Talk:September 11 attacks/Archive 29

Hi. A discussion elsewhere has raised the possibility that this article could and should have a slightly better summary of the conspiracy theories surrounding the event. I am interested in the possibility of drafting such. Of course, I know how controversial this will be, and so I am putting it up here so we can discuss it. Depending on the reaction I may work on a suggested draft in the section below. Meantime if anyone else feels they can come up with a form of words that will satisfy policy and consensus, please feel free to suggest. --Guinnog 22:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I take Guinnog's citations of his sources as true, though I will verify them later.

Various conspiracy theories have emerged, as a reaction to the attacks, that question the mainstream account, which typically include suggestions that individuals in (or associated with) the government of the United States knew of or planned the impending attacks.^[1] These theories are not accepted as credible by the military, scientific and political communities, who have determined that responsibility for the attacks and the resulting destruction rests solely with Al Qaeda.^[2]

Some conspiracy theorists have claimed that the collapse of the World Trade Center was the result of a controlled demolition. Published reports by structural engineers reject this hypothesis.^[3]

Thoughts? Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The only thing about this version is it is alluding to the LIHOP (Let it happen theory)...but some conspiracy theorists believe in that the MIHOP (Make it happen) theory...so I tried to eliminate both and just say that the government was involved according to CTer's. I didn't mention shawdoy figures in association with the government since we are still talking about the governement having foreknowledge or involvement in some way or another as a central believe of the majority of the CTer's...few if any CTer's believe that there wasn't government involvement at some level. I prefer to see no more than what we have since I think once we start adding more about this, then that won't be enough...in time the article will have more and more CT stuff. The daughter articles is the best place to put all but a short intro about that stuff.--MONGO 18:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Review my most recent change, which presents the fact that conspiracy theorists believe in both Let and Made it happen, but actually shortens the paragraph. I would oppose any addition past this "see also" section. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yup...better...maybe simply..."that the government of the United States knew of or planned the attacks."--MONGO 18:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

So far, I think this is the best suggestion, though I'd want to tweak it a little. May I suggest this?

Various conspiracy theories have emerged as a reaction to the attacks, typically suggesting that individuals within the government of the United States knew of or planned the impending attacks.^[1] Additionally, some conspiracy theorists have claimed that the collapse of the World Trade Center was the result of a controlled demolition. These theories are not accepted as credible by the military, scientific and political communities, who have determined that responsibility for the attacks and the resulting destruction rests solely with Al Qaeda.^[2][3]
--Mbc³⁶² 18:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It's fine, aside from the link to the 9/11 Truth Movement...I see no reason to give THAT group more publicity over other CTer's.--MONGO 19:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize it was a specific group, I thought it was the movement as a whole - I've removed it from my draft.--Mbc³⁶² 19:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The Truth-movment is not a specific group Geir 19:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Too long in my view, but more importantly, solely is a very strong statement that is probably excessive. A lot of conspiracy theory 'logic' is based on the leap from 'someone could have done better' to 'US government 100% responsible'. Plus it seems the meaning is carried out by Al Qaeda operatives, a little different from responsibility. Peter Grey 19:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I think your moving in a good direction for attaing a more NPOV here. Geir 20:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

That is good Mr. Mongo. Qué Chévere! 20:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer my suggested "concluded" in place of "determined", as I think it sounds more scientific, rather than the legalistic sound of "determined", which makes me think of the health warning on tobacco products in the U.S. Overall though, I am very pleased with the progress here, and I thank Hipocrite, both for suggesting this improvement and for implementing a reasonably NPOV and consensus version of it. The article is incrementally improved by the work done. Thanks to all who contributed. --Guinnog 19:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, nice improvements. Though I still miss the link to the 9/11 Truth Movement-article, which is a broad aproach to this phenomenon. And I agree with the "concluded" choice above. Geir 21:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Are journalists part of the political community? Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe. Would you and Tbeatty be able to discuss your changes here, as I think a consensus was reached on the wording of that paragraph? Thanks. --Guinnog 14:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Did that above. Got consensus to change it. --Tbeatty 15:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Really? Where? --Guinnog 19:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I can see the removal of "Additionally, some conspiracy theorists have claimed that the collapse of the World Trade Center was the result of a controlled demolition.", but I am struggling to see the consensus for the removal. --Guinnog 15:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I think my edit reflects the consensus above, which is heavily qualified. I think too that my comment about journalists was not addressed before the change was made to the article. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I've got no problem with Tom's edit, but Tbeatty's is unacceptable in my opinion.--Mbc³⁶² 16:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The only difference was Tom's addition of the U.S. government knowledge. This doesn't take into account conspiracy theories that accuse Israel of carrying out the attacks. Here's the diff --Tbeatty 16:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, but I am well aware of the differences. Your version introduced the section with "Various conspiracy theories have emerged in the aftermath of the attacks. Typically they suggest that various individuals or groups knew of or planned the attacks," which is basically stating the obvious - of course various individuals or groups knew of or planned the attacks, 9/11 didn't happen by accident. That's the problem I have with your edit; you made it so broad that even Al Qaida would fit in the definition.--Mbc³⁶² 17:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

My concern was limiting to U.S. government as there are conspiracy theories involving most western coutries as well as Israel. --Tbeatty 19:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

You have (again) made the opening sentence so broad that not only is it useless, but its logically incorrect. If the official story is that Al Qaida planned and carried out the attacks, every theory that someone else was behind it or allowed it to happen would be a conspiracy theory. Therefore, its pointless to say "various conspiracy theories have emerged as a reaction to the attacks, typically suggesting that individuals outside of the terrorist organization Al Qaeda knew of or planned the attacks." The word "typically" was included originally so that the reader would know that not all CTs involved the US gov. Its illogical to say that the CTs typically involve other groups than Al Qaida, as every CT must involve other groups than Al Qaida. The CT that the US gov. was being the attack was included because it is by far the most prevalent theory; CTs about Israel are far less common, and CTs about other governments are practically nonexistent.--Mbc³⁶² 19:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

In the ME, most of the conspiracy theories center on Israel. There is certainly one of those that was popular here when it was circulated that a numer of jewish people called in sick. No conspiracy theory is any more valid than any other so discounting some or favoring others shouln't happen in this article. Put it in the conspiracy article. --Tbeatty 22:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

You know very little about these particular conspiracy theories, and you speak with such confidence about them - it is not polite, nor it is wise. The story you mention is soo old and was since then debunked mostly by people from the Truth Movemnt. Maybe you should do some research on the topic before? Here, please read this article published in a Jewish magazine - it might give you some introduction. Also take a look at this Muslim-Jewish-Christian organization. And your statement is quite nutty: no conspiracy theory is any more valid than any other - well in very definition the official story is a conspiracy theory. SalvNaut 23:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

We are not going to be a messageboard for the 9/11 Truth Movement. The fact that there are numerous conspiracy theories regarding these events is well established.--MONGO 04:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

