Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories

Template:TrollWarning /Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3 /Archive 4 /Archive 5 /Archive 6 /Archive 7 /Archive 8

Spin

The amount of spinning that goes on in this article is quite remarkable. From the first template (weasel words lol) to the last sentence. And many times it's by the same editors that make sure no information that goes against the 'official story' gets into the 9/11 article too. Good job in making sure the information doesn't get presented on its own merit. Elfguy 20:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

1. Thank you.

2. "Good job in making sure the information doesn't get presented on its own merit." The goal is to present it as "some dude said this." That is exactly as much merit as it deserves.

3.This article needs the weasel template. Count the number of times the aticle says things like "some researchers" or "many researchers."--DCAnderson 20:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• • Look also at things like "most of this claims", "a number of journalist and scientists" or "pubblications as...".--Pokipsy76 07:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe what you are talking about is:

"Most of these claims have been dismissed by a number of journalists and scientists in publications such as Scientific American[7] and Popular Mechanics[8]"

Since the statement is atributed to a source, they are not being used as Weasel words.

However if there are unatributed statements from either side, you should feel free to be bold and atribute them.--DCAnderson 08:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with Elfguy. The "weasel words" tag and the fact that the article ends with criticisms make the artical seem comletely illegitamate. This is not at all a neutral POV. --Insertrandomname 23:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The weasel words tag is meant to be there temporarily until the weasel words are removed. The real question to debate on the talk page is whether or not the article has weasel words.

Something that makes the article seem biased is less important to discuss here then whether or not the article is biased. This would be a good place to discuss the parts of the article in which a conspiracy theory is said to be disproven or proven. How much weight is given to the detractors right now? Having a temporary tag at the beginning and what link is the last in the list don't seem as important to me.--Bill 14:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The statement is not atributed just to the sources cited, it is attributed to a set of apparently many sources but the sources cited are just two.--Pokipsy76 14:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe it is of paramount importance, because anyone reading the article instantly gets the wrong impression. That's like selling a book with "this is a fake" stamped on the cover - even if it's not. People will believe it, and I think that is the whole point. "Weasel words" in this context means simply the words of anyone who doesn't agree with the official story, or who casts it into doubt.

As I commented earlier to DCAnderson there is no actual evidence (REAL evidence, that is) that the official version of events on 9/11 is fact, and it should therefore be treated as the theory it is. The fact that the official story asserts that 19 Arab hijackers conspired to attack the USA means that not only should it be categorised as theory, it should be categorised as conspiracy theory. All the theories (official and otherwise) should be given the same weight until they can be PROVEN or disproven. Not one single "outlandish conspiracy theory" can actually be called that until the official version of events has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt; until that time, they are ALL theories and therefore all equally valid.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sosijinabun (talk • contribs) .

My point is that the tag is temporary and should be removed when the weasel words are gone. I think a more productive discussion would be one about whether or not the article has weasel words in it and what specific changes should be made to remove them. And the tag can affect both sides of the argument. For example, the sentence "Osama bin Laden's 2004 confession is substantially ignored by conspiracy theorists" sounds weaselly to me and I am skeptical anyone can cite enough to back this up. I don't know if that meets Wikipedia's definition of weaselness but its something specific to be addressed on the talk page.--Bill 14:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Look this article is full of Weasel Words. Here is the definition from WP:Weasel:

Weasel words are words or phrases that smuggle bias into seemingly supported statements by attributing opinions to anonymous sources. Weasel words give the force of authority to a statement without letting the reader decide if the source of the opinion is reliable. If a statement can't stand on its own without weasel words, it lacks neutral point of view; either a source for the statement should be found, or the statement should be removed.

Now go skim the article again, you'll find numerous statements attributed to "conspiracy theorists" or "researchers" without saying which ones. This is disengenuous, as it makes it seem all the conspiracy theorists believe the same thing, which they don't. It also makes it hard for the reader to understand where a statement is coming from. So instead of all this whining and moaning about how the article is being destroyed, how about you actually be bold and help make the article better.--DCAnderson 17:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Then if the definition of "weasel words" is used, the very title "Conspiracy theories" is also weasel words - for the title is "giving the force of authority to a statement without letting the reader decide if the source of the opinion is reliable".—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.166.116.237 (talk • contribs) .

