there *are* no other theories about why the towers collapsed outside of demolition, so it is not correct to say 'something other than the airliners.' That suggests there are numerous ideas when there is really only one.

+

2) while most people think that "some" people within the US government had "some" role, describing that as 'government involvement' is not entirely correct - no researchers I know of implicate entire government agencies, but numerous researchers implicate powerful financiers and others "along with" individuals within the government. The way the section reads now implies that researchers think 'the' government is behind the attacks, or a government agency, etc. This is not correct.

+

current version:

+

"Almost immediately after the attacks conspiracy theories began to emerge. These doubts included speculation that the United States Government knew of the impending attacks and failed to act on that knowledge, and other theories of government involvement. Some researchers questioning the official account of 9/11 have speculated that the collapse of the World Trade Center was caused by something other than the airliners, that an airplane did not really crash into the Pentagon, and that United Airlines Flight 93 was shot down."

+

change to:

+

"Almost immediately after the attacks conspiracy theories began to emerge. These doubts included speculation that the United States Government knew of the impending attacks and failed to act on that knowledge, and other theories of government or other insider involvement. Some researchers questioning the official account of 9/11 have speculated that the collapse of the World Trade Center was caused by pre-planned explosives, that an airplane did not really crash into the Pentagon, and that United Airlines Flight 93 was shot down."

+

Also . . . this part "speculation that the United States Government knew of the impending attacks and failed to act on that knowledge" has an interesting twist in today's trial:

+

"FBI agents acknowledged under cross-examination that the bureau knew years before Sept. 11 that al-Qaida had plans to use planes as missiles to destroy prominent buildings. They also acknowledged numerous missed opportunities in the months before Sept. 11 to catch two of the hijackers with terrorist links known to the government, even though the pair frequently used their own names in the U.S. to rent cars, buy plane tickets and even, once, to file a police report after one got mugged."http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/03/08/national/a090713S88.DTL

+

At what point does the fact that the agencies 'knew' stop becoming a 'conspiracy theory'?

+

+ + + Bov + + 07:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC) + +

+ + +

I recommend you place such information in the article 9/11 conspiracy theories--MONGO07:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

My point is that the description above is not reflective of the reality of the 'conspiracy theories.' I'd like to change it as I've noted. Bov17:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

It's unclear what claim is being made here. If it is that there's "only one" alternative theory, that's not correct as there are several incompatible alternative theories. Patsw patsw 18:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

The claim I'm making is that the way the paragraph is now, one would think there are several 'conspiracy theories' (not NIST or FEMA theories) specifically about how the WTC towers collapsed. There is only one that I know of. If you know of others besides demolition, please tell me what they are. Bov19:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

I've seen people http://www.google.com/search?hs=CARhl=enlr=client=firefox-arls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficialq=missile+wtcbtnG=Search claim that missiles were used -- also that http://www.google.com/search?hs=eV6hl=enlr=client=firefox-arls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficialq=nuclear+wtcbtnG=Search nuclear weapons were involved -- and http://www.abouttwintowers.info/FaceofDevil.htm don't forget Satan himself. You also make it seem like there is only one controlled demolition theory -- when in fact I've heard of many different theories on the different demolition tactics. I think to say that there is only one conspiracy theory is clearly false. -Quasipalm20:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

+ +
+
+ General Linkspam Cleanup + +

I've just did a quick review of the article and cleaned up the references, including removing some linkspam and dead links. All of the references in the article are now using Wikipedia:Footnotes format. When editing the article and adding references, please use this format. Also, any erroneous linkspam will be summarily deleted without warning. Derek.cashman Dr. Cash 21:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

+ +
+
+ 9/11 "A Memorial" link from CNN + +

I want to add this link http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/memorial/ to the section "Victims and damage" under "'external links"'. The link not only includes a list of names, but also provides submitted photos in tribute to the victims. What do you guys think? --Ryz0522:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

I think it's an appropriate enough link, so I'm just going to include it. But if any of you have any objections, just let me know. Thanks. --Ryz0522:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

I'm okay with adding this http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/memorial/ link, though it does seems to significantly duplicate what's in the "http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/main.html CNN.com - 'Lists of Victims'" link. Perhaps the link you suggest could replace the latter one, rather than expanding the number of links? -) 00:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

Yes, the CNN memorial link could replace the CNN link that has just the names. Please delete the latter link at will. Thank you. --Ryz0522:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

+ +
+
+ Conspiracy Video + +

I have just watch this video on conspiracies regarding 9/11 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2131531274920076160q=9+11 Video. I mean no disrespect to anyone who was affected by 9/11 but can someone watch the video and see if its claims are at all legitamite? Tutmosis04:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html

+

Knock yourself out. --Mmx105:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

Thank you for the link ofcourse it didnt cover everything in the video. Tutmosis14:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

I'd like to see an explaination for the puffs of smoke below the collapse and the broken windows in the lobby of 1 or 2. Those are about the only things left for me to debunk in my mind, that and WTC7's a little shaky. Maybe this site will help www.911myths.com. Cnelson C. Nelson 06:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

+ +
+
+ Culpability + +

Why are we removing indications that OBL was responsible? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=September_11%2C_2001_attackscurid=28033diff=44481992oldid=44481125 See diff.

+

Ordering? I asked you (with a please!) not to remove well-cited information that states the mainstream opinion, and kept your classified (non-public) caveat. Why delete the fact that OBL first denied and later admitted to it? Looks like you're the one reading bad faith into my edits.

+

--Mmx109:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

That's not quite what I did, in fact, grammar edits were lost with the revert of my edits. Stating mainstream opinion is not what Wikipedia is about in any shape or form. If wikipedia depended on that, Saddam Hussein would be the prime suspect as far as 9/11. Please, I'm not saying that OBL is guilty as hell and should be crucified or is innocent and should be showered with flowers. Instead, we need to have hard cold facts about ANYONE before saying "this person murdered a bunch of people". It's not a Good Idea IMO to believe that on Wikipedia common opinion should trump good sources for proof.

+ + +

(I will not get in a revert war, I'm a discusser, not a boxer, as you can see by my history of almost 8,000 edits without any negative remarks about my POV and similar issues)

+ + +

mdash;-- That Guy, From That Show! 2006-03-19nbsp;09:28Z

+ + +

I'll look for the link to the videos (several of them) in which OBL did in fact do all but completely confess to being behind the terrorist attacks.--MONGO09:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

That would be great, really, I mean it. I would like to add that by looking at the diff above I did not remove OBL from being responsible although that was stated as fact here. ""'I did not do what I was accused of""' and I don't appreciate being lied about. That is completely untrue as can be seen by looking at my edit above.

+

Facts regarding this issue are needed quite a lot. I realize this is a hot issue but many others have been of the "he's guilty because people believe it" slant which is not encyclopedic. If there is a video which can be cited where it is said "I planned/particpated in 9/11" and has been authenticated to be OBL I completely applaud the efforts of the editor who contributes it to Wikipedia.

+ + +

Regards, mdash;-- That Guy, From That Show! 2006-03-19nbsp;09:44Z

+ + +

I'm not arguing it based on "lots of folks believe it" (because frankly, if you were to poll the world, it'd probably come down to the US did it). I'm arguing that the findings of the 9-11 commission represent the most authoritative and reliable version of the events.

+ + +

Usually on Wikipedia, we try to not just use one source about an issue especially when that government will a) avoid specific details, and b) is in a current military conflict with countrie(s) associated with that same issue (persons or groups).

+ + +

lt;span class="user-sig user-That Guy, From That Show!"mdash;-- That Guy, From That Show! 2006-03-19nbsp;10:10Z

+ + +

Unfortunately there is a severe lack of alternative information of similar credibility. Moreover, it stands up to rational scrutiny? It's not perfect, nor is it 100% perfect, but it is by far the best source. Do the Bin Laden tapes not count as a second source? Yes, they could have been faked, but there hasn't been a retraction of his taking culpability. --Mmx110:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

Regarding the grammar edits, no, they were not in fact lost. Look at the history, I edited the quote directly. Don't jump to conclusions. How do we determine cold facts? Who do we take as authorities? The 9-11 commission was put together exactly to produce an authoritative account of the attack, and while there are doubters it still stands up to rational scrutiny. This has been discussed ad nauseum. --Mmx109:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

You still haven't replied to my denial of your assertion that I removed indications that OBL was responsible. I did not do so and at this point it's extremely difficult to think that you can be reasoned with. I'll let it go at this time as I believe that Wikipedia is about working together, not against one another.

+ + +

mdash;-- That Guy, From That Show! 2006-03-19nbsp;10:13Z

+ + +

Yes, I did. Moving the comment below so it's not hidden in the clutter.

+ + +

I see good faith has gone out the window. For someone who asks other to assume good faith you certainly don't yourself. I said

+ + a) "we removing indications that OBL was responsible?" (not pointing fingers explicitly but it was clear I was talking about you) + b)"delete the fact that OBL first denied and later admitted to it?" + +

In the diff you changed "determined" (which is factual) to "had information", which indicates a lower level of confidence. E.g. We had information about WMD's in Iraq, but did not determine if they were there. You also deleted "Bin Laden initially denied, but later admitted, involvement in the incidents." What was left in that paragraph was merely that we had classified information that OBL was involved. Looks like a fair cop to me. It's the internet. A thick skin would serve you well.

+

--Mmx109:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

+ +
+
+ Conspiracy Video by Alex Jones + +

Would http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2023320890224991194 This Conspiracy Video be good to put in the article?

+ + +

No: 1) it's a bad movie for those questioning the official 9-11 story 2) speculation doesn't belong on this page... see the 911 conspiracies page. Despite there being some real claims from the 'conspiracy buffs', as they are labeled, the Loose Change series does not do a good job of representing the best questions regaurding 9-11. It's all circumstantial, the narrator uses rhetoric to convey some of his points, and some claims are easily debunked or very shaky (the pod theory?). These debunked myths dilute the serious consideration of the few relevant claims the movie makes. Because it speculates tremendously and has some bad claims, its a bad movie (that and it's not by Alex Jones). Speculation is also against wikipedia's policy, unless it is a significant view. Since most of the movie is speculative, it doesn't belong here.

+

On another note; I think that there should be more than a link to a 'conspiracy theories' page in the 9/11 article. There are some rather mysterious things that took place on 9/11 that are held by a significant minority. Cnelson C. Nelson 00:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

I don't. Mysterious...in what way...planes hijacked, planes hit buildings, buildings fall down...no mystery.--MONGO10:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

There is good reason to display the video Loose Change (as seen in the link above). For one there is no proof that Osama bin Laden had anything to do with the attacks. Even in the Wikipedia 9/11 article they say "The United States government determined (in part based on classified information) that al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden bear responsibility for the attacks." Good job that's a good reason. Why is it so classified? I suggest that we allow this video in the Video section of the 9/11 article. Since we should show that there are more than one global view to this tragedy.