All of the theories have been debunked. Heck, half of the theorists accuse the other theorists of being involved in the conspiracy asa false flag operation. If we are only going to list the non-debunked Conspiracy Theories, we would have no section at all. But the reality is that if you ask the people of the world whose primary source of news is Al Jazeera, they will implicate Israel in the attacks. That conspiracy theory belief is probably held by more total persons than any of the U.S. centric theories. --Tbeatty 06:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not discounting any theory, I'm simply saying what theory seems to be the most prevalent. You have (yet again) changed the opening sentence to one that says basically nothing. You might as well just write "Various conspiracy theories have emerged as a reaction to the attacks." since the rest of the sentence gives no useful information beyond stating the obvious. As far as "Put it in the conspiracy article" goes, I'm not even sure what you mean. Put what in the conspiracy article?--Mbc³⁶² 23:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It was a poor edit, a really silly thing to say, and I still don't see the consensus you said you established for it. --Guinnog 04:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Most prevalent in what sense? There are no experts that hold the views of any conspiracy theories so "most prevalent" is without meaning. There is a whole article that explores the various conspiracy theories. There is no reason to single any of them out. Controlled Demolition isn't any more likely or scientific than energy weapons or alien attack. The theories implicating the U.S. government aren't any more credible than the theories that implicate France or Israel. Therefore the statement in this article should be short and without prejudice. You can explore the U.S. Government theories as well as the controlled demolition theories in the 9/11 conspiracy theories article. That is the appropriate place to explore who holds what beliefs and why. --Tbeatty 06:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Tbeatty, please do not edit the comments of other users. Where was that consensus you said you had established? --Guinnog 16:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks. If you cannot see the consensus, then no answer I provide can help you. --Tbeatty 16:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Tbeatty, you have been asked not to edit the comments of other users, please heed this request. Furthermore, as the comment was directed solely at your edit, not at you personally, it does not constitute a personal attack. If you refuse to show us where the consensus is for your edit, I see no reason why I should let it stand.--Mbc³⁶² 18:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Tbeatty I think, there are lot's of different theories, there's no reason to imply that there is only one group that CT'ers single out...RxS 19:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

1. What you say they think is true. Proof is the secret paper President Bush read in Texas. The USA Government knew some attacks were on the way soon with airplanes maybe. Is there an article on that paper? It was on Aug 6? Is that paper told about in this article? Qué Chévere! 00:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Dude, this isn't the place for this. We're talking about this section - how does your comment have any relevance to this, at all? --Haemo 01:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

"The theories typically include suggestions that individuals in (or associated with) the government of the United States knew of the impending attacks" "Bin Laden determined to strike in US" They did know. That is why. Qué Chévere! 01:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Please stop making disruptive edits in this section. Pablo Talk | Contributions 01:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Nothing I write is disruptive. You just change one word and the proof is true. The words are bad. " individuals in (or associated with) the government of the United States knew of the impending attacks and forgot to act on that knowledge." He should change that part. Qué Chévere! 02:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to let people know, Que Chevere is Babalooo. --Golbez 01:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I said so. Qué Chévere! 01:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you kindly not do this? It's very disruptive, and doesn't help at all. --Haemo 01:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

What are you writing of? The words are not so good to me Qué Chévere! 02:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay. We are talking about writing a new paragraph for this section. You are talking about unrelated matters, which don't have to do with the paragraph, or how it is written. This is disruptive, since it doesn't add anything to the discussion. Now, do you have anything to say about the paragraph? --Haemo 02:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Some people had some information - that much has been known for a long time independently of conspiracy theory speculation. It takes more than isolated bits of truth slipping out to validate the whole conspiracy theory phenomenon. Note "forgot" is really hard to prove but is included under negligence. Peter Grey 02:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but we're not discussing this, nor are we trying to "discredit" anyone. We're talking about adding a short paragraph to flesh out this section. However, some people appear to have taken this as an invitation to air whatever views they think even remotely relate to this topic. It's not helping, and it's not productive. Please stop, or get back on topic. This isn't an "aside" since we're not arguing about this. I'm not arguing about this, and no one else is - only some people have decided to bring this up. This isn't relevant, and I'm not going to be drawn into this. I also object to refactoring this talk page discussion in this way. --Haemo 02:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is what I think is better. "individuals in (or associated with) the government of the United States knew exactly all the plans of the impending attacks and refused to act on that knowledge in a plot". I write this for "individuals in (or associated with) the government of the United States knew of the impending attacks" is perfectly all true not a conspiracy theory so it should not be written into the conspiracy theory. When it is others can think this "individuals in (or associated with) the government of the United States knew nothing at all of the impending attacks" Qué Chévere! 03:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, this is more relevant - but you're pushing a particular point of view, which should be argued on the linked article, not here. We're just trying to give a brief summary of the other article's lead here - we leave the serious content discussion for the other article's talk page. --Haemo 04:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Please keep this in it's own special section. Thanks. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why you move what I write. They were about Guinnogs words. Qué Chévere! 20:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't understand this either. This is a discussion about the new section - it's not a new section, and we've been able to get back on track here, after a short disagreement. It's just confusing to move it like this. --Haemo 21:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

im sure someone somewhere has explained this, it may even be in the article, but im a busy man and dont have time to read it 18 times (every time its changed). what was the explanation for the pools of molten metal that stayed super-hot for days or weeks after the attacks underground? i thought that the steel wouldnt melt in the fires, due to the fact that the burning temperature of the jet fuel/ paper was not hot enough to melt steel, let alone keep it melted and very hot for weeks afterwards...one more thing - the largest support beams, according to some people should not have been wasted all the way to the ground...they should have been still standing, at least partially, from what i understand. 10 bucks says this ends in bloodshed 17:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

If you have questions like this, they probably belong at the reference desk WP:RD. RxS 05:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, we're not really all that good at fielding questions, because that would be really, really time consuming and take away from our editing. But there are resources for it, if you want to ask. --Haemo 06:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

its useless to try and get anything that is not "official" on to wikipedia. if it is not produced by the government, it isnt "official". if we can only get "official" information from the government, how can we ever show an alternative view? one that does not coincide with the governments or directly implicates the government? i dont know how to express this without being blasted with hate mails.....10 bucks says this ends in bloodshed 04:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Because that's why we have a dozen conspiracy pages - because they aren't approved by the government. --Golbez 04:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

We have lots of stuff that isn't official. For instance, 9/11 conspiracy theories is pretty much entirely about non-official theories. Using only official theories kind of defeats the purpose of this encyclopedia. --Haemo 06:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

That was my point. I don't know if you were responding to the original statement, or if you missed my sarcasm. --Golbez 06:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, yes I was replying to the original. --Haemo 07:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Why are you trying to convince us? Find notable scientists and engineers that have published these alternative theories in peer reviewed journals. --Tbeatty 06:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me add on to Tbeatty's comments. Find a structural engineer. There are plenty of misguided electrical engineers and such that attempt to pass themselves off as experts who believe in conspiracy theories. Pablo Talk | Contributions 07:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

There are at least a few structural engineers that have doubts . Yes there are many "misguided" PhD's, like Swiss structural engineer, who concluded that the building WTC 7 was with great probability demolished. Here is interesting few words about structural engineers involved in the collapse analysis. That's not to say that a publication by a structural engineer wouldn't be a breakthrough. SalvNaut 12:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I should have been more clear. I meant find a structural engineer who has provided a reliable source, such as a peer-reviewed journal article. Pablo Talk | Contributions 20:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

ok, guys.. i dont understand...your giving me references to this stuff (thanks), but none of it is in the article. if you found it, why is it up to me to put it on there? or you dont consider this good enough or what? i dunnah, man this place is pretty f*cked up 10 bucks says this ends in bloodshed 16:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

None of those are reliable sources, and the scientists have all failed to publish in peer-reviewed journals because their beliefs don't hold up against scientific rigor. These types of theories that are largely discredited by experts are detailed in 9/11 conspiracy theories and Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center--Dcooper 16:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

They aren't in this article because they don't belong to it. They're in the many other articles specifically on the conspiracy theories. --Golbez 19:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

when you say that these theories are largely discredited by experts....which experts? government experts? how long will this circle-jerk go on for? your becoming redundant; popular mechanics etc. are a part of almost every theory, tools of the government...i quit 10 bucks says this ends in bloodshed 01:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess if you consider all experts you disagree with to me tools of the government, then you'll never be happy with this, or probably any other, article on this topic. --Haemo 05:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's see, in this section alone you have said it's "useless to try", you expect us to "blast you with mails", you call this place "pretty f*cked up", and you now call it a "circle-jerk". It seems you're just in this to insult Wikipedia and its editors; is that all? --Golbez 20:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh don't be so harsh. This place is to be seen by many as pretty f****d up, still it is one of the best places on the Internet. If I understand, 10 bucks is making a point, in his language (which happens not to be used on Wikipedia, and that's good), that many before him were making. That this article does not reflect true feelings of quite significant amount of people, and not only common people but also journalists, scholars, some politicians. There are many journalist sources from which balancing phrases could be taken. There is a book by Bob Woodward "State of Denial" in which there is clearly shown that Bush administration ignored (at least) many highest level warnings about 9/11 coming, there is a Complete 9/11 Timeline by Paul Thompson, there are many articles in smaller newspapers.