You're missing the point of WP:Weasel. Weasel words are when you atribute a statement to a vague or anonymous source.--DCAnderson 04:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

FAQ

I'm going to start an FAQ so we do not have to continuously answer questions like:

• Is the title biased?
• Can we prove "pull" really is an industry term?
• What counts as Original Research?

If it comes out decent we can link to it at the top of the page. Feel free to contribute.--DCAnderson 21:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should not try to give a unitary POV about the debate on the questions but present distinct expositions of all the POV written by supporters of the POVs. This would avoid to have further debate on how to present the discussions. For each question we can make a subparagraph for each position.--Pokipsy76 08:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I was imagining it as:

"This is what the various arguments were, and this was what the consensus currently is."

But I suppose a sub-paragraph for each argument would be fine, but I also think we should still list the consensus so a reader understands why the article is the way it is now.--DCAnderson 08:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Seems good.--Pokipsy76 15:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Two comments on how the FAQ is evolving:

The statement "When a topic is controversial (and that is the case) the title must be neutral: you can use title with negative implications when you speak about nazis or pedophilia because in those case there is an almost unanimous consensus (they are not controversial topic). If the topic is controversial you must use a title that is accepted by all the point of views."

If you check out the talk pages for those two subjects: Talk:Pedophilia Talk:Nazism

there is actually controversy. In fact there is a vote on the Nazism page on what the title should be.

The other thing is that I don't think we should have a section for users who support a position. It will turn the FAQ into a vote page.

Other than that, I want to thank you for your contributions, Pokipsy.

I kinda wish more people besides you and me were working on this though.--DCAnderson 02:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any particular problem if the FAQ has some features in common with a vote page. I don't want the FAQ to be used just to shut up people that come here and say they want to change the title (or other related things), I think that the FAQ page can be useful to show the consensus around the different positions.--Pokipsy76 19:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Neutral POV

I think it would be helpful from a neutral POV if someone who wasn't skeptical of ALL "conspiracy theories" wrote articles about conspiracy theories. DCAndersons's take on "conspiracy theories" is that they are all wrong, by their very nature, and cites The Protocols Of Zion as an example of how a "proven hoax" can be so damaging. However, DCAnderson does not seem to understand that "proven" means there has to be actual proof, not just hearsay that something is not so. The "proof" that the Protocols of Zion is a hoax is based on the beliefs of one man, and that "proof" consists of accusations of plagiarisation - accusations which can be very quickly and easily rebutted on reading both of the documents in question. One can only assume from DCAndersons insistence that Protocols is a hoax that he has not read either or both - which therefore brings into question his whole basis for non-belief in conspiracy theories, especially the Protocols of Zion. According to DCAnderson, "conspiracy theories" are responsible for the "wave of anti-Semitism" around the world; DCAnderson does not seem to be aware that it is militant and aggressive behaviour by Zionist Israel (notice the qualification there? No anti-Semitism in sight...) over the past 30 years (and more) which is more responsible for anti-Semitism.

DCAnderson also tries to assert that anyone who does not like George W. Bush is a conspiracy theorist who has nothing more than theories to accuse him of. Again, this shows a total lack of education on the issues, as very little "theory" is necessary to see the blatant criminality of the Bush regime. Many many "conspiracy theorists" have tried to point out that the very REASON why the Bush regime is so criminal is BECAUSE of the well-documented and blatant affiliation to "conspiracies". For instance, the well-documented ties between the Bush and Bin Laden families; the well-documented connections between the Bush family and Nazi Germany; Bush's own admission of membership to Skull & Bones, etc. "Conspiracy theorists" do NOT go looking for someone to hate and decide on George Bush.

By his own words (at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DCAnderson) DCAnderson discredits all he says and any slant he puts on an article in seeming good faith. This would be like me, as a known non-believer in God, trying to convince people that God does not exist. Who would listen? The answer is, no-one. And that is what people will think when they see the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories entry and who wrote it. The fact that the "conspiracy theories" are as valid as the official version of events (because of omissions in the official "report") will be overlooked and discredited because of the beliefs of the person or people writing it. And is that not the whole idea, DCAnderson?