+ + +

—Preceding )

+ + +

MONGO; Mysterious things = anamonlies in/outside the lobbies of WTC before collapses http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lobby_damage_and_cloud.jpg, numerous pplfirefighters using "explosive" when talking about the towershttp://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/oralhistories/explosions.html (and rebuttal http://www.911myths.com/html/accounts_of_explosions.html), the way WTC7 fallshttp://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html (though I disagree with the Physics professor on quite a few of the points he makes). Now, there is not enough evidence to suspect the official story and all the evidence supporting it as false, but it's enough to drive the conspiracy kooks crazy. The way this evidence is presented - it's usually missing the qualifiers, the contradictor evidence, and perspective - can be eloquently presented. Cnelson C. Nelson 06:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

+ +
+
+ Occams Razor + +

"History is written by those who hang heros."

+

Check the sources of the current 9/11 post. There is no scientific evidence to support these claims. Only that they are official. Where is the pride? Wikipedia is suppressing the truth by not following its own content criteria rules.

+

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AboutWikipedia_content_criteria

+

What are you afraid of? Look at the patriots of today, and ask if they are lying?

+

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

+

—Preceding )

+ + +

Look...this is very important...we are just Wikipedia...you need to get ahold of the New York Times and the Washington Post and get them to look at this...I am convinced that they will have it on the front page of their papers just as soon as you get a hold of them.--MONGO10:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

Here is another guy you can bunch with me and call "nut-case" and other degrading words: www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2006/200306charliesheen.htm. Just keep doing that, keep ignoring NPOV and keep saying "we stick to the White house theory, no mater what. And by the way, its not even a theory, its the truth with capital T". --Striver02:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

The page Striver links to above is titled "Actor Charlie Sheen Questions Official 9/11 Story." Tom harrison Tom Harrison 02:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

Well, since Charlie Sheen says so, then all the rest of the evidence is null and void. Perhaps, as usual, Charlie Sheens comments were taken a bit out of context...I'd like to see the complete and original transcript. But even if he does belief there was govenernment coverup, it is just his opinion, and so what. A mediocre actor has an opinion, that would be a first I guess?--MONGO02:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

Funny, it calls him a credible source. A credible actor certainly, I enjoy his movies. A credible source for this subject, no. And on his credibility generally, he thought Za ginipiggu 2: Chiniku no hana (1985) was a real snuff film, for one. Schizombie Esquizombi 03:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

here i was on my way to post something, but i figuered there is no point. --Striver03:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

Yes, we're basically regurgitating the mainstream perspective on the story, but that's because it's the viewpoint that is closest to the truth. Many (but not all) of the conspiracy theories have been debunked and more are based purely on speculation (which doesn't belong in the wikipedia) or no evidence at all (like the remote controlled aircraft theory... i admit, strawman... but it's so easy when there are sooo many of them). Cnelson C. Nelson 06:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

+ +
+
+ need these photos + +

http://www.september11news.com/InternationalImages.htm

+ + +

And they're all copyrighted. And we don't need them. --Golbez06:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

fine a link to them 132.241.245.4906:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

Don't see why. People can find them otherwise. I don't like linking to copyrighted material. --Golbez07:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

+ +
+
+ Victims of toxic dust inhalation + +

A woman, her name was Debra Reeve, has just died of lung cancer from toxic dust inhalation from working near ground zero after the attacks. She is the "'20th person to die long after the attacks and have her death blamed on the dust cloud"' from the collapsing building. This controversy has received a little bit of notice over the previous years, and there's a couple pending court cases of victims alleging that the dust cloud caused them health problems. Should these people be included in the death tally (putting the total over 3,000)? LockeShocke15:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

Why call it a "controversy"? Are there people advocating that such people die? The dust cloud was an irritant, and perhaps a carcinogen but not "toxic". The key word is "blame". People can get lung cancer from other sources, unless there's a finding in a court case that attributes Reeve's death to the terrorist attacks, the connection cannot be asserted in the article. Regarding the "death tally", the Wikipedia itself is not an official source. Patsw patsw 15:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

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

I am new here, but after reviewing the archives, I see this guy MONGO having a monopoly on the "truth". As I read WP, the truth is not what is purported here. Rather it presents viewpoints that are verifiable (reported by reputable published sources) or which have prominent adherents. Yet MONGO et al muzzle viewpoints which have no less paucity and which are supported by similar or even more numerous verifiable sources.

+

I suggest that if a source is found in error repeatedly (an euphemism for caught in a lie) such sources should be discredited as a verifiable (using WP criterion above). This alone should cut the size of these articles significantly.

+

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT PLANES CAUSED THE COLLAPSE OF THE WTC.

+ + +

"'perhaps you mean "realistic models to cause the WTC to progressively collapse due to fires and loss of structural columns are non-existant" "' "insert be cnelson"

+ + +

The government NIST report, cited elsewhere in this WP article is very clearly not intended to FIND OUT WHAT CAUSED the collapse "'(true)"'. As a matter of fact, it fails the WP criteria above, since this group it has no role, history or expertise in building collapse or airplane crash investigations (http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/nist_mission.htm), and its work was not peer reviewed. As a matter of fact (http://www.ntsb.gov/Abt_NTSB/history.htm), the one agency with expertise in both causal investigations and airplane crashes, the NTSB, was noticeably absent from the NIST "investigation". The NIST study details one POSSIBLE way the collapse COULD have happened ("'wouldn't they have the best opinion since they had the most evidence?"').

+

To state that the NIST concluded that the aircraft crashing into the buildings or the resulting fire CAUSED the collapse is a misrepresentation of that report. The NIST report is a theory of how the collapse may have been caused by the crashes. I suggest those advancing POV read the NIST report.

+

It's easily provable that this report wasn't an investigation at all. NFPA 921, "Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations", clearly outlines the steps for a proper investigation in agreement with the scientific process. (Maybe this is obvious to me becase I was a U.S. federal investigator)

+

(excerpts of NFPA 921-2001)

+

2.3.2 Define the Problem.

+

...a proper origin and cause investigation should be conducted. This is done by an examination of the scene and by a combination of other data collection methods, such as the review of previously conducted investigations of the incident, the interviewing of witnesses or other knowledgeable persons, and the results of scientific testing.

+

2.3.4 Analyze the Data (Inductive Reasoning).

+

All of the collected and observed information is analyzed by inductive reasoning: the process in which the total body of empirical data collected is carefully examined in the light of the investigator’s knowledge, training, and experience.

+

This is not what was done. ("'tax payer $s at work"')

+

Many are stating that there is not a shred of evidence for controlled demolition. I posit that there is not a shred of evidence for airplanes or fire causing the collapse. There are ample VERIFIABLE (by WP standards)sources for and which would justify the prominence of, a theory of explosives causing the collapse. (I read not less than six stories detailing the trail of the israelis who high-fived each other as the buildings collapsed, whose van had traces of explosives, and some of which were identified as intelligence agents). "'how is that linked with a possible demolition of the WTC?"'

+

Just because a majority of people do not have the intellectual latitude to challenge the appearances, this should not rightly, or by WP criteria, cause other verifiable and credible hypotheses from being given equal weight.

+

One person even likened disagreement with the majority view as denying the Holocaust! Hardly could I find more blatant dishonesty or partiality towards a single POV. Apparently, some here are more concerned with squashing opposing viewpoints while serving as standard bearers for a pre-ordained story line!

+

+ + + Mudawangos + + 23:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC) + +

+ + +

Wow...no less than six stories about Israelis huh? How many stories are there not involving Israelis? Squiggyfm02:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unidentified_flying_objectdiff=45046127oldid=45025687 Here's one. Well, unless you buy in to the Jews in Space theory. Tom harrison Tom Harrison 03:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + + + Yawn.--MONGO04:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC) + + + + + P.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASeptember_11%2C_2001_attacksdiff=44755910oldid=44755350--MONGO04:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC) + + + + + "I posit that there is not a shred of evidence for airplanes or fire causing the collapse." It was captured on video. Peter Grey05:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC) + + + +

Millions of people across the globe watched the planes hit the Towers on live television, and thousands of New Yorkers watched it happen with their own eyes. There is no question that two jumbo jets hit the Towers -- all of us watched in horror as it happened in real time. Claims to the contrary are just not credible, and have no place on Wikipedia. Morton devonshire19:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

"Just because a majority of people do not have the intellectual latitude to challenge the appearances..."

+

First of all, using big words doesn't make you smarter than everyone else. Second, unless you arguement is based on a philosophy that nothing we percieve truly exists, then, yeah dude, the planes crashed into the towers. That's what those metal bird-like things you see in the video are. Controlled demolition my ass.... slimdavey

+

Guys, he didnt mean that the planes did not hit the tower, he said the hit did not cause the collapse, and that there is no evidence for that. The video show that the planes hit the tower, and that there was a great fireball that lasted 15 seconds and that the towers fell after 50 minutes. What he means is that there is no evidence that the 15 second fireball caused the frefall of the towers 50 minutes later. That conclusion is not scientific sound, neither is it peer viewed.

+

Here, the its now mainstream prisonplanet.com/articles/march2006/230306Sheen_CNN.htm. You can no longer pretend that it is a "'in"'significant minority that hold that view, it is a "'significant"' minority that dispute that theory, and claiming the "fire brought down the towers" is factual is a violation of NPOV. Also, the majority of other parts of the world reject that theory. The people claiming fires made the tower fall have nothing more than a theory, they show no evidence to support it. --Striver22:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

That Prisonplanet website is a bunch of nonsense. You're just drawing at straws here. Prisonplanet...now that is a reliable reference source, for sure...not.--MONGO22:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

Prisonplanet? Im talking about CNN, not prisonplanet. CNN themselves mentioned Alex jones, he is more notable than you or i will ever be. --Striver22:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

Yeah, CNN is so good that the prestigious Gallup Poll has decided to sever all times with them. Maybe now that network and Ted Turner can use prison planet as their pollsters. Alex Jones is more "infamous" than me...and always will be due in no small part becuase of his nutty ideas about all this controlled demolition and conspiracy junk.--MONGO01:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

lol, yeah, you are right, CNN is no good as a source, they propbably are just as much of crazy tin-foil-hat nutcases as me and Alex for doing that article... --Striver01:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

Stive-man, glad to see you finally acknowledge yourself as a "crazy tin-foil-hat nutcase". I'll remember that. : ) --Morton devonshire01:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

I hear that chewing on tin-foil can really make your teeth hurt. MortonsSockpuppet01:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

lol, ill take that as a friendly joke :) --Striver02:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

+ +
+
+ Simple Comment + +

I have noticed that alot of this talk page has been devoted to conspiracy theories. Isn't this page simply to tell about the incident (not "'speculate"' about what happened), and provide a helpful link to a sub-page, which is only there for one thing: Conspiracy theories and speculation.

+

Now before you say anything else, I relize that also this page could be offending to some, however, but we must include something about what happened, and who did it. Therefore, if we just stick to one story, the government's claim (which I do not belive myself), we can reserve the other page exclusively for this type of talk.

+

I belive in using the way of the American court to decide matters like these: "The idea is true, until proven false." Or for lawyers: "The defendant is innocent until proven guilty."