I would actually propose an edit but I am quite busy recently, and I see what is happening when a cosmetic change to Conspiracy Theories section is proposed, I just don't feel it's worth the time.

By the way, how about using this article as a source to the conspiracy theories section: 22% Believe Bush Knew About 9/11 Attacks in Advance. SalvNaut 23:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you mean [....and not only (a minority of) common people but also (a tiny minority of) journalists, (a tiny minority of) scholars, some (a tiny minority of) politicians]. RxS 05:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Contrary to all wikipedia precdents, wikipedia rules and basic logic, the word 'terrorist' still appears in the lead-in. Given that the term has no universally agreed upon definition, its nothing more than an insult. You may as well be calling al qaeda "pooh pooh heads".

Furthermore, the official story is given almost universal coverage whilst alternative theories are deliberately sidelined. It doesn't matter who is right or wrong from the perspective of wikipedia - in fact determining such would be original research. The fact is that very significant minority (and in some countries, a majority) consider the official explaination to be wrong. Despite the opinions of the US conservatives camping on this article, these views deserve more than a paragraphs recognition.

Drop your opinions. Look at other articles related to 'terrorism' and I think you will understand how horrificly slanted this article is. Damburger 13:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

They don't just have a paragraph (and are not deliberately sidelined), they have whole articles devoted to them. And re: US conservatives, you couldn't be any more wrong. I for one am quite liberal and view the Bush administration with comtempt. But unlike other POV pushers that want to push crap into these articles, I (and others) resist attempts by those with thinly veiled political agendas that try to dilute articles with nonsense. And the word terrorist is used by media outlets all over the world...RxS 15:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

To the original statement, please read WP:SOAP. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 16:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many media outlets call it a terrorist attack - the word is simply too ill-defined to be used in the lead-in. How is removing contentious language from the lead-in, using wikipedia as a soapbox? I am simply arguing for removing the opinionated language and letting the facts speak for themselves. You are the one advocating a position by labelling the attacks 'terrorist'.

Regarding the 'conspiracy theories' - the term is meaningless in the context because the official story is also a conspiracy theory, as are all the explainations for this event. So the only meaning of that label is to try and dismiss such theories.

Damburger 17:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I actually quite agree with the removal of "terrorist" into just "attacks" however the problem is that you are here to promote a viewpoint not to try and make the article more encyclopedic. If you want to promote a view, please consider doing so on other websites. Again, please read WP:SOAP. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 17:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not here to promote a political agenda. I'm here to promote a little objectivity and sanity that is sadly lacking in most of the people editing this article. Damburger 17:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It is clear from your original statement that you want to promote an "inside job" theory. That is all fine and good, however Wikipedia talk pages are to discuss content with regards to their respective articles not to promote views. Please refrain from doing so if you wish for your opinions to be taken seriously with regards to the article. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 17:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you did not assume things about my intentions. Your reaction is typical of the problem around here - anybody asking for an objective treatment of the incident is seen as pushing an alternative theory, or supporting terrorism somehow. Damburger 17:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad we agree that the hijackers were enagaged in acts of terrorism.--MONGO 19:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Damburger's claim that we objectively analyze the "incident." However, an objective analysis of the facts leads to only one conclusion--the so-called "official version." Pablo Talk | Contributions 10:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Please don't engage in personal attacks on other editors. --Haemo 02:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

This must be some form of black humor, as I can't believe so many people are so convinced that 9/11 was anything except for what is presented in this article. If it wasn't so horibly morbid, it could pass as halarious. I'm going to assume this will be deleted, but I just HAD to mention something after spending so much of my time reading these theories. Hate makes the heart grow fonder... Tarage 08:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, you'll find that the official Wikipedia position is four-square on the side of the nuttier conspiracy theorists: when I tried to revert CT'er vandalism to this page, the Admins sided with the CT'ers and banned me from editing for a good deal of time. It is apparently OFFICIAL Wikipedia doctrine and policy that the conspiracy theorists are correct no matter what claims they make, period. Sad indeed. Carthago delenda est 02:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, you revert-warred to get a valid (in terms of 'about improving the article', not in terms of 'correct') entry on a talk page. It had nothing to do with the validity of the theory. --Golbez 02:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how this is so amusing and ludicrous. Perhaps if there was evidence that was clear and could 100% tell anyone in the world that it wasn't an inside job then yes it would be. But there are "conspiracy theories" out there because the "facts" published by this government are the biggest joke that I have ever seen. They claim that the towers fell due to extreme fires and structural damage, yet never before in this history of the world has a STEEL BUILDING been collapsed by way of fire. Never. The 9/11 report say the same thing about WTC7, when in fact that building only had minimal damge from fire and debris and was taken down by controlled demolitions in the same manor as the towers. Furthermore, if the government isn't lying, then why was anyone important to the WTC called and told not to go to work that day?

i noticed that the box "Attacks by al-Qaeda" is on the right hand side (near top of the page). Can someone move to the bottom of the page, as is the usual norm. Else, i can also do the same unless some has an objection for the same. Kalyan 14:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

We should talk about bias at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias open tasks#September 11, 2001 attacks. I read through NPOV and bias in Wikipedia and I really think the article of "September 11, 2001 attacks" violates the rule or guideline of Wikipedia.--Shoons 05:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

How, exactly, do you feel it does that? --Haemo 05:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

He says that because we don't mention the falsehood that the hijackers are still alive, it's a biased article. In which case, he's correct - we're biased against incorrect statements. But I don't think the CSB project really considers that a problem. --Golbez 05:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the systemic bias against lies is really hurting Wikipedia. Pablo Talk | Contributions 05:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

When we discuss about bias here, many people do not seem to understand NPOV of Wikipedia. We should straight this thing up at different place to hear different opinions instead of discussing among the same regular people.Not only about hijacker. There are many of them. --Shoons 05:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Just because you have an opinion that the hijackers are alive doesn't make it true. No, we do not have to report on your different opinion. If you have specific complaints, please say them; but saying "this article is biased" with a woefully poor example really isn't going to help anything. --Golbez 05:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, the link was broken when I first replied. The first line: It is not about the conspiracy theory is not systematically biased. Why? Because we have 9/11 conspiracy theories, which also specifically addresses the (false) example he makes there. --Haemo

"Theory" part can go to 9/11 conspiracy theories but facts should be described here.--Shoons 05:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Right, and the fact is, they died. So ... again, please explain your complaint. The theory article handles this quite expertly because it is a theory that they lived, and the facts are they did not - therefore, it belongs in the theory article. This article is about facts; that one is about dealing with the hypotheses and theories that are not factual. --Golbez 05:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and the facts all point to the conclusion that all the hijackers died rather unpleasantly on 9/11. --Haemo 05:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

"The hijackers were supposed to die. However 7 hijackers were found and are still alive according to Hijack 'suspects' alive and wellBBC News and Father insists alleged leader is still alive."