The fact is, at the end of the day you SHOULD have to constantly answer questions about the neutrality of the item, until such time as it is clear to ALL, and INSTANTLY, that there is no bias. If you cannot write the article so that is shows the "conspiracy theories" as being as much valid ideas as the official version (and remember, the official version of events is supposedly only a theory too!) then you should not write it at all.

Also, the whole article should be named "Alternative theories" or something similar - as I just said the official version of events is also a guess and is therefore no more provable (and therefore no more valid) than the wildest "conspiracy theory". Calling it "9/11 Conspiracy Theories" is a disingenious attempt to discredit all the alternative theories right from the start. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sosijinabun (talk • contribs)

It would be better to point to a specific edit that you believe should be undone or modified rather than to write a personal attack against an editor.--Bill 14:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

A long angry rant directed specifically at me?

I feel so loved.

1.) I don't like the Bush Administration. Correction, I hate the Bush Administration. I find that there are numerous reasons to dislike the Bush Administration that you don't have to fabricate.

2.)The Protocols of the Elders of Zion are a hoax. Which is another example of "making up reasons" to dislike someone. Don't hate Israel because of some "vast Zionist conspiracy" that you can't even prove exists, hate them for their treatment of the Palestenians.--DCAnderson 17:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

No anger involved. The title should be changed, period. Conpsiracy theories? I beg to differ. There is no PROOF that the official version of events is what really happened, apart from the word of certain members of the "conspiracy" - which doesn't prove a thing. A burglar giving his accomplice an alibi, no more. Certainly not proof. Therefore the official version, because it has no concrete scientific evidence to back it up, is as much "conspiracy theory" as alternative theories. The 9/11 Commission, by it's strange omission of any mention of WTC7 and avoidance of lots of other crucial questions, discredited everything it DID say, and can therefore not be quoted as an authority. So where is the "proof"?

I didn't suggest you liked Bush at all. You misread. And I didn't say that I believed the Protocols is true, merely that they have NOT been "proven" as fake. Numerous supposed "authorities" on the subject have given their opinion that they are fake, yes; but that is not proof. If you know something on the subject that I do not, something which is not merely opinion (or POV...), obviously, then I would be only to happy to peruse it...

Also I didn't say I hate Israel. Nor did I mention anything about a vast Zionist conspiracy. Once again, your disdain leads you to overstate the case. I simply suggest that Israel, for one reason or another, has been overly militant over the past 30 years. Whether you believe that or not is immaterial - hundreds of millions of people around the world do, maybe more, and because of Israel's own actions and words, not because of some "theory".—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sosijinabun (talk • contribs) .

"No anger involved. The title should be changed, period. Conpsiracy theories? I beg to differ. There is no PROOF that the official version of events is what really happened, apart from the word of certain members of the "conspiracy" - which doesn't prove a thing."

In order to discredit these sources as part of the conspiracy, you first have to assume that there is a conspiracy to be a part of. Wikipedia can't make assumptions like that.

"The 9/11 Commission, by it's strange omission of any mention of WTC7 and avoidance of lots of other crucial questions, discredited everything it DID say, and can therefore not be quoted as an authority."

The 9/11 commision can be quoted as an authority, because it is an authority. If an investigative commitee set up by the U.S. Congress to specifically address 9/11 doesn't count as an authority, then I don't know what does. Now just because they're an authority doesn't mean they can't be wrong, but we still have to include their opinion as the authority that they are.

"I didn't suggest you liked Bush at all. You misread."

I must have misread this part,

"DCAnderson also tries to assert that anyone who does not like George W. Bush is a conspiracy theorist who has nothing more than theories to accuse him of."

Honest mistake, I thought you were trying to say I was accusing "anyone who does not like George W. Bush" of being a conspiracy theorist, and thus am also calling myself a conspiracy theorist, unless I have nothing bad to say about Bush, and therefore I must be in favor of Bush. Honest mistake.

"And I didn't say that I believed the Protocols is true, merely that they have NOT been "proven" as fake. Numerous supposed "authorities" on the subject have given their opinion that they are fake, yes; but that is not proof. If you know something on the subject that I do not, something which is not merely opinion (or POV...), obviously, then I would be only to happy to peruse it..."