+

Thank you for reading this,

+

--Shark Fin 10122:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

Sure, ill prove it false: A 15 second fireball does not cause metal to get so week that it bends. Not straight away, and most definitly not after 50 minutes. Hence, the idea is proven false. --Striver22:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

I didn't know the fire went out after 15 seconds. --Golbez22:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

The initiall fireball, the one that is supposed to have generated the tremendous heat needed to bend steel. That fireball. It went out after 15 seconds, just look at any video of it. What was left was a usual fire with a normal temperature, nothing even remotly close to the heat needed to bend steel. Think about it, creating a 100 floor builidng that colapses from a 15 second fireball and 50 minutes "ordinary" fire, does that sound creadible? In my ears, that sounds like a nut-case conspiracy theory.--Striver23:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

Try taking a one meter wide steel column, expose it to 15 seconds of jet-fuel fire, and then burn furniture and computers beneath it for 50 minutes. Then go and see how elastic it is. It would even be hot, the sheer size of a 1 meter wide and X*10 meters long steel column will absorb and disipate so much heat that you wont even be able to boil water on it.--Striver23:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

And by the way, the 15 second fireball was not even "in" the building, most jetfuel went out of since the plane hit the building on a angle and not straight on. The amount that remained in the building went out after max 1 minute, if it didnt go out at the same pace as the fireball outside. Oh, and did i mention that the plane hit the building on a angle? It didnt even hit the support columns. --Striver23:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

Hold a nail over a burner flame for 60 seconds and try to bend it. Moreover, it was not an "ordinary" fire; the combustants were accelerated with fuel from the airliners. You have enough energy in that fuel load to keep a 10-ton aircraft in the air for five hours and move it 4000 miles, expended in 60 minutes. Whether expended in 15 seconds as you claim (falsely) or an hour as NIST indicates, that's more than enough to weaken steel.--Mmx123:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

Im sure a iron nail will bend after 60 second. But why dont you try a 1 meter wide and x*10 meters long steel column? And why dont you try it for only 15 seconds? And try to hold the burner "outside" the building. And also, combust the entire fuel in a huge fireball, not in a consentrated and controled flame that gets optimal air. Then try to see if it bends.The velocity of the fuel is irrelevant, the fire does not get more heated for that, it only makes it move (and not burn the same stuff for the entire time). The "entire" fire burnt for 50 minutes-1 houre, depending on the tower, but the initial fuel fire was over in a maters of seconds or minutes, the rest was a ordinary fire. Just think about it, through fuel into a room and lit it, it will never in burn for more than 1-2 minutes. It will burn, and die, unless furniture and stuff take fire. Think "barbeque", the inintial burning fuel that lits the coal burns out in a mater of seconds, then maybe the coal gets litt and the heat continues due to the coal, not the initial fuel. --Striver23:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

I don't know why I'm humoring this. Jet fuel is not an explosive. It doesn't burn instantaneously or in "15 seconds". To burn efficiently, it must be vaporized, as it is within the engine, or in a fuel-air bomb, which would have required an aresolizer on the plane. Rest assured if the entire fiel load were aresolized and ignited, the shockwave probably would have knocked the towers over. This "15 seconds" line is more bunk from people cooking up theories. Feel free to buy a can of kerosene and see for yourself. --Mmx123:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

That's nice, but you aren't going to get this into the article. So why bother discussing it here? Discuss it on the conspiracy theory page.

+

Also, considering how fast those planes were going and how difficult it was to steer them, I am amazed that both managed to hit the one floor in each building laden with professionally installed explosives. Unless the whole building was wired, and in that case, you're talking a conspiracy of tens of thousands, instead of a conspiracy of 19. Which is more plausible? No, wait .. please don't answer that. --Golbez23:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

You can't reason a man out of a position he didn't reason himself into. I'm just sayin'. Tom harrison Tom Harrison 00:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

Here is the fireball: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/impacts.html. You can see in any film about it that it didnt last for more than 15 seconds. As you said yourself earlier, it had the speed of the airplane, it punched right through the building. And no, the shockwave from the fireball did hardly anything, because as you said yourself, its not an explosive. The "Can of kerosene" is a faulty analogy, try to take it and through it against the wall, hard enough to punch through it, and litt it in mid air. Then count the seconds it burns. That is just the "aresolizer" you said was necesary. Yes, the whole building was wired, one story falling would not account for anything, the building was held by its main columns in the center, the ones that wher not hit by anything. Even the "pancake" theory is useless, even if one floor would fall on the other, the floor under would not be heated by any fire and would have no problem receiving the extra weight, the builiding had a 600% redundancy. Just imagine that it needed to be able to withstand a earthquake, hurricane or any other nature disaster that could possibly happen during its lifetime. And yes, it was designed to receive a "'direct"' airplane hit, something that didnt even happen to the west tower, and strangly enough it fell before the north tower, even though it was hit 17 minutes later. And "even" if the floor would colapse on eachother, it wouldent affect the middle columns, they where not supported by the floors, the main columns would stand up independently. And in either case, the top floors would not fall as they did, since they were held up by the main support columns, and not by the floor beneath. But as happend, the top floores fell in the exact same second as the other floores, even though they where supported by the main collumns. For you information, there was 46 main support columns, each one maid of steel, one meter wide and very long. They where so incredibly large that they couldnt even creat them in the US, they where manufactured in Japan and shiped to the US. --Striver00:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

Ok... great. So you've proved the official story wrong. Got a replacement that everyone will buy? Please. Did you not read any of my first paragraph? Go back and read it. This discussion is being dragged into a place were it should be moved over to the Conspiracy page.

+

"'This article is simply here to tell what happened, when it happened and where it happened."'

+

Is that not correct?

+

Thank you...--Shark Fin 10103:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

Yeah, i agree with you 100%, this article should only tell "what happened, when it happened and where it happened", not take sides on disputed evenst such as "why it happened", "who made it happened" and "how did it happened". As is now, this articles does that, it claims the offcial conspircacy theory to be factual and dedicates 0.5% of the article to represent "'all"' other views. --Striver03:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

That's because it ensures that we don't provide undue weight to idiotic notions of controlled demolition.--MONGO03:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

Mongo. Stop it. You are violating wikipedian laws.. are you not? You are calling a very possible idea crazy.

+

On a different track... Quote from Striver:"As is now, this articles does that, it claims the offcial conspircacy theory to be factual and dedicates 0.5% of the article to represent "'all"' other views."

+

So, how can we fix this... does everyone else like this point of view ("'This article is simply here to tell what happened, when it happened and where it happened."')? Surely since we have this many people on the talk page we can make this happen (and get back to the featured article status).

+

Thank you, --Shark Fin 10116:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

+ +
+
+ Conspiracy theorists. + +

What do people think of my compromise edit? JoshuaZ05:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

I'd be in favor of dumping the entire section. An encyclopedia should be an encyclopedia, not the National Enquirer. Regardless, your edit was a lot better than having other editors overwrite my alteration by completely reverting me. Maybe next time, I'll simply dismantle this entire article and rid it all of the nonsense and misinformation. Factual is not POV...no one, ah, no one has been able to provide any (that's any) factual evidence to support one single charge by the conspiracy theorists.--MONGO05:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

We used to include a wikilink there to ) 05:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

Common viewpoints are encyclopedic, and content in wikipedia is decided by V and NPOV generally, not what the truth actually is. In this case, many people believe that there was a conspiracy, many people have written about it and discussed such ideas. It is similar to how we have articles about creationism and homeopathy even though they are complete junk also. JoshuaZ05:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

I can live with the proposed changes. Though I still feel that conspiracy theorists is POV (regardless if you and I believe they are) because well, it is often used to discredit the views of others. People do not take the work of conspiracy theorists seriously. Whether you want to believe in them or not, it does not change the fact that some theories are presented by "researchers", though they may be "amatuer." And, it is POV to believe the acknowledged 9/11 story is 100% factual. Using the term "factual" denotes completely factual, it is not possible to say without a doubt that every component of the mainstream story is factual. Pepsidrinka05:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

Factual is not POV...I was at GZ for 6 weeks (9/15/01 to 11/4/01) and I have read a lot of the websites that disagree with the U.S. Government "version" and yet to see anything aside from POV. It is possible to say without a doubt that the U.S. Government findings are correct. Did you know that 600 reporters at least were on this story the moment it happened and none of them have found a single piece of evidence to support the speculation that there was a governement coverup, that there was controlled demolition or that Martians did it. Why wouldn't the press publish things that proved a coverup happened? Maybe the National Enquirer would. There is such a thing as editorial excellence and this article is far from it. NOT, absolutely...we do not give weight to something that has no weight. Don't blind revert my additions again.--MONGO06:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

I'd be interested in seeing your reference that makes the assertion that there were "600 reporters...on this story the moment" the first plane struck the first building. You being at Ground Zero for six weeks does nothing to convince me of your argument. And, I did not "blind revert" your edits, unless we have different definitions of "blind reverting". Once again, let me maintain that despite my views, please assume good faith that I am trying to maintain a NPOV instead of trying to push my own. Pepsidrinka06:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

You provide further substance to why I would not want you to be an admin. You may have well as rolled back my edit...that's what you did. 600 reporters, probably I am wrong...more like 6,000. I can find out and get a ballpark figure...does it have to be exact? How many would you guess were involved in questioning surviviors etc...your not being at ground zero does nothing to support your argument...got any proof that the "offical findings" are not factual? Why do I have to refute the findings all but the wackiest agree with and then have to provide the facts to you. You find me evidence that supports anything the conspiracy theory windbags have to sell, then we'll talk.--MONGO06:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

Actually, no this wasn't the same as a rollback, because a rollback, as you very well know, leaves no explanation of why the revert took place. I also don't see how my current RfA has anything to do with this article. If you don't think I should be an admin, that is fine, make your voice heard loud and clear on the RfA page. Let's try to keep this page germane to the topic at hand. Now, it is obvious from your edit summaries for your resposnes to my comments (i.e., "bs" and "baloney") that nothing I can say will convince you to change your mind. Therefore, I'm going to leave the issue up to a consensus of editors on this page to decide whether either of our edits are POV or not, or whether another way of wording the sentence is better. Pepsidrinka06:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

I don't think an admin candidate should call my edit POV when it isn't. It is the same POV of the majority of the world that has access to a free press, democracy, civil liberties and it is the findings of the 25,000+ federal, state city and reputable outside investigators that have worked on this case. It is so absurd that your complete reversion of my small change is both labelled as POV and that you summarily now argue that I am somehow POV with the use of the words "consipracy theorists" and "factual". No one has provided one ounce of verifiable proof that contradicts the findings of the these researchers. All the nonsense posted by those that refute the evidence is from non peer reviewed websites that list a few complete non experts who are armed only with their opinions. No, your continued inability to see that I am not POV when I support the factual and scientifically known explanation for the events of 9/11 gives me great pause...what did you think, that I made this stuff up?--MONGO08:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

Re: MONGO's comments - While I don't buy the conspiracy theories, we can't just cut the section and completely ignore their viewpoint. It's a fact that some people (however small the minority) question the official, factual, mainstream... account. We can't at all verify their theories, but we can verify that they say "x". We just need to very briefly say that these people say "x", refer to the main conspiracy article, and leave it at that. -) 05:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