NPOV should allow discribing these facts.--Shoons 06:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The theory article includes the fact that BBC reported this - and the fact that the BBC was wrong in its assertion. Are you actually reading what we write? Have you looked at the arguments against any of the hijackers being alive? (like the fact that they flew planes into things) As for Atta's father, that's dealt with on the Mohamed Atta article rather well - was he telling the truth? who knows. But the evidence shows Mohamed Atta walked on to a plane in Boston on that Tuesday morning, and that's more evidence than Papa Atta is supplying. --Golbez 06:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Did you check the date on that BBC article? Guess what? A lot of things have been learned since 9-23-01. Those people have the same names as the hijackers, but they are not the same people. Atta's father presents no evidence to conclude that his son is still alive. Pablo Talk | Contributions 06:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias open tasks#September 11, 2001 attacks--Shoons 14:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

This article hangs on every word from government sources regarding 9/11 and fails to mention any information that contradicts those sources, no matter how reliable. For example, the case that WTC7 was brought down in a controlled demolition is supported by video evidence that is widely available on the internet and comes from major news sources. Now, why should the mere suggestion that one building was brought down by a deliberate act be threatening to the integrity of the article? How is the uncertainty regarding the collapse of WTC7 not relevant to this article? Oneismany 18:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

There are no reliable sources that refute the known facts.--MONGO 19:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The articles belong to conspiracy theory are branched out to individual articles such as 7 World Trade Center. We should fix those articles first. To fix this problem properly, we should approach it from NPOV. That's why I'm trying to discuss at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias open tasks#September 11, 2001 attacks. Otherwise they would not listen to you. I think we should approach from the central authority.--Shoons 20:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I see a "problem" that needs to be fixed. Pablo Talk | Contributions 21:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is stoned to death. SalvNaut 21:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you have anything serious to add, because that's not a very civil comment. --Haemo 22:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

If the one-eyed man was trying to insert garbage into encyclopedia articles, then he probably deserved it. Pablo Talk | Contributions 23:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

"There are no reliable sources that refute the known facts." Ahh, very illuminating. And what are the known facts? Wikipedia policy is bases on verifiability, not truth. There is widespread video evidence (see http://www.wtc7.net) that WTC7 was brought down in a controlled demolition. The official sources are not more or less verifiable than other sources. The hypothesis that WTC7 was brought down in a fire is disputable and the building's collapse can be accounted for by more than one hypothesis. Therefore it garners mention in this article. Dismissing it as "conspiracy theory" is no argument at all and only calls into question the intentions of those who do so. Oneismany 23:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but these sources are minor, disputed, and not popular. Including them on this page would constitute undue weight. We do, however, give them an entire page at Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center. --Haemo 23:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Define "minor." The official story is also disputed. Since when is popularity a criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia? Anyway at last count 36% of US citizens believe the US government is partly to blame for the attacks and 85% doubt the official story, which makes it pretty popular. Oneismany 00:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Minor - as in, not supported by very many credible experts; widely disputed by credible experts; a fringe theory, not widely supported, and in a great deal of dispute. Furthermore, 85% of people doubting a given theory does not automatically give credence to any given alternative. Some people believe that Hitler escaped from Germany, to live in Argentina. However, this is a minor, or fringe theory - it is not widely supported, and should probably not be mentioned on Hitler, but maybe of Death of Hitler. --Haemo

"For example, the case that WTC7 was brought down in a controlled demolition is supported by video evidence that is widely available on the internet and comes from major news sources." So is the case that it was brought down because a tower fell on it. The difference is, my version is backed up by other facts - namely, a tower fell on it. Your version requires that 70 to 280 floors of office tower were somehow covertly wired for professional destruction. Why do you people keep trying? Can't you go troll another encyclopedia or something? The fact that Wikipedia is editable doesn't give you people the right to constantly attempt to shove this drivel down our throats. Sometimes, a cigar is nineteen Arabs in airplanes. Nothing more, nothing less. --Golbez 01:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

WTC7 was across the street from the towers and there was no known significant damage to it besides random fires. The official story is that fires burned it down, not that a tower fell on it. Video shows it falling vertically into its footprint. It fell six hours after the twin towers and the official story is that the towers pancaked vertically, so which tower are you referring to that fell on WTC7? Oneismany 01:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

That's simply untrue. Anyone who does more than 10 seconds of research (this does not include conspiracy theorists, evidently) knows that there were huge gouges in the side of WTC7. The collapse of the Twin Towers did a ton of damage to WTC7. Pablo Talk | Contributions 01:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

NIST reports there were huge gouges from the fall of the twin towers, but the FEMA contends that diesel in the basement contributed to fires that brought WTC7 down. Either way, the building falls vertically in 6.5 seconds in every video of the collapse and it happened 6 hours after the twin towers imploded. No building "fell on it," as described above, and even if that is a reference to the structural damage, the building held together after that damage. Then it descended vertically rather than toppling over as might be expected if a huge chunk of it was gouged out. In any case the cause is unknown and the fact that the cause is unknown deserves mention in this article because it is relevant to the subject. Oneismany 01:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually there's also video and photographs of large gouges. Like how you cite video and photographic evidence to say there weren't any. It doesn't deserve any more mention in this article as it already has. --Golbez 01:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The gouges do not show up in the videos. In any case whether there were huge gouges or not that does not begin to explain why the building would fall 6 hours after the damage or why it would collapse vertically, without crashing into nearby buildings. I do not know why the building collapsed and I am not positing any theory. I am only pointing out that the observation has been made by more than one verifiable source that the manner of the collapse resembles a controlled demolition, and the lack of an adequate explanation is relevant to the subject of this article. Oneismany 02:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at this video. The collapse starts at :05 and ends at :19. So that's about 14 seconds. I agree that saying the building fell on it might be a bit misleading though. Pablo Talk | Contributions 01:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The video shows part of the rooftop descending at 00:05 which is probably the penthouse. Then the rest of the building collapses from 00:12 to 00:19. Whether you count 14 seconds or 6.5 seconds the collapse does not resemble a building toppling over due to gouges at its base or pancaking due to fire damage. I am not positing any theory as to why this happened. I am just saying that the vertical descent of the building 6 hours after any alleged damage that might have contributed to its collapse requires more than cursory scrutiny and it might support more than one hypothesis for its fall. Controlled demolition is one hypothesis that might account for its fall and multiple verifiable sources have offered this hypothesis. The strange manner of its destruction and lack of adequate explanation are relevant to this article and deserve to be mentioned. Oneismany 02:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you're verging on WP:SOAP now. RxS 02:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. I invite you to study the evidence for yourself and come to your own conclusions. If this article were NPOV, it would do the same. Oneismany 03:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

If editors were to study evidence (primary sources) and write their conclusions, Wikipedia would be a secondary source, such as a journal or commentary. As Wikipedia is a tertiary source—an encyclopedia—we can only look at secondary sources, and other tertiary sources, to decide what goes into an article. And the policy on Wikipedia is to only use reputable sources, such as peer-reviewed academic journals or other publications at a comparable level of reputation. It is not appropriate to discuss studying evidence on this talk page; please try to restrict the discussion to citation of reputable secondary and tertiary sources. --dreish~talk 18:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