The article on The Protocols of the Elders of Zion here on Wikipedia explains it pretty well. It has examples of the passages plagiarised from Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu and the original author and his motives are mentioned too:

Recent research by Russian historian Mikhail Lepekhine traced the Protocols to agent provocateur, Matvei Golovinski, as part of a scheme to persuade Tsar Nicholas II that the modernization of Russia was really a Jewish plot to control the world. Lepekhine discovered Golovinski's authorship in Russia's long-closed archives and published his findings in November 1999 in the French newsweekly L'Express[8]. Golovinski had been linked to the work before; the German writer Konrad Heiden identified him as an author of the Protocols in 1944.[9] Golovinski worked together with Charles Joly (son of Maurice Joly) at Le Figaro in Paris and wrote articles at the direction of Pyotr Rachkovsky, Chief of the Russian secret service. During the Dreyfus affair in France, when polarization of European attitudes towards the Jews was at a maximum, the publication began private circulation as The Protocols in 1897.[10] After the 1917 revolution, Golovinski became a Bolshevik propagandist.

But of course that is all "lies" put out by "them" so we can't trust it of course. But I'll be on the look out for information that isn't a "lie" put out by "them."

"Also I didn't say I hate Israel. Nor did I mention anything about a vast Zionist conspiracy. Once again, your disdain leads you to overstate the case. I simply suggest that Israel, for one reason or another, has been overly militant over the past 30 years. Whether you believe that or not is immaterial - hundreds of millions of people around the world do, maybe more, and because of Israel's own actions and words, not because of some "theory"."

I do believe that Israel has been over militant. That's probably why I said, "hate them for their treatment of the Palestenians."--DCAnderson 21:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, re: the conpiracy. We're asked to believe, with no actual evidence that 19 Arab hijackers conspired to somehow hijack 4 planes and crash them. There is no proof that this happened, even from the supposedly authoratitive 9/11 Commission; there is no direct evidence that a single one of those hijackers was on the planes. Indeed, there are pointers elsewhere that they COULDN'T have got on the planes, and that some of them are still alive today - casting doubts on the whole story. This therefore relegates the official version of events to unproven theory - EXACTLY the same as the "conspiracy theories". The official version of events HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN and is therefore simply theoretical assertion and interpretation of known or guessed events. Therefore, either the official version of events needs to be classified as a "conpiracy theory", or ALL the theories need to be given equal weight, with qualifications and caveats for each.

Secondly, back to Protocols, as I believe your treatment of it casts into doubt your whole angle about "conspiracy theories". Your disdain of "conspiracy" colours your judgement once again; I didn't say any of it was "lies put out by "them"". It is simply NOT PROVEN.

There have been numerous assertions over the past century that Protocols is plagiarised but so what? Since when was an accusation of plagiarisation proof? I have studied both documents, and while there are some small similarities in places I personally disagree about the plagiarisation. I could quote any amount of "authorative" literary criticism saying the same thing too. Also, Wikipedia is not and will never be a reliable source of information; this was proven recently when certain US Senators and Congressmen were caught altering the facts about themselves. To quote Wikipedia as a source is to automatically have one's case dismissed out of hand. I could provide any amount of supposedly reliable and authorative testimony that Protocols is or could be genuine; Winston Churchill believed that was the case. So did Hitler. So did Stalin. Does that make it so? No, of course not; one still cannot prove one way or another. It is therefore unfair, inaccurate and misleading to blame the plight of the whole of the Middle East on this document, when there are more obvious (and provable) reasons for the state of affairs.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sosijinabun (talk • contribs) .

As near as I can tell, you're reason for doubting the official account is "there is no proof, except for the proof, but that doesn't count 'cause I say it doesn't count."

You seem to use the same argument for the Protocols too.

Look, by your standards we couldn't prove gravity. So I'm not gonna bother arguing with you over it.

Also I'm not saying that the Protocols are the source of the problem in the Middle East, I'm saying that they are making an allready volatile situation even worse. Read some articles in AlJazeera, they all complain about agressive military from Israel, but then they take it further with the "massive Jewish conspiracy that controls everything." It's not pretty.