Pepsidrinka asked me to come here and take a look at the arguments on the talk page. Mongo, I think you're losing your balance. You can't just threaten other editors and insist that any views contradicting your own be removed. I understand your frustration, I think -- I share your view of the events and think that the conspiracy theories are tin-foil-hat kookery. If you worked at Ground Zero for six weeks, of course this is a highly emotional topic for you. That said, you aren't helping your own side by trying to impose your will. That suggests that you don't trust the strength of your case to make your points for you. I don't think that's the impression you want to give. Your wikistress levels must be stratospheric by now -- why don't you just take a break from this article for a week? You may come back and find that there are others who will shoulder the load of keeping the article factual and that you don't have to be Atlas. Or you may find that it's drifted into strange waters, in which case you could easily rally support for getting it back on track. Zora08:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

I am not losing my balance, Zora. Thanks for questioning my motives. I have not threatened any others here...I would very much like to see some diffs on this matter. I am not at a high wikistress level and I do not appreciate your insinuation that this may be the case. I do not trust any admin candidate that reverts my simple change to this article in which I changed "amateur researchers" to "conspiracy theorists" and "mainstrean" to "factual". Pepsidrinka then edit summaries that this is a "story" andf that I am "POV". How on earth can I be the one who is POV when what I am writing jives with the findings by every reputable researcher on this planet, every free government, every country with access to civil liberties, a free press and a decent educational system? What part of NOT do you not understand? Wikipedia does not give undue weight to things that have no weight. There is no weight aside from opinions that contradict the official findings. Now, had I comletely removed the link to the subarticle and the entire passage I could appreciate some raised eyebrows, but I didn't...all I did was alter the passage. Looks like you're picking sides, not being neutral.--MONGO08:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

+ +
+
+ The Controlled Demolition Fairy Tale + +

First, the impact "'and"' the fire both contributed to the failure of the structure. Most of the conspiracy theory arguments are based on the suggestion that one or the other "'by itself"' was not sufficient to cause failure. Possibly that's true, but since the impact and the fire both happened, it's completely irrelevant.

+

The video clearly shows that the point of structural failure for each tower was the point of impact. There is no way explosives could have been planted there. They could not be planted before the impact because it was impossible to know precisely which floors would be the impact site. Planting explosives after the impact would require people

+

able to calculate the necessary quantities and locations of explosive charges without knowing the details of the impact damage

+

able to enter the buildings and carry a significant quantity of explosives as well as oxygen and breathing equipment, all without being seen

+

willing to plant explosives in a very large fire (an acre in area and across several floors)

+

willing to commit the premeditated murder of the remaining victims and rescue workers still in the building

+

willing to sacrifice their own lives

+ + +

+ + + Peter Grey + + 05:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC) + +

+ + +

Absolutely...it's a fairy tale...I was reading this section from Controlled Demolition, Inc...http://www.controlled-demolition.com/default.asp?reqLocId=7reqItemId=20030225133807..it states that the J.L. Hudson Department Store is "At 439 ft. tall Hudson’s is the tallest building the tallest structural steel building ever imploded. At 2.2 million square feet, Hudson's is the largest single building ever imploded."...the article goes on to state that, " Under CDI direction, Homrich/NASDI’s 21 man crew needed three months to investigate the complex and four months to complete preparations for CDI’s implosion design." and also discusses that they had to torch many steel columns to weaken them and, "CDI’s 12 person loading crew took twenty four days to place 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex. Over 36,000 ft of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay elements were installed in CDI’s implosion initiation system, some to create the 36 primary implosion sequence and another 216 micro-delays to keep down the detonation overpressure from the 2,728 lb of explosives which would be detonated during the demolition."...now that sounds like a lot of work to implode one building less than half the size of either one of the WTC...and this company is the foremost one in the world in controlled demolition. There is no theory about controlled demolition that will explain how a project this massive would have gone undetected.--MONGO06:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

First of all, the South Towers main support columns where not even hit, the plane hit the building on a angle, ejecting most of its fuel outside the building. So the "the impact "'and"' the fire both contributed" is not valid to the South Tower. Sure, some "'exterior"' columns where knocked off, but they didnt do much inte the first place, just look at the picture: http://911review.com/errors/wtc/imgs/woman_wtc.jpg. The outer columns that where not knocked out are in perfect condition, every one of the is parallel to the other. Except for the whole, theres not even the slightest sign of compromise in the outer columns structural integrity due to the hit. The outer columns not being affected, it is imposible to claim that the 47 interrior core columns would have been effected, they where "magnitudes" larger, and most importantly: 'they where not hit in the first place. Regarding the fires, take a look at the girl on the picture: http://images.google.se/images?hl=svq=wtc%20woman%20holebtnG=Google-s%C3%B6kningsa=Ntab=wi, do you see any signt of any great fire? If they where any flames, they where not on the part that was hit and not big enough to scare off the girl.

+

Further, if the hit was indeed a important factor to the collaps, why was it not the North Tower that collapsed first? It was hit with a "'direct"' hit, going straight to the core columns, hower, it fell 10 minutes after the South Tower, even though it was hit 17 minutes "'before"' the South Tower. This proves that the hit was insignificant, the building "'not"' receiving the direct hit "'and"' having most of its jet fuel ejected lasted 27 minutes less.

+

But most importantly: Not even the official version claims that the hit gave any significant damage. They specualte that it might have blown of "'some"' of the firecoating on "'some"' of the columns, not that it maters sine i proved above that even without "'any"' firecoating on "'any"' of the columns, not even a single column would get much hoter that the boiling point of water. Not that it would mater att al anyway, considering that there was 46 other columns in case one of them would become elastic, the building had 600% redundancy.

+

The explosives where planed long ahead, there was 24/7 construction, of course, since the two towers where basicly a huge city with 40 000+ people in them. There was a some major contruction work the weeks before the attack, and guees who was the the cheif of security in the buildings: Marvin Bush. What a conicidence!

+

So there was no problem puting in the charges in advance, considering that there was a normal procedure of 24/7 reparirs and that Marvin Bush was in charge. The explosives where on multiple floors, from top to botom, as can be seen in the any video of the fall. For example, see http://www.letsroll911.org/phpwebsite/images/photoalbum/5/wtc_small_1056.jpg, the charges go of before the fall even getting close to it.

+

All the arguements regarding the imposibility of planting the charges "'after"' the hit are widely employed to prove that the implosion of building 7 was also planed far ahead, and not as Larry Silverstein said:

+ + +

"I said, 'You know, we've had such terrible loss of life, may be the "'smartest thing to do"' is, is pull it. And they made that "'decision"' to pull and then we watched the building collapse.

+ + +

Face it, the 40+ floor building seven was not even hit by anything, even less having any jet fuel in it, and it still imploded. Did Usama do that? Oh, and for you guys that dont belive the USA government is capable of doing big Covert operations: The Manhattan Project:

+ + +

"The project's origins were in fears during the 1930s that Nazi Germany was also investigating such weapons of its own. Born out of a small research program which began in 1939, the Manhattan Project would eventually employ over "'130,000 people and cost a total of"' nearly $2 billion USD ("'$20 billion"' in 2004 dollars based on CPI), and resulted in the creation of multiple production and research sites operated in "'secret"'.

+ + +

--Striver13:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

You got anything new? We've seen all this before. Where's the proof? I don't know how you think this stuff is going to go in this article, cause it isn't...take it to the conspiracy theory pages. If you're so convinced you have the truth, get ahold of the major newspapaers and let them put this on the front page. I'll be waiting.--MONGO13:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

Yeah, that was a great rebutal. Where did you stop reading? --Striver14:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

I'm tryiny to stay out of this, but the Manhattan project comparison is so poor I feel a need to respond. First, the vast majority of the project occured in the middle of nowhere, not in a crowded city. Second, among many in the physics community, the existence of the project was close to an open secret(see I believe the Feynman biography Genius where this is mentioned), third, the Manhattan project did not stay secret indefinitely but only for a very short time, and yet no one from any such conspiracy has come forward at this time. In any event, this is all highly irrelevant since anything we argue about on the talk page is almost by definition original research and so runs afoul of OR. I therefore suggest that all editors chill. JoshuaZ14:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

Posted above by me is not original research...it is directly from the webpages of Controlled Demolition, Inc. It is properly attributed and definitely not original research.--MONGO14:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

Connecting that to the difficulty at blowing up the trade centers is OR since the source doesn't make that connection. JoshuaZ14:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

No, it's not original researche...the building menetioned is the largest building ever imploded...it is significantly smaller than any of the WTC buildings...if it was that much work to implode the largest building ever, then the task of doing the same to WTC would have been signifacnt bigger...simply analogy. I merely cited the largest building ever brought down, by the foremost company that does this type of work anywhere.--MONGO14:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

Yes it is OR, it runs afoul of "it introduces an argument (without citing a reputable source for that argument) which purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position" and "it introduces a synthesis of established facts in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing the synthesis to a reputable source." OR is quite strict, and this is included. JoshuaZ15:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

What are you talking about...it is not in the article...it is just on the discussion page as an analogy. Are you telling me that the webpage of this company is original research...how are they not a reputable source of the info...do I also need to find a media link of the event as backup? If it took this much work to bring down a building that is less than a quarter the mass of either one of the WTC towers and even smaller than WTC7, as a comparative analogy, what amount of work would be needed to be done to bring the WTC towers and WTC7. There is no original research about what the largest building brought down was as it is linked right there to that companies website.--MONGO15:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

My point in bringing up that it is OR is that it can't go in the article. The talk pages are for improving the articles. Since a) none of this can go in the article due to OR and b) no one is going to convince anyone else on this talk page, this is not a good use of the talk page. JoshuaZ15:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + + + JoshuaZ...you are completely mistaken. It is not original research if stated as "According to Controlled Demolitions, Inc., the largest building ever imploded was the 439 foot tall J.L. Hudson Department Store." and then linked to that webpage...this is not a violation of original research. It isn't very useful in this article but I am going to use it in the conspiracy theory article. You also need to review the undue weight clause of NOT. The reason the conspiracy theory non science is barely mentioned here is because to do so violates undue weight. As far as this not being a good use for this talk page...what do you think talk pages are for?--MONGO15:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC) + + + +

The desired implication is OR. that is the argument the argument that 1) the tallest building every imploded was 439 feet 2) the world trade center was much taller 3 "therefore" the world trader would have been nearly impossible to implode. The "therefore" in the third step makes it OR. I don't know whether the article gives undue weight to the conspiracy theories and I will need to think about that. As for your last point, talk pages are not for general free for all discussions and arguments, we have things like Usenet for that. Wikipedia has limited server space and we should use talk pages for things that are relevant to the articles. We are after all trying to make an encyclopedia here. JoshuaZ15:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