How is the story that 19 hijackers crashed planes into some of the the buildings destroyed on September 11 more or less verifiable than the video recordings of the event that are widely available on the internet and elsewhere, or witness testimony that explosions were going on inside the buildings? Nowhere does this article make any mention of suggestions that there may be more than one point of view about nature of the destruction on that day, which makes it ridiculously POV. Not even a simple "According to official reports" will be tolerated on this page, which calls into question the intention of those who revert such a simple attempt at NPOV. I do not want to hear that alternative hypotheses of the event are "conspiracy theories," because the story of the 19 hijackers is also a conspiracy theory. Who besides government and government-sponsored sources sticks so closely to the official record of events? Wikipedia is not a mouthpiece for the US government, therefore alternate sources of information that are also verifiable should also be included. Oneismany 00:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the 19 hijackers conspired to hijack those airliners and crash them into buildings does not mean that a belief in that version is a conspiracy theory. Pablo Talk | Contributions 00:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Huh? It's a theory about a conspiracy, which makes it a conspiracy theory. Oneismany 00:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

A conspiracy theory implies some sort of secretive, behind-the-scenes plot. Al-Qaeda hasn't been secretive in claiming that they hijacked those planes. Pablo Talk | Contributions 00:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-US media sources such as Al-Jazeera have reported that Osama bin Laden denied he was involved in the attacks. Anyway however it was done it was secretive and behind the scenes even if it were the 19 hijackers because nobody else knew about it before it happened, which makes it a conspiracy. Hence it is a theory about a conspiracy, no less a conspiracy theory than the theory that the government was involved somehow, or that space aliens or garden gnomes were involved somehow. There is no evidence that I am aware of that space aliens or garden gnomes were involved. However, there is evidence that the US government was involved, or at least incompetent, such as the NORAD defense failure. Furthermore the evidence that 19 hijackers were responsible comes primarily from a single source, the US government. Oneismany 00:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

That's because, as has been repeatedly discussed on this talk page, the controlled demolition hypothesis is a fringe theory. It is not supported by very many credible sources, and is in fact roundly contradicted by many other credible sources. In the narrative of the event, it constitutes a very minor hypothesis, and to give it any significant mention on this page would constitute undue weight. There is already an entire article on this subject at Controlled demolition hypothesis, and a section is 9/11 conspiracy theories - which is where consensus has determined it belongs. Adding a {{neutrality}} tag to this article is totally unwarranted, given that consensus has repeatedly supported the current articles revision about conspiracy theories. --Haemo 00:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Referring to one conspiracy theory as preferred and not mentioning other conspiracy theories is POV. What about being a theory about a conspiracy or not being a theory about a conspiracy makes a theory more or less verifiable? Oneismany 00:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

This is not the case. This is not a verifiability issue, and if you seriously believe that the whole and heart of neutral point of view is whether or not you can verify a viewpoint exists, you have a serious misunderstanding. The controlled demolition hypothesis is not widely supported by credible experts. It constitutes a fringe conspiracy theory, and you have not advanced any evidence that it is anything but that. --Haemo 00:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

How are experts more or less credible than video evidence from major news sources? Oneismany 00:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

You mean, how are experts on demolition, video analysis, and structural engineering less credible than interpretation of video recording? Let me put it this way - you look at a video recording of the collapse, and see a demolition. Experts look at the footage and see something different. Video footage is not prima facie evidence for anything - it has to be analyszed and interpreted. Experts have reviewed this footage, and come to conclusions which do not support controlled demolition. --Haemo 00:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Experts who are not editors on Wikipedia are not part of consensus on Wikipedia. It is up to Wikipedia editors to reach a consensus among themselves about the available verifiable sources. Some third-party published analyses agree with the official theory and some do not. Some of these sources are only very recently published. Multiple witnesses testify that there were explosions inside the buildings. Multiple news sources reported on the day of the event that the collapse of WTC7 resembled a controlled demolition. The NIST is considering controlled demolition as one hypothesis of the collapse of WTC7. None of this is significant enough or relevant enough to garner a brief mention in this article? Oneismany 01:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they reported that it resembled a controlled demolition. That does not mean it was a controlled demolition. But that's besides the point. Are news reporters experts? Did they publish anything? No, they're not experts and they haven't published anything. Also, explosions and bombs are not the same thing. There were huge fuel tanks in WTC7, and numerous sources have reported those as the cause of many of the explosions. There is a consensus of Wikipedia editors who don't want conspiracy kookiness in the articles. Just because you don't like that doesn't mean that there is no consensus, and it also doesn't mean that you can just slap a neutrality tag on the article. Wikipedia is not the place to insert baseless conspiracy theory propaganda. Pablo Talk | Contributions 01:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that Wikipedia is not the place to insert baseless conspiracy theory propaganda, which is why we should carefully qualify all of the information from official sources. The available verifiable information about the destruction on that day supports more than one hypothesis, and one conspiracy theory is not more or less neutral than another conspiracy theory. A neutral point of view would carefully consider every possibility that is supported by evidence. Some of the official theory is not supported by any evidence besides the word of the US government. So, to be neutral this article should identify the source of the information and not prefer the official theory. Oneismany 01:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

This is totally not true - the overwhelming majority of credible experts have judged that the evidence supports the so-called "official" account of the events. A small minority of people, very few (if any) of whom are credible, endorse a different account. Neutral point of view does not enjoin us to treat these two accounts as having equal merit - in fact, it specifically tells us not to. The controlled demolition hypothesis is mentioned on 9/11 conspiracy theories and controlled demolition hypothesis - which is where it should be. To include it on this page in fact violates neutrality, and give it undue weight. --Haemo 03:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Truth is not the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia, verifiability is. The official account contains much that is not verifiable, for example, the identities of the hijackers and their activities prior to the attacks. For some of this information, the only source we have to rely on is the word of the US government or affiliated parties. To be neutral, the information presented in this page should carefully identify the source of the information. On the other hand there is also verifiable information that is not included in the official account or only mentioned briefly, such as the collapse of World Trade Center 7. Imagine if Wikipedia presented the Reichstag fire with only the information that the Nazis gave the German people in order to manipulate them. If Wikipedia existed in 1933 then unfortunately I imagine the Reichstag Fire article would look very much like this article on the September 11 attacks, at least until the Nazis were out of power. But we have the benefit of history and so we should know better than to take our government at its word. Oneismany 04:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) Of course truth is not - otherwise we wouldn't have pages about 9/11 conspiracy theories or controlled demolition hypothesis. Again, you misunderstand the arguement - you think, that because it's verifiable that some people believe in the controlled demolition hypothesis, and that they base this belief on video footage, that it should be included in the article. This violates neutral point of view. As I will explained, again, that the overwhelming view of experts, both inside, and outside the US government is that the evidence does not support a controlled demolition. A fringe minority believe that it does. As neutral point of view enjoins us, we should not give these two claims equal merit - to do so constitutes undue weight.