But look, don't come on here arguing that I'm editing in bad faith. You know what, yah I think conspiracy theories are crap. There I said it conspiracy theories are crap.

But Wikipedia articles need people with a wide range of opinions to edit them otherwise the page turns into a big soapbox for whatever group the article is about. That is how Wikipedia articles remain neutral.

So if you have anything to contribute, contribute, but if you created this account just to call me out, then you should go somewhere else.--DCAnderson 16:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

How childish. "Conspiracy theories are crap!" And therein lies the proof that the title and the whole direction of the article is basically "weasel words", written by someone who thinks "conspiracy theories are crap!" Of course, being a supporter of the official story, no amount of reason will ever get through, but the simple fact is that neither you, nor the 9/11 Commission, have offered any actual proof that the official story is likewise not "conspiracy theory". And your attempts to ignore this basic point are typical of someone who believes (or pretends to believe) the official story, despite the holes one could drive a bus through.

Wikipedia is supposed to be an encylopedia. Encyclopedias are supposed to be based on facts. Facts are supported by evidence, not by asssertions, opinions or the insistence of committees. Where is the PROOF that 19 hijackers carried out 9/11? Where is the video evidence of them getting on the planes? Where is the eyewitness testimony? DNA? Their names weren't even on passenger lists. Until you can PROVE that those people got on the planes you cannot PROVE they committed the crime. No amount of insistence, either by you or by the 9/11 Commmission alters this very basic fact - that the official story is just that, a story. There is no proof, and logically, if you were intent on writing a factually based account from a neutral POV, you would concede that point and either rename the article to something like "Alternative theories" or you would include a qualification at the top of the page (replacing the "Weasel words" tag) to inform readers that the whole article is personal opinion - and very partisan opinion at that.

But I know it's a waste of time trying to get this point across to you. Your whole point in writing this article is to try to get people to agree with you that "conspiracy theories are crap", and that these particular "conspiracy theories" are the most laughable of the lot. And therefore neutrality is not a consideration to you. However, I don't believe I am being particularly difficult here. All I am asking is either for some irrefutable proof that the official version of events is the correct one, in which case I will agree that the title "conspiracy theories" should stand. Or, that the title should be changed to show that the official story is also "conspiracy theory" - because it is as crap as anything I have ever heard!!! The fact that you refuse to consider either of these very simple points highlights most succinctly that you are indeed editing in bad faith; you are not writing an article about 9/11 "Conspiracy theories" to highlight that these theories exist, but to point out how ridiculous they are.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.166.116.237 (talk • contribs) .

"How childish. "Conspiracy theories are crap!" And therein lies the proof that the title and the whole direction of the article is basically "weasel words", written by someone who thinks "conspiracy theories are crap!"'

Weasel Words are when you attribute a thought or statement to "no one in particular" such as "some people" or "many researchers." I don't see what the title has to do with that. The title is just telling you what the article is about.

"Of course, being a supporter of the official story, no amount of reason will ever get through, but the simple fact is that neither you, nor the 9/11 Commission, have offered any actual proof that the official story is likewise not "conspiracy theory". And your attempts to ignore this basic point are typical of someone who believes (or pretends to believe) the official story, despite the holes one could drive a bus through."

As a supporter of conspiracy theories, I don't think any amount of reason is going to get through to you either. And there is plenty of proof, you just don't want to accept it. As near as I can tell, the only proof you would accept, is if I built a time-machine, took you back in time, and showed you the event as it happened. But even then I'm pretty sure you'd come up with some new problem with the proof.

"Wikipedia is supposed to be an encylopedia. Encyclopedias are supposed to be based on facts. Facts are supported by evidence, not by asssertions, opinions or the insistence of committees."

Just because you don't support the results of the official investigation, doesn't mean it's not authoritative in the eyes of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not here to break new ground on a subject, Wikipedia is just here to summarize what is allready known.

"But I know it's a waste of time trying to get this point across to you. Your whole point in writing this article is to try to get people to agree with you that "conspiracy theories are crap", and that these particular "conspiracy theories" are the most laughable of the lot. And therefore neutrality is not a consideration to you."