After having looked at the article, I don't see any issue of undue weight, it is only three sentences in the article for a fairly commonly discussed/believed idea. JoshuaZ15:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + + + No, it's an analogy. It is commonly used thoroughout Wikipedia. It is not original research. Talk pages are for the general free for all of discussing article content and that is exactly what we are doing...what on earth do you think the talk pages are here for. Wikipedia does not have limited server space...server space is cheap...it's the "servers" that aren't. We are, afterall, trying to make an encyclopedia here...then get busy...I have 140 articles and stubs....and not one of them is POV. They are all referenced and neutral and do not give undue weight to conspiracy theories and unproven innuendo. We don't have to even say "therefore" as far as the comparative analogy...the reader can see that on their own. In other words, we give due weight to what is proven...A: the largest building ever imploded was 439 feet...B: each WTC tower was 1,350 feet approx. NO as i said...that is why it isn't in here...we don't give undue weight.--MONGO15:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC) + + + +

The analogy is attempting to make an argument, it is therefore OR. Please reread OR. As for servers, whenever a talk page is larger it takes the servers longer to load it and increases the load on the servers. It would have been more accurate to say that used server space on a single page is indirectly limited. And I'm curious as to where you see a claim that talk pages are for general free for all discussion. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum, it is an encyclopedia. I'm also now highly confused about your comments about undue weight, what exactly are you asserting? JoshuaZ16:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + + + Stop indenting to infinity. The talk page can be archived. We don't have much of the conspiracy theory rhetoric here because it is unproven allegations and silly innuendo...it would violate the undue weight clause of NOT to provide more coverage of these silly notions than we do...hence the sub articles which discuss these issues in more detail. I've seen talk pages at over 350kb and there is at least one article I know of that is longer than that. Of course this isn't a discussion forum , but we are still discussing issues related to this article so what on earth are you talking about....oh nevermind.--MONGO16:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC) + + + +

Sure, i have no problem with that. Then on the other hand, im not saying the operation of setting the buildings with charges employed 130 000 people. Im bringing this up since there have been several calls on this talk page for evidence that discredits the official version. I just provided it, and MONGO gave me a brilliant rebutal to my points. --Striver14:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

Was that a personal attack? It's been refutted over and over...what can you tell me about Robert Bloom, Striver.--MONGO14:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

Are you trying to say something?--Striver15:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

Yeah, I want to know about Robert Bloom, Striver.--MONGO15:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

Where did you get that name from? Did i mention it? How is it relevant to this article? What is your point?--Striver15:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

If it is a problem it was CIVIL not NPA. In any case, it was borderline. As I said earlier, I strongly suggest everyone to calm down. JoshuaZ14:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

I have no idea what you are talking about. What was borderline and who.--MONGO14:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

Maybe I misread your question. When you asked "Was that a personal attack?" I thought you were refering to Striver's comment that your rebuttal was "brilliant" which in the context looked like sarcasm. Did I misunderstand your question?

+ + +

Yes, I see, I was asking Striver if when he referred to my response as "brilliant" he was trying to insult me...that is what I meant.--MONGO14:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + + + "the South Towers main support columns where not even hit" - The exterior columns (the ones the plane went through) "were" the main support columns. There's been interviews with the designers and the floor plans have been shown on television. The "outer columns that where not knocked out are in perfect condition" - Someone, "'during the fire"', went out there and inspected them? That could only be done from the inside of the building. Peter Grey15:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC) + + + +

No, this are the support columns: http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/fig3.gif http://www.thaiengineering.com/column/lesson_disaster/World_trade_center/image/wtc.jpg, the ones in the middle. This is a closeup of one of 47 middle support colums http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v603/bobbysophistry/wtc7beams.jpg. Compare it to a closeup of a exterior column http://www.mit.edu/activities/safe/wtc/wtc066_1024x768.jpg, they where not even solid http://www.caddigest.com/subjects/wtc/select/clifton/images/image014.gif.

+ + +

The engineer who designed the building says they're support columns. If you don't understand why a load-bearing column would be hollow, go find a mechanics of deformable solids textbook. Peter Grey05:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

As for the woman in the hole, it clearly shows that there was no "raging inferno" at the tower, there where no temperatures that could bend steel. No human can survive being even remotly close to a fire that bends the core support columns, but in the picutre of the woman, the hole is picth black, no fire in sight at all.

+

Here is a another picture of a explosive going of before the fall even reached it http://letsroll911.org/phpwebsite/index.php?module=photoalbumPHPWS_Album_id=5PHPWS_Photo_op=viewPHPWS_Photo_id=199--Striver15:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

Striver, can you and Mongo please take this argument somewhere else? Any arguments on the talk pages that go to factual issues are by nature OR. This is therefore a waste of the talk page (incidentally, using that photo as evidence is ridiculous since so many things could cause that puff such as structural collaspse starting to occur in that section). Now, please take it elsewhere. JoshuaZ15:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

Striver an I do not have to take this elsewhere...we are discussing article content...why would we discuss article content elsewhere?--MONGO15:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

This is again going back to the same old conspiracy "'theory"'. Can we PLEASE move this to the sub-page, and devote more time to telling what happened, when it happened, and where it happened? Nothing on this article should contain "'any"' speculating, all should go on the sub-page if it goes anywhere.

+

Thank you, "--Shark Fin 10116:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)"

+ + +

Everything i wrote is sourcable to multiple persons in the 9/11 truth movement. I wrote it since MONGO is claiming that the 9/11 truth movement have no valid issues to raise, so i raised some of them on a very narrow topic: "physical evidence of demolition". I could expand the issues to at least twice as many points, and there are at least 20 more issues to go. None of the points i have raised have been successfully refuted, minsters, actors, scholars, former CIA, 50% of New York, 80% of Pakistan, all of them reject the official version on valid grounds, yet it is still presented as factual. That is a blatant vioaltion of NPOV as you will ever get. --Striver00:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

That 50% of New Yorkers is, again, a misquote. 50% think the feds may have known about the unpcoming event and didn't do enough to stop it...but this has nothing to do with a twist as you would have it that the feds were behind the events, orchestrating it...80% of Pakistanis do not agree with the U.S. Government findings....so what...statistics do not determine the truth in such matters...evidence does...do you have one ounce of proof that will stand the test of cross examination that there was contolled demolition...no...I see, that's is of course a NO, right? Oh, that's right...Charlie Sheen thinks the feds covered things up...yeah, that's it...just so you know, Striver, if you polled 1,000 Americans about whether they believe in UFO's, you'd probably find a lot who do...yet there is not one shred of proof of their existence.--MONGO01:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

"half (49.3%) of New York City residents and 41% of New York citizens overall say that some of our leaders "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act," according to the poll conducted by Zogby International. http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=855

+ + +

The key word is "that they "'consciously"' failed ", not "that didn't do enough to stop it" Its a HUGE difference, and the missquote comes not from me. The evidence is easy, here are a few:

+ + The builidng fell att free fall speed. That is imposible, unless there was explosives involved + The fall produced a huge dust cloud. Such amount of energy production is imposible, unless there was explosives involved + 15 second fires does not bend steel columns, specialy not when most of the fuel is consumed outside the building. + There was no realy big fire to begin with, it was cool enough for a woman to stand on the entry hole of the building + There was pools of melted steel almost a month after the fall. That is imposible, unless there was explosives involved + *"'Nothing's impossible, this is just very unlikely. But there could still be an explanation outside of explosives. Most of it wasn't entirely melted either, just really hot... here's the NASA photo http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/rubblefires.html... another photo http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/hotSlag.jpg... commentary http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/moltensteel.html... and video http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%20archive/red_hot_ground_zero_low_quality.wmv"' + The wrong tower fell first + *"'Why? Which one was supposed to fall first?"' + Multiple ejections are seen on the videos, only fully acconter for by the explosion explanation. + *"'Totally true... anybody got an explanation besides explosives? These things happen thirty floors below the pancaking... really weird."' + Building 7 was not hit by anything, yet it also fell at freefall speed + The owner of all 3 buildings admited that they decided to "pull" one of the buildings. + *"'Silverstein indeed said, "pull", but was referring to the firefighters. They pulled the building of it's firefighters... there are plenty of debunking sites on people who misquote him... Besides, who would admit it in an interview if they really did do it? Even those that think the buildings were blown up don't use this as a valid point http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/pullit.html"' + and the aditional large list of things that are not related to physical evidence, such as NORAD standing down, Pentagon being blind, the Put options and much more... + *"'Don't forget the damage to the lobby... the windows were all broken and huge marble panels had been broken off the walls. Was this from a plane crash 80 floors above? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lobby_damage_and_cloud.jpg"' + +

--Striver02:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

--Comments in "'bold"' were made by Cnelson C. Nelson 03:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

+ +
+
+ section break + +

as for "using that photo as evidence is ridiculous since so many things could cause that puff such as structural collaspse starting to occur in that section", its not valid, since the fall was not even close to the puffs, the structural was 100% stable at the time of the puffs being ejected. It was at leas 20-30 floors in between the puff and the fall. Even if it was as you said, why did the force get ejected through a single window 20-30 floors below?--Striver00:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

because the core collapsed faster than the exterior. It wasn't uniformly pancaking, the inside collapsed faster http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html. You can tell because the TV antenna starts to fall before the building does. So while the outside looks fine, you have shit tumbling down the core floors ahead of the exterior. The overpressure is what's ejecting stuff through the windows.

+

--Mmx101:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + + + "'According to NIST, this is a claim they specifically debunk. You're assuming that because the antenna dropped first that the core of the building fell first, but that's not always correct. They say that if you look from other angles, the antenna appears to drop because its falling away, because the top portion of building is falling away from the viewer."' Cnelson C. Nelson 15:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC) + + + +

Mmx1, I saw nothing of that kind being said in the link you presented. I further find the idea quite implausable. Could you source that statement?--Striver02:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

The site is a companion to a 1-hour special that Nova ran on PBS; you should be able to find it on a torrent site, titled "Why the towers fell". I'll try to find another link. --Mmx102:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

Yes, that should be intresting. Im intrested on all points of view. --Striver02:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

How about http://www.911-strike.com/NYTimes_WTC.htm this? It's in the second to last paragraph. It's from a conspiracy site, and was originally in the New York Times. --Mmx102:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC) --x Mmx1 02:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

+ +
+
+ Explain these anamolies + +

There are some things that are difficult to explain.

+

"'Anamoly 1 - The lobby of the South Tower"'

+ + An image containing frames from the following two videos http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lobby_damage_and_cloud.jpg + Timecode from 15 seconds to 30 seconds into this http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2837921252105908090q=call+911 video + 45:14 to 45:45 in http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848q=loose+change Loose Change (BTW, I don't recommend the video because it makes a lot of bad points) + +

"'Anamoly 2 - Multiple Puffs Occurring Below Collapse"'

+

Please explain Cnelson C. Nelson 05:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + + + http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/tower2_exp1.jpg Image 1 + http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/kahn/wtc1a.jpg Image 2 - Right side, below fire + http://www.reservoir.com/extra/wtc/wtc-tiny.1054.jpg Image 3 and http://www.reservoir.com/extra/wtc/wtc-tiny.1056.jpg Image 4 + 51:59 to 52:58 of http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848q=loose+change Loose Change (Once again, I don't recommend the video because the commentary is too biased) + +

+ Cnelson C. Nelson 05:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC) +

+ + +

Don't worry, all anomolies and whacked out theories are totally irrefutably debunked over at Collapse of the World Trade Center. I don't see nuthin about no suicide hijack survivors here though. Excuse me, there is something about the BBC mistakenly or something reporting some. Whats up with all that anyway?SkeenaR05:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

It's true...yeah...thanks to Uncle Sam.--MONGO06:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

SkeenaR, I don't see how the wikipedia page, Collapse of the World Trade Center, cleears up the specific points I made citing video and photographic evidence. I read through the article, but could you quote the parts that explain damage to the lobby or the puffs?