You seem to hold the opinion that any view which can be verified to exist, should be included in order to meet neutral point of view. This is definitively not the case. Furthermore, you seem to believe that anyone who agrees with the general interpretation of the "official" account is somehow "government-related" or sponsored. This is also not the case. Your assertions have no merit - and if you would simply just read the archived talk pages, you would see that they have been dealt with again, and again. This is exceedinly tiresome to retread once again. --Haemo 04:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Let it be noted that the NPOV tag is removed prior to a consensus being reached. I will not turn this dispute into a revert war. Oneismany 00:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The NPOV tag is not to be added without some serious understanding of the concensus reached on this page. It's apparent from your comments, that you do not understand what neutral point of view means, not have you read the archives of this page to understand that this has been discussed, and concensus reached. Literally all of your comments have been previously addressed. --Haemo 00:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Which part of "representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources)" means sticking to government sources or government-sponsored sources that are challenged by video evidence from major news sources? Oneismany 00:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

No one has done this. Experts, both inside and outside the government have examined the evidence - including the footage in question - and come to the conclusion that the controlled demolition hypothesis is not supported by evidence. --Haemo 00:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

While there may be many points of view, not all are meanigful or carry the same weight (or any for that matter). Most experts in their field give credence to roughly the official version and most are not government and government-sponsored sources. RxS 00:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Know what I love about all this? The second someone dissagrees with these theories, they are automatically labled government or government-suponcored. It can't be just some sane person saying "Uh... that theory is stupid. We have so many bits of evidence backing up one idea(I use the term lightly), that it is as close to fact as we are going to get. Stop whining.".--Tarage 11:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

You started the edit war. Pablo Talk | Contributions 00:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• This article says that "An estimated 200 people jumped to their deaths from the burning towers" while The Falling Man claims over 250. --Cravendekere 21:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but 200 is an estimate of 250?--Tarage 11:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The number on this page is sourced; the number on The Falling Man is unsourced. I'd stay with 200 people. Pablo Talk | Contributions 04:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

--Tarage 16:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure this article has gone through many naming discussions, but wouldn't WP:COMMONNAME suggest this article be titled "September 11 attacks." I've never seen it referred to with the year, or at least very rarely, and I don't think any of the references do either. This article uses it only once in the article (in the intro). September 11 attacks appears a bit more often and is most likely the more common name. ~ UBeR 03:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I reckon, that specifying 2001 precludes any other attack on September 11. --Haemo 04:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any others. ~ UBeR 20:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia is a hybrid of many styles and naming conventions. There doesn't seem to be a perfect name that suits everyone. Peter Grey 03:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

After all it is not even "attacks", we should change it to "crimes" or "accidents" at least.--Shoons 04:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

uhm... accidents? Those poor folks didn't mean to fly their airliners into the towers? What? --Golbez 06:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry I was wrong. It should be "Case", "Occurrence" or "event" at least, shouldn’t it? At least, "attacks" is not appropriate for the event or because the title of this article states "attacks", this article can be like this and can have bias. Then it would make sence. --Shoons 14:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

How is it not an attack? A recognized militant group used weapons to cause dammage to, at the very least, buildings and people. That sounds like very definition as defined by Wikipedia: "Attack is a word meaning to strike out at an opponent, among other definitions." Unless this is a backdoor way of trying to premote yet another conspiricy theory, which I'm betting it is...--Tarage 16:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You are right! From POV of so called "conspiricy theory", they were not attacks. "Attack"="to strike out at an opponent...". If it was internal job, it was not "attack"(, though "heart attack" does not have any opponet). Anyway what I am saying is this article can be with bias because the title tells so. It concludes that my arguments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias open tasks#September 11, 2001 attacks does not make sense because of this title, thus it can have bias, first of all.--Shoons 16:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this article has a strong bias towards the consensus amongst relevant and reputable sources, while giving fair room to far fetched theories to be known thus giving them the chance of being investigated and substantiated to become at some point in the future the new consensus. If you wish these theories to have the main room here, take them and work on until they reach consensus amongst relevant and reputable sources. Then come back and you will be welcome (and in the process you will probably earn a Pulitzer prize).--Igor21 17:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Anyway we should make another article with title of "September 11, 2001 crimes". I just want to have articles dedicated to facts, not to fiction or to theories.--Shoons 18:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Which is exactly what you would be doing by renaming it to crimes. Regardless of you who believe was behind it, they're still attacks. ~ UBeR 05:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! "they're still attacks" made me clear. This page should not have bias, then. This article shows only one side and it is against Wikipedia guideline.--Shoons 13:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it shows any side. To not show any side, the article would just have to present the facts as they're stated by reliable sources in a neutral manner. We obviously shouldn't give the attacking any sympathy. Likewise, we should not give the attacked side any sympathy. Value judgments should be made by the reader, not the writer. ~ UBeR 21:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

UBeR, I did not mean to disturb your initial question. Now I am making a comment regarding "I'm not aware of any others. " There is 1973 Chilean coup d'état. I heard that, in Latin America, it is know as 9/11 attacks by CIA of USA. It was even worse terrorism.

"...the mainstream theory technically _is_ a conspiracy theory because it implicates multiple individuals..." That's not what a conspiracy theory is. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

A sourced statement on Conspiracy theory: "The term 'conspiracy theory' may be a neutral descriptor for any conspiracy claim. To conspire means 'to join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act,'" which is exactly what is alleged of al-Qaeda. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I would use our article on Conspiracy theory as an authoritative source for this discussion. That article appears to have a bit of a split personality. It can't seem decide if it should be about conspiracies or conspiracy theories. These are two different things. I raised this issue on the article's talk page and so far, no one has responded.

In any case, the referenced cite is a 1976 version of the Merriam-Webster dictionary. The current version of this source says that conspiracy theory is "a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators" . It defines a conspiracy as "the act of conspiring together" and "an agreement among conspirators". . AFAIK, the so-called 'official' account is a conspiracy, but not a conspiracy theory. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what AFAIK means, but you just gave a dictionary definition and then directly opposed what your definition said. The official account is precisely a theory and it involves a secret plot by a poorly defined group of conspirators. Were there nineteen Arab Oswalds involved? We don't know. There were nineteen passport photographs involved. Were some of these individuals conspicuously present in airports on the morning of 9/11? Apparently so, although most of the evidence seems to be from videos whose location cannot be ascertained. Did some of them get on airplanes? Maybe, although there are no photographs, and their names don't appear on passenger lists. Did some of them pilot hijacked aircraft that morning? Maybe. One of them could have been taken over by the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Is the Flying Spaghetti Monster that evil? Adherents would say no, although there is a mystery involved here. How did hijackers take over four airplanes without being stopped by the crews? Coincidence? The ways of the Flying Spaghetti Monster are not always clear to finite human minds. Why did eyewitnesses claim that aircraft approached the Pentagon from two different directions? Were their eyes blinded by His Divine Noodles? This article would be a lot more honest if it contained more language like "according to representatives of the FBI (preferably with names)," or "President Bush stated...." All of the secondary sources do that, but someone decided to go with a tertiary source to get the lede sentence without attribution. Wowest (talk) 15:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, "AFAIK" is an abbreviation for "as far as I know". In any case, the identities of the 19 hijackers have been identified and confirmed. If you would like a good resource to find out what really happened, the 9/11 Commission Report provides a detailed and accurate account of Al Qaeda's terrorist attacks. I bought a copy myself because I prefer hardcopy, but it's also available for free on the Internet. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

[Note: In case the first couple sentences of this comment seem out-of-context, it's because I wrote them in response to a comment that was accidentally placed in this section, misinterpreted by me, and later moved by the original poster to the intended section.] When there is a notable challenge to the status quo, omitting mention of it could contravene the spirit of WP:NOTCENSORED. Now, when a notable and reliable source points out that a third of the population adheres to this challenge, and then refers to it as "mainstream", I can't think of any reason to exclude it. As for "conspiracy" versus "conspiracy theory," the latter certainly has some negative connotations (e.g., their adherents are supposedly "conspiracy nuts"). But by referring to the alternative theories as, well, alternative, then we can suggest in one sense of the word that these are theories about alternative (i.e., other) conspiracies, and in another sense that alternative (i.e., various) conspiracy theories exist. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I doubt if it has anything to do with WP:NOTCENSORED. Rather it has to do with attributing undue weight to fringe theories. There are few (if any) reliable sources that claim that 9/11 was a conspiracy by the US government. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