I didn't write this article. This article is a collaborative effort. I've provided my input based on the standards of Wikipedia and from my point of view. And just because I'm of the opinion that conspiracy theories are crap, does not mean my contributions are of any less merit than contributors who feel the opposite way. If only the people who support something are allowed to edit a page, the page will turn into a soapbox.

"However, I don't believe I am being particularly difficult here. All I am asking is either for some irrefutable proof that the official version of events is the correct one, in which case I will agree that the title "conspiracy theories" should stand."

Well we can't provide it for you, sorry. But we can present the official account as what it is, the OFFICIAL account that is accepted by the majority of people who are authorities on the subject; and we can support alternative views supported by a minority as exactly what they are, minority views that are not generally accepted. This is fully in line with Wikipedia policy: WP:NPOV#Undue Weight And there is nothing wrong with calling these theories "conspiracy theories," as it does not show up on Words to avoid--DCAnderson 00:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Original Research in "Motives" section

These two statements are Original Research:

*Another reference to a similar statement made by Zbigniew Brzezinski in his 1997 book The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives: As America becomes an increasingly multicultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat.

A third case of promoting an agenda appears on page 51 of a document titled 'Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century' published by 'Project for the New American Century (PNAC)': Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor.[138]

The first one is from a book written before 9/11 that has nothing to do with 9/11, and the second statement is an unatributed conclusion from a primary source document.

We need a secondary source saying that either of these two statements have anything to do with a 9/11 conspiracy.--DCAnderson 22:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Iranian President Questions Official Story

I put the paragraph below in the suggested warnings and hidden motives section

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in a letter to President Bush said “September eleven was not a simple operation. Could it be planned an executed without coordination with intelligence and security services – or their extensive infiltration? Of course this is just an educated guess. Why have various aspects of the attacks been kept secret? Why are we not told who botched their responsibilities? And why aren’t those responsible put on trial?”. “Some believe that the hype paved the way for the attack on Afghanistan”[1].

This was immediately deleted. Upon further thought this did not belong in the section where I put it. However in the remarks deleting this section it said a letter written in 2006 letter should have no relevance to what happened in 2001. I could not disagree more. The fact that a world figure who is in the news every day questions the official theory and takes an “educated guess” as to a motive belongs in this article somewhere somehow. I do not know exactly where. Parts of this seem to belong in different sections. Rewording might make this chore easier. The 9/11 remarks begin on Page 8 of the letter. So I throw this to you more experienced Wikipedia types. 11:28, 13 May 2006 (Ed Kollin)

It is still in the article, here[2].--DCAnderson 23:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I wrote that it wasn't relevant because I missed the quotation marks around the last sentence. In the next edit summary you can see that I returned the quote to the article, and also added in a clause because of my own confusion. Sorry about that.--Bill 23:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Apology accepted. and Other Points of interest is a better place then where I had it. 15:45, 13 May 2006

The Nature of the Controversy

Controversies may be divided into two types. First, there are controversies which reflect differences of opinion based on differing underlying values. Second, there are controversies which arise because there are insufficient facts available from which to draw solid conclusions.

The 9/11 Wikipedia pages have been subject to a storm of assertions, revisions, and deletions because there have never been satisfactory factual explanations to certain questions surrounding this world-changing event.

The 19 perpetrators of the September 11th events were named immediately by the government, and it was only 441 days later, and under pressure from citizens demanding proven facts, that the 9/11 Commission convened at all.

When the Commission did convene, it was under the executive directorship of White House insider Phillip Zelikow, whose relationship to George W. Bush and Condoleezza Rice has caused critics to question the propriety of his role. The fact that the Commission's focus leaned strongly towards the prevention of further attacks, rather than to the examination of unexplained key phenomena, adds fuel to the ongoing controversy.

Given the serious international consequences of the 9/11 events, and the restrictions placed on domestic freedoms, it seems unlikely that this controversy will let up until a thorough and independent inquiry has resolved the troubling questions which remain unanswered, many of which require evidence that is being withheld.

A good start towards resolution of this conflict would be the allowing of a state of unknowing to formally emerge in Wikipedia, and in the mainstream press. To date, Wikipedia editors have given implicit support to the official story at the main entry, September 11th Attacks, and have allocated dissenting views to the entry, 9/11 Conspiracy Theories. Both pages go through cycles of being locked and unlocked because of the state of unknowing which gives rise to the controversy.