+

Yes, like I said, I agree that Loose Change has really stupid theories; the BBC posted an apology to the story about the living suicide hijackers, stating that the people they found and wrote about in the article had the same name but were different from the hijackers. But I was using it for the video evidence evidence of the collapse. I, just like almost anyone who watches the isolated segments of video would, have unanswer questions about why these two anamolies occurred. I would greatly like an explanation.

+

+ Cnelson C. Nelson 14:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC) +

+ + +

I know that page doesn't clear anything up. It's just opinion, nothing more. What I was wondering is if the feds ever managed to explain the living suicide hijackers. SkeenaR20:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

Also, the feds published photos, not just names, of living people as suicide hijackers. Did they ever clear this up? I'm curious about this. SkeenaR04:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

SkeenaR, I believe the BBC article was a simple mixup... the people alive had identical names with the hijackers. It looks bad for the BBC, but I'm pretty sure I remember reading an apology. In any case, here's someone that debunks it fairly well http://www.911myths.com/html/still_alive.html. Cnelson C. Nelson 04:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

I don't think it's only to do with a BBC article, but I could be wrong. Thanks for this. I'll check it out. Shouldn't there be a list of these perpetrators? SkeenaR04:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

+ +
+
+ 84%! + +

84% of 40 000 voters agree with Alex Jones! See CNN voting poll http://www.cnn.com/POLLSERVER/results/23968.exclude.html

+

This article violates NPOV! --Striver23:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

"This QuickVote is not scientific and reflects the opinions of only those Internet users who have chosen to participate. The results cannot be assumed to represent the opinions of Internet users in general, nor the public as a whole. The QuickVote sponsor is not responsible for content, functionality or the opinions expressed therein."

+

"the US government covered up the real events" != agree with Alex jones. Alex jones goes waaaay beyond that statement. --Mmx123:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

Why stop there? 100% of 33600 voters agree with Alex Jones. Tom harrison Tom Harrison 23:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

"" Do you "'agree with Charlie Sheen"' that the U.S. government covered up the real events of the 9/11 attacks?"

+ + +

agree with Charlie Sheen=agree with Alex Jones --Striver23:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

It's "agree with Charlie Sheen that X happened", not "agree with Charlie Sheen's views on 9-11"

+

Why get worked up about it? SkeenaR00:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

I'm not going to make up my mind until I hear what Tom Cruise thinks. Tom harrison Tom Harrison 00:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

I'm not going to make up my mind until I hear how many people agree with what Ilona Staller thinks about it. DanielDemaret00:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

Good point; She may actually be better-qualified than either of them. Tom harrison Tom Harrison 01:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

No, Art Bell is the true authority on this. Get it right. SkeenaR01:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

As soon as I heard Sheen was on Alex Jones and that it was turning into a story, I KNEW I was going to start hearing about Cruise. Ad Hominem. As long as it wasn't agreement with officialdom and mainstreamdom it wouldn't have mattered what Sheen said. Wikidiscussion seems to have a lot in common with the media circus, namely its predictability in situations like this. But that's the thing. People can say Sheen isn't reliable or that he isn't an engineer or whatever, but as he said, he would like people to challenge him on his facts instead of using cheap smear tactics. Striver might appreciate responses like that as well. SkeenaR00:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

Charlie on CNN: prisonplanet.com/articles/march2006/230306Sheen_CNN.htm

+

"'ALEX ON CNN"': www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2006/250306showbiztonightalex.htm

+

--Striver00:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

One major problem with the poll is that it asks whether people think that the US government covered something up. I am surprised there was not 100% agreement. Most people believe that covering up things is what the US government does. That is why it has to share power with congress, courts and press to help keep an eye on things. Had the question been on any particular conspiracy theory instead - say for example : "Do you agree with Charlie Sheen that no plane crashed into the Pentagon?" - then I am would bet that the numbers in favour would have been less than a majority. The crux is this: What are they covering up, and does it really matter to the general interpretation of this article? I have several doubts on many issues in the 9/11 issues, but I still believe that the article, at least last time I read it, seemed to show approximately what happened based on the best evidence we have so far. DanielDemaret18:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

+ +
+
+ Lost conspiracies + +

Serious question: Is there any reason this line of argument is here and not 9/11 conspiracy theories or Collapse of the World Trade Center? There is a certain value in catologuing the intuition-based misconceptions about structural failures (sort of encyclopedic and sure to be entertaining), but it's not clear to me where the best place is. Not this article, obviously, but some consensus as to where it belongs might be helpful. Perhaps there should be an article dedicated to the topic - people other than the conspiracy nuts are probably curious about it. Peter Grey02:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

I agree. This obviously isn't the best place for discussion about structural failure or conspiracy theories, I think simply that where things are unproven it should be noted. Reported on by Fox doesn't count as verifiability. SkeenaR03:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

I think Peter Grey is right. This is not the place to address most of these topics. 9/11 conspiracy theories is actively edited, as are several other pages. Tom harrison Tom Harrison 03:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

Actively edited? Oh boy! Sounds kind of like "get the hell out of here". SkeenaR06:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

How do you figure that...all your group is yapping about is conspiracy theory rhetoric so why bother trying to voice that here...it's not going to be put in the article.--MONGO07:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

Rhetoric rhetoric. What group are you refering to? I thought I asked at least a couple of legitimate questions since I've been around here. I'm not going to push POV. I admit I could have been wrong about Tom's comment by the way. SkeenaR07:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

Sure, I meant 'Come on over' not 'Go away.' I follow both pages. Tom harrison Tom Harrison 19:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

Look at all the evidence, not just from shifty websites on the net. Not to sound like I'm equating Bigoot here...but if you try and google Bigfoot, you're going to find virtually no websites about that situation on the net that are reliable witness to Bigfoot. No proof exists for this being...none. There is a little tidbid here and another morsel over here...but none of it makes a meal. The same is true with the events of 9/11. Many folks are hateful of the U.S. Government, many are unhappy with the fact that the hijackers were Muslim extremists, many just want to believe the fantastic. I work for the governement...my employers are simply too screwed up to pull this off as a controlled demolition stunt...no covert operation could possibly have done it...it would have been infinitely easier to fake the Apollo moon landings. UFO's are more plausible than a government conspiracy or controlled demolition on 9/11. Charlie Sheen's personal opinion on this matter is worthless, as is the original research of all these conspiracy theory websites.--MONGO07:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

OK, but do you really think all those sites are completely worthless? I mean, for example, a lot of those sites were trying to spread the word that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and this was in the leadup to the invasion. It seems that while a lot of stuff is far fetched, fairly often the stuff is factual but the mainstream media won't touch it. If this would have been payed attention to it could possibly have prevented a lot of bad things from happening don't you think? I think some of these things should be payed attention to. Some would say that stuff like this www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2006/260306WWThree.htm is the latest version. While not necessarily automatically believing it, how can one say that there is no value in listening to opinions such as this? SkeenaR00:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

I think it would be a bit unfair to say that all the websites supporting something other than the U.S. government findings are totally devoid of any decent questions or hypothesis. I apply the National Enqurier approach...some of the stuff they print appears to be factual and authoritative...the rest doesn't, so where is the line drawn. How can we use private websites to anything other than quote..as this website says X and the rebuttal that claim...this is the main reason the conspiracy theory webpages related to this events exist, and a big reason why I don't personally edit in them much. We would turn this article into a comment/rebuttal/coment on and on and it quickly becomes unencyclopedic. As far as the prison planet link you provide, it is the opinion of someone that may or may not be notable, but I don't see it as anything other than an opinion. He also mistakenly states that Tommy Franks resigned soon after the Iraq Invasion, which is not the case. He was still on board another year, and retired, not resigned, as he was a full general and it was time to retire or rotate to a desk job in Washington. I never once heard Franks say that the Iraq war was a mistake. I've also read that at least three Iraqi Generals claimed that the small stores of WMD's that Iraq did have were sent to Syria under the guise of humanitarian aid abord trucks and planes after Syria had a natural disaster. You knows about these kinds of things for sure.--MONGO09:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

You're right, this is an encyclopedia and it shoud contain encyclopedic information. But the mainstream media and the government are highly unreliable as sources on these issues. They have proven that much. We are always being sold things on false information and it's only reported as such after it's too late. You know what I mean? SkeenaR22:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

Sorry, but none of these non peer reviewed websites come close to the level of reliability of reports prepared by tens of thousands of investigators. As I said, the media would be all over this issue if there had been any conspiracy stuff to have any factual evidence to support it.--MONGO01:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

We'll just have to disagree on this one I guess. It was guys like Scott Ritter who were trying to sound the alarm in the example I gave the first time, there obviously was truth to it and it was only crazy conspiracy sites that payed any real attention to it. The media was not all over this, and there has been a big price. It doesn't seem that tens of thousands of investigators are enough, at least from these sources. True? SkeenaR01:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

What sources are you talking about...you mean the sources from silly websites that the average kindergardener would laugh at? Scott Ritter...ah yeah, the angry ex employee that not only did a lousy job, but got fired...that's the part THEY don't tell you...he was canned! So his revenge was to misrepresent what he found...and you're incorrect as the media was all over Scott Ritter's story soon as he went public.--MONGO02:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

"While the motives behind Ritter’s criticism of US-Iraq policy have been called into question by some, he is notable as being one of the only highly knowledgeable commentators on the Iraq WMD issue who correctly predicted that Iraq did not possess any significant WMD’s prior to the 2003 war."

+

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_RitterCommentary_on_Iraq.E2.80.99s_lack_of_WMD.E2.80.99s The Wikipedia article says Ritter resigned as weapons inspector. Also, how is saying "there are no WMD's there" a misrepresentation. If you can tell me, I would really like to know. Otherwise it seems pretty straight forward. SkeenaR02:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

Really, was he right? The facts that the WMD's are not there are linked to them not finding any. That doesn't mean they aren't there, or that they weren't there...I think you're still trying to link the conspiracy theory stuff with Bush desire to go to war. It sure would be nice if any of these websites had any proof whatsoever...for if there were indeed government involvement with all this, I'd be most displeased. So please, provide some proof of government coverup...even simply collusion will do...I have yet to find any.--MONGO02:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

Look, I'm not trying to put this stuff in the article, I'm not even saying that there for sure was a government coverup, I was merely trying to make the point that the government and mainstream media have proven themselves to be lousy sources for these articles. Why do you need rock solid proof of a coverup before you begin to question these sources? They're not dependable. Please don't say something like "well than, you should believe David Icke" because that's obviously no good either. This discussion might be a bit off topic, but I think it's relevant as far as sources are concerned. And I mean no offense by this, but saying that "The facts that the WMD's are not there are linked to them not finding any. That doesn't mean they aren't there, or that they weren't there..." seems like pseudoscience-by asserting claims which cannot be verified or falsified (claims that violate falsifiability) SkeenaR02:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

I have no problem discussing all you want about this matter, but as I said, I have examined the private websites with an open eye and I'm sorry, they simply are not based on much more than asking questions...they provide no answers and no proof. That doesn't mean they have no right to question any more than you or anyone else does.--MONGO04:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

+ +
+
+ Asymetrical POV + +

This quotatiton is for Nikodemos' profile... I thought it very appropriate.