My invocation of WP:NOTCENSORED came in response to this post, which was admittedly misplaced, leading me to misinterpret it as a claim that the entire "Conspiracy theories" section didn't belong, when in fact it was aimed only at the "dancing Israeli" idea. However, the Time source raises a serious challenge to the belief that U.S. government involvement is a "fringe theory," when it explicitly states that such a theory "is not a fringe phenomenon" (). But this is all beside the point, which is that even the official theory is a conspiracy theory because it indicates a conspiracy among al-Qeada. "Conspiracy" means something like "covert teamwork" (cf. Gunpowder Plot, aka Gunpowder Conspiracy), not "inside job." Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's definition of the term 'fringe theory' and Time Magazine's definition of the single word 'fringe' isn't necessarily the same thing. Wikipedia's policy regarding 'fringe theories' is explained here: WP:FRINGE. The quote from the Time Magazine article is about the relative popularity of 9/11 conspiracy theories, not about the legitimacy of conspiracy theories. The only thing it lends credence to is whether 9/11 conspiracy theories are notable. As to whether 9/11 conspiracy theories carry any weight, there are few (if any) reliable sources that say that the U.S. government was behind the 9/11 terrorist attacks. In fact, if you read the entire Time Magazine article to its conclusion, it clearly dismisses 9/11 conspiracy theories as "unreasonable" and then goes on to explore psychological reasons why conspiracy theorists believe in the things that they do. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Well yes, Time documents the notability, not the veracity, of these theories; and accordingly, the WP article reflects their notability rather than veracity, and does so in a relatively small amount of space--perfectly consistent with WP:DUE, which states that viewpoints should be presented in proportion to their prominence. Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE states weight should be roughly proportional to the preponderance of reliable sources backing that perspective. So far, you have not provided a single reliable source that backs the perspective that 9/11 was a conspiracy by the US government. Not one. Even if you could, weight should be roughly proportional and there are thousands and thousands of reliable sources that say 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Al Qaeda. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

That is EXACTLY what a conspiracy theory is, Tom. It's a theory that a crime was committed by a group of people in cooperation with each other. I'm going to try to add something to the conspiracy theory topic, since the people who generally use the term do so with some obvious DOUBLETHINK. However, the most senior philosopher who has pronounced on this philosophical distinction is Dr. David Ray Griffin, and he even put the term "Official Conspiracy Theory" in a book title. Wowest (talk) 16:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I have changed the wording slightly. The phrase alternative theory has a stigma attached to it. Could we possibly use a word other than alternative? I would be far more receptive if it didn't use that word. Also the mainstream 'theory' is still mainstream if more than 1/2 of Americans still believe it, as the poll suggests. --Tarage (talk) 19:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

"Numerous" works for me, so I'm fine with the new wording. Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

What does not work, however, is the reduction of the section to a single sentence. Let's not confuse WP:UNDUE with WP:UNWANTED. Because WP:UNDUE states that information is to be presented in proportion to its prominence (which, if we read that pedantically, might suggest that the beliefs of 1/3 of the population merit 1/3 of the article's space), the elimination of context is problematic, because it removes information regarding the prominence of these theories. The fuller version, however, indicates prominence 1) by pointing out that 1/3 of the population has subscribed to the theories, and 2) ironically, by pointing to notable entities (the NIST and "the community of civil engineers") that have aimed to refute the theories, because this indicates that these entities have taken the theories seriously enough to address in the first place, regardless of the conclusions they've reached. Cosmic Latte (talk) 22:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE states weight should be roughly proportional to the preponderance of reliable sources backing that perspective. I doubt if there are many (if any) reliable sources that claim 9/11 was a conspiracy by the US government. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

No, it says absolutely nothing about perspectives being "backed"; it talks about perspectives being held and prominent: "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." A third of the population is prominent. Time magazine is prominent. The NIST and "the community of civil engineers" are prominent entities to have addressed the issue, even if they have disagreed with it. And the view is held by a "significant minority" of the population, whereas WP:UNDUE states that only "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia." A third of the population is not "extremely small or vastly limited." All that matters is that the population holds this view. Whether or not it is correct is entirely irrelevant: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Cosmic Latte (talk) 22:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE also states, "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents." While a third of the population is not an individual adherent, it is most certainly a prominent collective adherent. Therefore, to eliminate mention of who--i.e., the significant minority--adheres to these theories is to contravene what the policy is suggesting here. By including the Time reference, we are clarifying who prominently adheres to these alternative theories, and are therefore being perfectly consistent with WP:UNDUE. Cosmic Latte (talk) 23:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

What does WP:3RR say? And how about Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories? Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

3RR says, "Contributors must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period," which is pretty much what I recall it saying when I first read it back in the stone age. I have not made more than three reverts on any page within a day. I don't know what you mean to point to on the ArbCom page, so I'll have to let you be more specific. In any case, this isn't a very substantive refutation of the argument that the conspiracy-theory approach, being held by a third of the population, is therefore held by a significant minority and therefore deserves reasonable mention as per "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents." The conspiracy theory section has been there for quite a while, and it has included more than just a single sentence. I'm not really advocating anything new here, but seem to have encountered new resistance to the section now that its content has been attributed to such a large segment of the population. Cosmic Latte (talk) 23:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Should we just open a NPOV dispute on the appropriate noticeboard? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Or just explain why the statement, "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents" (emphasis mine, wording straight from policy) should not apply in this case, and there'll be no dispute. Cosmic Latte (talk) 23:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

FYI, WP:DR is the place to go if there is a genuine content dispute, but I really don't see why there needs to be a dispute at all. The version I am advocating simply identifies the significant minority that holds a particular view, which is precisely what WP:UNDUE calls for. I am not claiming that the view is true, or that reliable sources claim this; I am simply promoting the inclusion of what is verifiable, which happens to be in accord with WP:UNDUE's direction that proportional mention be given to significant minorities. Cosmic Latte (talk) 23:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Rather than doing something drastic and potentially alienating, I have requested comment at every single WikiProject in which this article is categorized (e.g., ). Please forgive me for slanting the request in favour of my position (being only human, it would have been difficult not to do so), but bear in mind that it is ultimately a request for uninvolved parties to review this section of the talk page and therefore to reach their own conclusions and build consensus in whatever manner it might be built. I will minimize my own involvement with the disputed section of the article for now, as I feel I have satisfactorily put forth and defended a policy-based position, which I will now leave to the larger community to evaluate. Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Even still, it's a violation of WP:NPOV. The Time Magazine article does not conclude that 9/11 conspiracy theories are "'not a fringe phenomenon' but rather "'a mainstream political reality'". It concludes by calling them "unreasonable" and exploring psychological reasons why conspiracy theorists believe in unreasonable things. Other reliable sources have said similar things. Popular Mechanics, for example, calls 9/11 conspiracy theories "wild" and "outlandish". I can cite numerous reliable sources that debunk 9/11 conspiracy theories. Unless this key information is included and given proper weight, it is in violation of WP:NPOV. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps "conclude" isn't the best choice of words, because the Time article does indeed "conclude" with the suggestion (by one writer) that the views held by a third of the population are problematic. Granted, two-thirds of the population would agree with this writer. And probably the vast majority of people can agree that the specific theory he cites as "unreasonable"--the theory that it was a missile rather than an airplane that crashed into the Pentagon--is implausible. But the passage in the WP article was never meant to suggest that Time endorses any of these theories. I specifically worded it to say that "Time magazine cited a poll," which, well, it did. The point is not that Time endorses anything so outlandish; the point is not that I do (in fact, I don't); the point is that a significant minority of the population endorses the view that there is some likelihood that U.S. government officials are culpable to some degree. It just so happens that this fact comes from a poll that comes from a magazine that questions the sanity behind this fact, but the fact itself remains, and it remains embedded in a reliable source, even if it its implications are incongruous with those of the source as a whole. What I have yet to hear is an explanation of how 36% of the American population is not a significant minority that holds a particular viewpoint, and of how this significant minority does not therefore deserve mention in accord with both WP:V, which is apathetic about the truth of a belief, so long as the belief can be located in a reliable source, and WP:DUE (indeed, a section of WP:NPOV), which grants that the views held by a significant minority should be attributable to that minority. Cosmic Latte (talk) 03:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