To acknowledge this state of unknowing, and to work towards a fully independent investigation vested with the authority to examine all of the evidence, would allow the United States and the world to discover whatever truths are waiting to be unearthed, and to deal with them in a courageous and orderly fashion, if necessary. --PureLogic 07:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Look, Wikipedia is not the place to start the revolution, I'm sorry. I'm not going to agree or disagree with you on the other points, but I can tell you what the policies and purpose of Wikipedia are.

Here are the most relevant parts of the policy to the issue:

• WP:NPOV#Undue weight
• WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a soapbox
• WP:NOR

Basically what you need to understand, is that new ideas can't originate from Wikipedia, and that Wikipedia can not present small minority opinions as being "equally valid" as the viewpoints of the majority.

So if there is suddenly a massive wellspring that reopens the 9/11 investigation and validates the claims of conspiracy theorists then we can include them. Otherwise we have to present them as being the not-widely accepted ideas of a fringe group that they are.

However, the Wikipedia section on "Not a Soapbox" makes a couple of good sugestions of where you can start:

You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views. You can also use Wikinfo which promotes a "sympathetic point of view" for every article.

--DCAnderson 17:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear DCAnderson:

Thank you for your comments regarding "The Nature of the Controversy". Your authoritative tone seems to indicate that you are a Wikipedia editor or administrator: is this so?

As a professional knowledge worker for 30 years, I offer Wikipedia's definition of "encylopedia": An encyclopedia or encyclopaedia, also (rarely) encyclopædia,[1] is a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge.

It is precisely because the knowledge presented in the 9/11 Commission Report is in such dispute (and yes, by the minority who has paid close attention to the issue) that these Wikipedia pages will not settle down. What was written above is not new information: it is peppering the Internet, which can be seen by Googling "9/11 truth" for over 400,000 hits, or checking the 199 reader reviews of Dr. David Ray Griffin's The New Pearl Harbor on amazon.com[[3]]

A living encyclopedia must have freedom, under the designated headings it creates, for pertinent documented facts to be included, whether they undermine the prevailing view or not. An encyclopedia concerns itself with demonstrable facts, not with how many people believe them. Certainly encyclopedias were able to make the transition from the once prevailing flat earth belief to the round globe; and Wikipedia, to earn its stature as a "comprehensive written compendium of all branches of knowledge", must freely allow for factual discrepancies between a government report and the documented knowledge which opposes it. It is illogical to equate documented evidence and the quest to understand it with a "conspiracy theory", simply because it does not accord with a government report.

By the way, I well understand the functions of an encyclopedia, a blog, and a usenet, and really need no further education on the subjects, unless of course, you wish to take up a soapbox position.--PureLogic 20:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• There seems to be an unfortunate polarization where everything has to be categorized either as consistent with the 9/11 Commission report or as an element of a conspiracy theory, and both extremes are unrealistic and unhelpful. The 9/11 Commission report is reasonably reliable, but it should be open to criticism, it may well contain minor errors, and there is an argument to be made that its purpose was to deny any responsibility within the US Government. There is no reason Wikipedia should favour that particular source over the many other reputable sources available. At the same time, there are many questions that can (and should) be legitimately raised without making an hysterical leap to the suggestion of a criminal conspiracy. And since this article is about conspiracy theories, the 'debate' almost certainly belongs somewhere else. Peter Grey 00:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• That is fair comment, Peter. But I would add that because this article is about 9/11 conspiracy theories in particular, its very title gives rise to the polarization you mention, which is perhaps why the debate is taking place here. Another contributor suggested that the positions be restated as the 9/11 Official Theory and as Alternative 9/11 Theories. Perhaps this would satisfy everyone, as it gives neutrality to both positions.
  • The title is not at fault. Conspiracy theories (i.e. conjectures based on innuendo and not evidence) are a real phenomenon of the September 11th attacks. The one-dimensional partition into "Official Theory" and "Alternate Theories" is the problem - those two extremes do not cover everything, in particular good faith disagreements on particular details. Peter Grey 03:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• Another good point. Well the middle ground seems to be pretty well covered under 9/11 Truth Movement. As you say, searching for truth is very different from pointing fingers. Most people in the 9/11 Truth Movement really only want further independent investigation; the most compelling proponent is Dr.David Ray Griffin, a theologian who has spent his life working on philosophical approaches to arriving at truth.