+

I believe that one of the major sources of POV in wikipedia articles is what I call asymmetric controversy.

+

An asymmetric controversy is a controversy between two sides, one of which is particularly interested in the issue and fanatical in defending its POV, while the other doesn't care about the issue a whole lot. Articles on such issues will inevitably be biased in favor of the fanatical side, because they put most effort into writing about it.

+

Thus, an asymmetric controversy can be described as any controversial idea that is popular enough to attract a band of loyal supporters to defend it on wikipedia, but not popular enough to attract critics. Paradoxically, this means that any idea widely considered too insane to be criticized will have a favorable article written about it, since its advocates are fanatical about the issue while its opponents consider it too crazy to bother with. Keep in mind that what makes these controversies asymmetric is not the number of people on each side, but the intensity with which they defend their views. One single-minded user with a lot of time on his hands can hold off many disinterested users at once.

+

Quite appropriate for those doubting the official account. They may have some interesting points, but they're in a small and concerned minority. Don't let your concern drive you to edit an article from one POV. Here's a good link with common sense about many of the conspiracy theories http://www.911myths.com/. Cnelson C. Nelson 21:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

Just another website with a list of "odd coincidences" at best...hardly a scientific paper...it looks rather adolescent to be honest. Did you ever see the one comparing Kennedy with Lincoln and how they tried to show some connection with the two assassinations due to weird things like the two having V.P.'s with the last name of Johnson, and how many of the names involved in the circumstance regarding both situations had the same number of letters? You know, silly stuff like that. That's what this 911myths website looks like to me. Just a bunch of worthless info...just like Charlie Sheens opinion...who cares.--MONGO01:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

Have another look ;) SkeenaR06:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

I must say, that was a intresting link, the first one i see that acctualy tries to talk about the issues. I dont agree with everything they stated, but they made a few good points.--Striver23:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

"The truth deserves nothing less" SkeenaR23:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

i love it when someone does not even bother to read something, but decides its conpiracy-crap :D --Striver02:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

Now that Zacarias Moussaoui has plead in court that he knew of the impending attack on the WTC and that he was supposed to pilot one the planes, it seems that the conspiracy bunk is just that, a load of bunk. Other testimonials claimed that Moussaoui was actually supposed to be in a second wave, but todays court testimony by Moussaoui in which he admitted being directly involved in this matter sems to not even be mentioned by the conspiracist theory folks...gee, I wonder why.--MONGO04:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

I haven't heard about this testimony. Is it reliable? SkeenaR05:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

The conspiracy folks are on it.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2006/280306_b_Nut.htmprisonplanet.com/articles/march2006/280306_b_belt.htm SkeenaR23:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

Im sure its just as reliable as Timothys testimony, that is 0 (zero). Timotys testimony is countered by relality, not that anyone cares...--Striver12:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

Timothy who? SkeenaR22:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

I presume McVeigh. It's reliable that Moussaoui said what he said...is Moussaoui reliable? Not for me to decide. --Mmx123:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

MONGO, don't feel like you're alone in your thoughts here. When I first saw this page and the 9/11 conspiracy theories page, I went nuts. What I learned, however, is that Wikipedia has very strange rules, which results in a strange phenom -- that it doesn't matter what the truth is, just whether you've followed the Wiki rules or not, and the Wiki rules are flawed, because they don't favor facts. Strange place Wikipedia is. Never will be a real encyclopedia unless sourcing and fact-checking flaws are fixed. You'll learn that there are several pages on Wikipedia that are guarded by POV guard dogs, like this one, and trying to edit them is like peeing in the wind. If you need help supporting your perspective, drop me a line on my talk page. Also, both Skee and Striver are good guys -- even if they took the blue pill rather than the red one. Have fun, but don't take this place too seriously -- it's just entertainment. Cheers. Morton devonshire08:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

I totally agree with you about the kool-aid drinkers and anarchists that the rules attract, and that wikipedia ultimately cannot be a legitimate encyclopedia without some real form of peer review. However I think there is also an upside to the wikipedia rules. In that the fringe allegations and information is documented and can sometimes be interesting. Like finding about some little sensation or the "actual facts" surroundeding a film for example. Of course on pages involving religion and/or politics it just gets ridiculous--like here. I take comfort in the fact that those pov guard dogs are just wasting their time rearranging deck chairs on wikipedia articles, rather than being out in the real world "really" bothering me. keith 15:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

Blue pill? C'mon, I was pointing out that official or mainstream sources for the articles on this stuff are poor. And that it's probably wise to not just dismiss everything else out of hand.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_RitterCommentary_on_Iraq.E2.80.99s_lack_of_WMD.E2.80.99s That's all. How crazy is that? If you don't automatically buy the government story of the week, it's the "that guy believes lizard people rule the world" label for you. It's crap people, crap. These articles are not easy. And this UFO Kool-Aid stuff seems like a cheap diversion. SkeenaR21:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

I appreciate Morton's lightness on this matter, but I don't completely agree. This isn't a benign issue like Bigfoot or UFO's, in which misinformation about these items hurts no one. This is article space regarding events of stupendous violence in which thousands of people died...I take the situation here as seriously as anyone might if they were a survivor of a Nazi death camp and someone was posting information that the Holocaust never happened. It's benign to believe in UFO's...all one does is look silly. It's completely the opposite to go around spewing nonsense gathered from worthless websites that propose a government coverup regarding the events of 9/11. While I appreciate questions arguing that the "official" story about the events of 9/11 may be inaccurate, it is completely objectionable to try and put speculation that the government was behind this matter (based on zero proof) in article space in a main article such as this one. It's not like I just showed up at Wikipedia...http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=MONGOdbname=enwiki_p, so any learning about POV watchdogs and POV pushers happened long ago. Thanks anyway, Morton, for the kind words.--MONGO03:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

"I appreciate Morton's lightness on this matter, but I don't completely agree. This isn't a benign issue like Bigfoot or UFO's, in which misinformation about these items hurts no one."-I share this opinion. Here is another interesting quote-"I blame the media for failing to ask any questions. I blame them for failing to let us know whether the war was well researched, so we could make an educated decision whether or not to support it."

+

+ + + SkeenaR + + 21:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC) + +

+ + +

Hey! You have no monopoly on being a victim here, if your government had'nt killed its own citizen, blamed it on their former CIA asset and then blamed it on someone not even related to the attacks, and the American people hadn't been so gullible that they didn't even bothering to check the facts, 100,000 Iraqi's would not be burried today! Think about that! --Striver04:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

Dream on. Wonder what your nightmares are like if reality for you is so far off. By the 100,000 Iraqi's, you must mean about 10% of Iraqi's executed by Saddam...yes, it was truly a Garden of Eden with Saddam in power...every shia must have been sooooo happy then.--MONGO05:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

Mongo: About 500,000 dies in the iraq-iran war... that lasted 8 years... the current war has been 3 years, so if you're going by rates and you accept the 100,000 figure, the rates comparable... it's only half as bad as the worst parts of Saddam's rule. cnelson

+ + +

At least we didnt get mass bombed in Karbala every year, and we didnt get our national heritages blown away by American-british forces in Arabian guise. --Striver06:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

Really...maybe that's because Pakistan hasn't made a habit of invading it's neighbors...hey blame the UN...they supported the no fly zones, the first Gulf War and the embargo in which Saddam used oil for food money to build palaces to his vanity.--MONGO08:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

I think what's unfortunate is how the conspiracy nonsense has pre-empted rational discussion. Arguing does nothing - buildings fall down because of physics, not by consensus. Some questioning of the events would be healthy and useful. But hysterical conjectures based on fear and amateur engineering are not helpful, and just create a lot of noise that prevents worthwhile discussion. (Like the worthwhile discussion that's not happening here.) Peter Grey06:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

This brings up an interesting point. I wonder if people debate about a topic long enough, even though the premises of the debate are false, if the premises become true. I think, holding skeptism as my philosophy, that the public would come to believe the false premises as true. It would be truth through debate. cnelson

+ + +

You just started the controlled demolition talk again Peter. SkeenaR21:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

Oops. I bet if the controlled demolition "wasn't" physically impossible, no-one would talk about it at all.... Peter Grey04:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

Steel does not bend by having a fireball "outside" the building, fireproof or no fireproof. Specialy when the jetfuel is consumed after 15 seconds and the collapse comes after 50 minutes. Thats the fysics, there is no arguing to that. --Striver06:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

The point is there's no merit in arguing the "fysics". The "physics", on the other hand, "do" say that a building compromised by an impact about 27 times the force it was designed to withstand, and subjected to a very large and prolonged fire, "is" susceptible to collapse. Peter Grey07:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

27 times? Never heard of that, care to share your sources? Prolonged fire? I would not call a 15 second fireball "outside" the building as "a very large and prolonged fire".--Striver07:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

Where'd all that smoke come from for an hour plus after this "15 second fireball" you keep bringing up? What were all those firefighters doing around the WTC for a month after the collapse?--MONGO08:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

The "'back"' smoke you are refering to is smoke after the burning of stuff like somputers, furniture and stuff, nothing even remotly close to what is necesary to bend solid steel. What you just claimed is that they build a 100 story building that collapesed from an "ordinary" fire. Further, guees what "'black"' smoke indicates? Yes, it indicates that the furniture and stuff where not even burning in theyr optimal temperature. Furniture on a fire that produces black smoke causes the failure of a solid steel column building? Not in my lifetime. Or anyone elses, for that matter. Here, compare this http://911review.com/errors/wtc/imgs/woman_wtc.jpg so called fire, with http://www.foxnews.com/images/154020/2_21_021205_madrid_fire_350.jpg a real fire. Neither of the buildings fell to due the fire, one fell due to explosives.--Striver13:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

Oh, and here is a quote from a firefighter, for your benefit:

+ + +

"Ladder 15, we've got two "'isolated"' pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down "'with two lines"'.