However, if people disagree with my position that the alternative theories need to be put in context, I request that they present precise arguments for doing so--just as I quoted WP:DUE, "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents," in support of attributing the view of a significant minority to its adherents--rather than simply reverting or just pointing to something like WP:FRINGE without making an incisive case for why it should apply here. Cosmic Latte (talk) 02:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Quoted from WP:UNDUE: Keep in mind that in determining proper weight we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources. If there are any reliable sources supporting the conspiracy theory viewpoint then the number is very, very small, whereas lots of sources support the mainstream viewpoint, so we should give very little weight to the conspiracy theories. The fact that a significant percentage of the American public happen to support the viewpoint does mean we should mention it somewhere and possibly cover it in sub-articles (we do), but it does not mean we should give it anything other than minimal weight in the main article. Hut 8.5 07:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for being precise. I think that's a reasonable argument. Still, because the rest of that quoted sentence is, "not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors," it would seem to get at the heart of the matter if things were reversed a bit--i.e., most of us adhered to conspiracy theories, but most sources advocated the mainsteam account. In that case, one "prevalence" would be up against another, and that sentence would dictate which prevalence guides the allocation of weight in the article. To reformulate what I suppose has been my main point all along, even if the conspiracy theories are given minimal weight, they should probably be attributed to their source (in this case, 36% of the American public); in other words, attribution should be part of what is reasonably considered "minimal weight"--it's a conceptual feather, so to speak: functionally important, but physically lightweight. Anything else is weasel-wordy and, while it might not contradict the letter of WP:RS, it arguably contradicts the spirit, because it implies that it's sufficient to know that a perspective exists without knowing its reasonably knowable source. A previous wording stated that "conspiracy theories have emerged," without indicating from whence they "emerged." And what does "emerged" mean in this context anyway? Did they emerge, in a technical sense, like consciousness emerges from a sentient organism? Or did they emerge, in a colloquial sense, like swamp creatures emerge from the deep? Pretty spooky stuff either way. So if we're looking to be succinct, then perhaps we could say something like the following: "Proponents of various conspiracy theories, who were estimated in 2006 to include more than one-third of the American population, have suggested individuals inside the United States knew the attacks were coming and deliberately chose not to prevent them, or that individuals outside of al-Qaeda planned, carried out, or assisted in the attacks." This adds a simple relative clause and keeps things short and sweet, but steers clear of the weasels and swamp creatures. Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

That's still not accurate. The word "propenent" means "one who argues in favor of something : advocate" . Just because you agree with a statement doesn't mean you go around arguing in favor of something. Second, the Time Magazine article states (in reference to the poll) US "government officials...carried out the attacks themselves". That's not the same thing as "individuals outside of al-Qaeda planned, carried out, or assisted". In fact, the latter I would agree with since we know that the Taliban (who are individuals outside of Al-Qaeda) at the very least gave aid and comfort to Al Qaeda. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The first problem should be easy to fix: "Proponents of" --> "Adherents to." As for the second, I'm not sure that anything really needs to be changed at all. The key word in "who were estimated in 2006 to include more than one-third of the American population" is include. "Individuals outside of al-Qaeda" is a much larger group of people than US "government officials," but it does include them. So the group of people who believe that non-al-Qaeda members in general were involved does include the 36% of the American population that believes government officials in particular were involved. So that leaves us with, "Adherents to various conspiracy theories, who were estimated in 2006 to include more than one-third of the American population, have suggested individuals inside the United States knew the attacks were coming and deliberately chose not to prevent them, or that individuals outside of al-Qaeda planned, carried out, or assisted in the attacks." If you can think of an even better way to attribute the opinions to their adherents, that'd be great--but to state them without attributing them at all is the very definition of weasel-wording. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Even 'adherents' seems too strong. But in any case, I think you completely missed my second point. By altering the wording of the Time Magazine article, you've completely changed the meaning of what it said. There is a huge difference between saying that the US government carried out the attacks themselves and saying that people outside of Al Qaeda helped carry out the attacks. See my previous example of the Taliban who gave aid and comfort to Al Qaeda but are not part of the US government. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The view stated in the WP article is "that individuals outside of al-Qaeda planned, carried out, or assisted in the attacks." This is considerably broader than what the Time article says, but it includes the Time-cited view that U.S. government officials (who are, indeed, among the set of "individuals outside of al-Qaeda") carried out the attacks (which is, indeed, among the conceptual set of allegedly having "planned, carried out, or assisted in the attacks"). To say that conspiracy theory adherents "include [the] more than one-third of the American population" that implicates the U.S. government in carrying out the attacks themselves is not to say that conspiracy theory adherents are limited to this segment of the population, and therefore it is fully accurate to say that those who broadly believe "that individuals outside of al-Qaeda planned, carried out, or assisted in the attacks" are inclusive of the population that more precisely thinks that U.S. government officials carried out the attacks. It isn't perfect, but it's considerably less weasel-wordy than just saying that the theories happen to "exist" or that they mysteriously "emerged." If you can think of an even better way to word this in a non-weasel fashion, that'd be great, but as far as I can tell, the key word "include" accurately places the relatively specific beliefs cited in Time within the relatively inclusive group of beliefs mentioned on the WP article. Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

As for the Taliban giving aid and comfort to al-Qaeda, I don't think that is what's being meant in this sense of "conspiracy theory." Perhaps the WP article is wording things too broadly (maybe "individuals outside of al-Qaeda" should be replaced with something like "individuals outside of al-Qaeda and even the Taliban," "individuals not typically associated with al-Qaeda," "individuals outside of al-Qaeda, potentially including U.S. government officials," or something else along those lines). But in any case, the broad group of alleged suspects and crimes mentioned on WP is inclusive of the narrower group cited in Time, so I'm quite sure that the word "include" makes the clause factually correct. Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

So I guess the ultimate question is this: How can the section be phrased so that it's neither so long as to seem undue, nor so short as to be weasel-wordy? I feel that my explanation of the function of the word "include," in my past few entries here, justifies the phrasing I've suggested, or at least some variant of it, but perhaps someone else could say it even better. Cosmic Latte (talk) 10:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure where the phrase "individuals outside of al-Qaeda planned, carried out, or assisted in the attacks" comes from. As best as I can tell, neither the Time Magazine nor the San Francisco Chronicle articles say this. The Time Magazine article says that 9/11 conspiracy theories are the belief that "the entire catastrophe was planned and executed by federal officials" . The cited reference (the San Francisco Chronicle) defines 9/11 conspiracy theories as the belief that "the perpetrators included members of their own government - that somehow the Bush administration, with the collusion of the Pentagon, was either behind the attacks or simply allowed them to happen" . Why don't we simply use one of these definitions? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)