+ + +

--Striver13:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

Oh, so firefighters are demolitions experts now? Skilled guys we have in the FDNY! Lines are slang for hoses. They're saying they can probably put out the pockets if they bring up two hoses. --Mmx115:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

Mmx1, I don't think Striver was trying to the firefighters were going to knock down the building. He (striver) was trying to convince you of the weakness of the fires by quoting a witnesses testimony. And as for you, Striver, many things burn and produce 'black' smoke, but are not necessarily signs of oxygen starvation http://www.911myths.com/html/black_smoke.html (I go back to the same source because he tries to offer the best perspective of understanding... if he can't debunk something entirely, he'll say it). Cnelson C. Nelson 07:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

Again, I see fire in the image from your website you keep using as a reference, above the person. The other image was taken at night. Black smoke equals chemical or fuel fire, white smoke equals paper or wood fire. Again...you seem to know nothing about how the WTC was built...and no one has claimed that solid steel had to melt in the correct reports. I went to an engine academy Striver and fought forest fires for the NPS for a dozen years. Even forest fires get hot enough to melt an automobile. You know absolutely nothing about fire and that is apparent to me.--MONGO14:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

Be polite, Mongo. Cnelson C. Nelson 07:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

First, we are not talking about automobiles, not even solid iron columns, but steel columns. And i didn't say melt, i said "failure", or bended. And no computer and furniture is even going to get remotly close to the temperature to bend steel ("'but, you'd agree that heat weakens steal, right?"'). Specialy not the tiny fires on the picture ("'don't forget perspective, the buildings are 207 feet across... 7/10ths of a football field"'). Bro, do you realy think they built a 100 floor skyskraper that would collapse due to a 15 second fireball, followed by a 50 minute fire of copmputers and stuff, a fire almost having been self-extinguished after 50 minutes?`

+

Yes, the picture was taken at night, it does not change the amount of fire, the wtc fire was not even close to the madrid fire, not in magnitude, not in lenght, not in quantity. You seem to be under the impression that "any" fire will bend solid steel, as long as it burn for 50 minutes and the whitewash commision says so. Ever tried to cook food? Did your pot bend after 50 minutes? Im sure it was not even maid of steel, even less solid steel of "'gigantic"' proportions. --Striver15:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

Try a full plane load of jet fuel. WTC was not built to handle that much flamable fuel being dumped into the middle of structure. --StuffOfInterest15:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

It should be obvious to anyone with eyes that a full plane load of jet fuel was not dumped into the middle of the south tower. ("'yes, a lot of it exploded during the impact"') --Hyperbole07:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

The "centre" of the fire, obviously, was hotter than the edges ("'wouldn't the edges have more oxygen? I'm not a fire engineer though"'). It seems that Striver is asserting that buildings can't fall down except deliberately. That's a statement of faith - and it's not true in the real world. It's like saying the "Titanic" couldn't sink. Some people did say that; they were wrong. When engineers design a building to withstand an airplane collision, it doesn't mean they replace a few windows and everyone goes back to their desk the next day, it means the building stays standing long enough to be evacuated. 95% of the time. If your intuition is telling you something different, it's because intuition gets it wrong in situations like this. There's a reason that it's illegal for amateurs to engineer buildings. Peter Grey16:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

The fire and plane where on the edge of the tower that fell first, so your arguent is voided. Further, i never said any such thing, building can fall from earthquakes and other things, what i "did" say is that no steel frame building can collapse from a ordinary fire, no matter if there was any 15 fireball "outside" the building or not, and no mater if there is any fireproofing or not. "'but there haven't been many steel frame buildings that have had a number of their columns damaged from an airplane impact of this magnitude along with fire"'

+ + +

The buildings were designed to withstand a low speed impact from a similar sized aircraft that may have gotten lost in the fog and flying at much less than 200mph...not a high speed impact flying into the building at 490 and 590 mph respectively. No one knows how much damage was done to the towers internal steel...my guess would be that it was signicant...no one was able to use the elevators or the stairwells (all in the middle of the structures) to get down in the North Tower...that should clearly indicate that the internal damage was signicant.--MONGO09:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

The plane did "not" hit the center of the tower caused the first collapse. If the hit was of any greater relevance, the tower that was hit straight on would fall first, not the tower that was hit on the side, missing the core columns and dumping most the jet fuel "outside" the building. Such glaring contradictions clearly debunk the official theory. --Striver10:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

Whatever. Get the international science and engineering community to agree with you then we'll care. keith 11:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

They do agree that the hit itself did little or nothing. There are plenty ("'ie, a very small group"') of scientists and enigneers that "'do not"' agree with funiturefire+15sec fireball equals bent steel, but most of them stfu due to fear of being ridiculed. I went and talked for "20 minutes" with my sister math and structural engineerer (or was it? "hållfasthetslära" on swedish) about the allegation that they collapsed due to hit+fire, and after the 20 minutes (lunch), he agreed that he had no idea and that the offcial theory made no sense. There are examples of people that did speek out, and got fired, for example that guy that made sure the columns in the towers where of good quality. He sent a letter and said it was impossible that the columns bent due to fire (he knows, he was the guy that exmained them), and he was fired for not stfu. --Striver11:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

MONGO, take a look at this guy: )

+ + +

Oh...yeah...gee...wow...golly. Sign your posts, Striver.--MONGO03:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

+ +
+
+ The point + +

I'm not understanding what relevance this ongoing conversation has to improving this article. Perhaps you would like to take it to the conspiracy page? Wikipedia is not a forum. Please shift this to improving the article, rather than arguing over the physics of the matter. Putting this in to the article is, at present, non-negotiable. Work on the conspiracy article first. --Golbez15:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

Here's an idea: let's archive what we've got, and any new discussion that doesn't belong can be cut-and-pasted to Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories. Peter Grey18:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

The point: this article is pov. Polls prove it. Common sense proves it. Kevin Ryan proves it. This article is "'P O V"'. MONGO whent "no evidence of being pov". I gave it. Now, NPOV the article. --Striver00:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

Kevin Ryan tests water, not steel. I see you're a .NET programmer. It's the equivalent of you giving some insight into Java programming because you work for a company that does Java.

+

--Mmx100:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

The article is fairly neutral....it's the trolling by conspiracy theorists on this talk page that demand to have unencyclopedic nonsense in main article space...oh, yeah...the U.S. Government blew up the buildings...yeah...the planes weren't hijacked by 19 islamofascist terrorists...the Pentagon was hit by a missle...yeah...the plane that crashed in Pennyslvania was shot down by the government...yeah...that's what really happened, surely. This Kevin Ryan guy probably got fired because he has half a brain and upset over his termination he made up this cock and bull nonsense to try and even the score...but more likely his employers realized he was a fool when he went to them with his "evidence".--MONGO03:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

+ +
+
+ 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 + +

Cnelson 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.--MONGO09:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

Breath of fresh air. nice. --Mmx115:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

+ +
+
+
+ Biased and Non-Standard Section Title "Conspiracy Theories" + +

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?

+

+ + + Normal nick + + 00:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC) + +

+ + +

This is the right procedure, bringing it to the talk page. :) --Golbez01:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

And will this lead anywhere? After this, what should be done? Normal nick02:19, 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. --Golbez02:23, 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. Ombudsman02:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

+ +
+ Meaning of "Controversy" + +

"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 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. JoshuaZ05:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

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

+

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2q=controversy "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 oposing 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 nick12:44, 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. SkeenaR19:07, 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 devonshire19:22, 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 nick19:46, 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 Grey20:03, 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 SkeenaR20:19, 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 nick20:39, 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.--MONGO03:34, 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."Pedant23:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

9-11 conspiracies theories fit your description.http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html 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 Tom Harrison 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 nick22:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC) + + + +

Er, abrangent? I'm not familiar with that word. JoshuaZ22:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

Ups.. Sorry, it was suposed to be "more general"Normal nick22:27, 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 Tom Harrison 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. Rhobite04:24, 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 refeerd on this article. "Controversy" don't implies legitimacy, and "legetimacy" is way too subjectif.

+ + +

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. SkeenaR04:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

There is not controversy http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html 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. http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html 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???Pedant23:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

Your argument is based on false premises, becasue all of your concernes have been adressed and there is no controversy.http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html 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? Waterflaws00:10, 5 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 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 nick22:51, 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 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 nick03:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

"You are saying Wikipedia's polices wrong." What policy do you mean? Tom harrison Tom Harrison 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 nick03:23, 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 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 nick11:46, 2 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."Pedant23:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

+ +
+ In Favour of Moving This Talk Section Somewhere Else + +

+ + + Normal nick + + 03:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC) + +

+ +
+
+ In Favour Archiving This Talk Section + +

+ + + Normal nick + + 03:12, 1 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.--MONGO03:36, 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 http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html 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?...http://www.aresva.org/pentagon/pentagon9-14.jpg 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?--MONGO03:58, 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.--MONGO04:14, 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 nick04:28, 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.--MONGO04:30, 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 nick04:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

nick, all of your arguments have been adressed and they are invalid http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html 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.Pedant23:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

Please try to keep it civil. Tom harrison Tom Harrison 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. --Mmx123:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

all of pedants arguments have beenhttp://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html debunked by experts.--146.244.137.15400:01, 5 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 NPOV. Do you have proof of controlled demolition? Okay...see you around then.--MONGO04:44, 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 nick14:41, 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 Tom Harrison 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 nick15:20, 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. 69.228.101.15516:59, 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. --Zleitzen15:05, 3 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"... --Striver18:25, 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. --Striver18:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

You have zero facts.--MONGO19:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

MONGO, read this: http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html. 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. --Striver18:05, 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!--Striver12:04, 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.--MONGO12:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC) + + + +

No, dont, keep saying "fire made them fall on freefall speed".... --Striver18:05, 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 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. --Striver17:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

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

+ + +

Yes, for sure polly is sick of crackers. Official lie?...Striver, you are hopeless.--MONGO03:11, 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. SkeenaR23:56, 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.--MONGO07:38, 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 nick12:05, 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?--Striver12:11, 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.--MONGO12:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

Dont pretend you are more qualified than anyone else to edit on this topic.--Striver18:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

Okay...what do I know anyway...I mean, compared to you...--MONGO20:39, 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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PropagandaTechniques_of_propaganda_generation (black and white) FALLACY in a Wikipedia page"', What should unacceptable for all this community.Normal nick19:22, 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. --Mmx120:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

When using "military people", I meant )

+ + +

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.--MONGO03:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

The fact that i wasn't there just makes me more neutral than the ones who have.Normal nick14:13, 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.--Mmx122:54, 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 Guard1 + +

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. --Mmx123:20, 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 Tom Harrison 19:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

Hear, hear. Morton devonshire20:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

Si, si.--MortonsSockpuppet20:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

Oui, Oui. --Mmx120:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

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

+ + +

What, me worry?--MONGO20:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

No, you can resed assured that your majority formed disregard for basic NPOVing can continue a bit longer--Striver21:46, 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."

+

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_mike_whi_060224_rumsfeld_zeros_in_on.htm"

+

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. --Mmx123:20, 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"http://www.sundayherald.com/54975 SkeenaR02:54, 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.--MONGO03:03, 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.http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1c=y. SkeenaR03:33, 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 Grey06:09, 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.--MONGO07:15, 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? --Striver13:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

Oh, right, i forgot, they are tin-foil crackpots. I wonder who is really dissresprectfull here? --Striver13:11, 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?--MONGO13:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

Maybe, if i found a shred of evidance supporting that conspiracy theory. --Striver13:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

Your unwillingness to acknowledge the evidence is your personal perogative, but it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Peter Grey15:11, 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? --Striver20:48, 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.Pedant00:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

+ + +

NPA.--MONGO03:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

+ +
+
+ + +