As a librarian, I would suggest that the three entries used to describe the material be:

1. 9/11 Attacks: Official Theory 2. 9/11 Attacks: Alternative and Conspiracy Theories 3. 9/11 Attacks: Truth Movement and Independent Inquiries

These 3 links should be cross-referenced on each page, for clarification.--PureLogic 15:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

A couple of points. What PureLogic is saying is similar to what I said in that the sources named in this article are different then those normally used in others in that they imply things and let the reader connect the dots instead of coming to a definitive conclusion. I do not fault them for this. Their purpose is to try and convince people they are not wearing tinfoil hats and get things far enough along so that reinvestigation can begin. They do not have the power or resources of the FBI or the New York Times. And this makes it very difficult to edit to Wikipedia standards. As for over reliance on the 9/11 commission report the conclusions reached in the report are the ones accepted by the leading members of both political parties and the most influential media. So the title of the article probably should be changed something like “Alternative conclusions to those reached by the 9/11 commission report”. This is what the article is about at this time. This will allow such conclusions such as the “covering up incompetence theory” while allowing the sinister ones. The title as it is however is not misleading as the common understanding of “9/11 conspiracy theories” are those that disagree with Al Queada attacked the U.S. and ”failure of imagination” was the probable cause as to why the attacks succeeded. 22:00, 13 May 2006 (Ed Kollin)

A list of 115 purported errors in the 9/11 Commission Report, formulated by Dr. David Ray Griffin, may be found at LiveJournal --PureLogic 01:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The way I look at it the title is correct as it is. There are four ways of looking at 9/11 (as mentioned in this article):

• Official Story
• Incompotence Theory
• Let it Happen on Purpose (LIHOP)
• Made it happen on Purpose (MIHOP)

the last two fit the definition of Conspiracy theory found here[4]. If it fits under LIHOP or MIHOP it belongs in this article. (ie the government did it, controlled demolitions etc.)

How does a cover up to conceal incompotence fit in?. This theory is growing more popular after Katrina,medicare plan etc.

The official story has elements of the "incompotence theory" in it 13:05, 15 May 2006 (Ed Kollin)

The incompetence theory doesn't fit into this page, and probably is better discussed in other pages. The incompetence theory is by it's nature not a Conspiracy Theory, because it takes a "coincidental" view of events rather that a "conspiratorial" view. (i.e. it says "people screwed up, but none of them 'made' it happen.")--DCAnderson 17:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

It also kind of helps to know the difference between a conspiracy and a Conspiracy.

• People working to cover up their own incompetence is just a fact of life and would fit under the legal definition of conspiracy. This would be a conspiracy.
• A hidden attempt by a group with ties to multiple aspects of society (the government, the media etc.) working to manipulate events to further their own hidden agendas would be a Conspiracy. This is what Conspiracy Theories deal with.--DCAnderson 18:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

If it is a legitimate controversy that is not a conspiracy theory, then it never belonged in this article to begin with.--DCAnderson 02:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

What is a legitimate controversy and what is not?. I am not putting you down I have trouble with it myself. 12:57, 15 May 2006 (Ed Kollin)

I would say a controversy is legitimate if it is an issue being seriously discussed among a majority of people who could be considered authoritative on the subject. While a non-legitimate controversy is one that is only receiving attention among fringe groups or "outsiders."

i.e. Issues like the U.S.' preparedness level prior to 9/11 is an issue that receives serious attention and debate among authorities, while things like the controlled demolitions theory are only seriously discussed among the fringe .--DCAnderson 17:36, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

"As a librarian, I would suggest that the three entries used to describe the material be:

1. 9/11 Attacks: Official Theory 2. 9/11 Attacks: Alternative and Conspiracy Theories 3. 9/11 Attacks: Truth Movement and Independent Inquiries

These 3 links should be cross-referenced on each page, for clarification."

• September 11, 2001 attacks
• 9/11 conspiracy theories
• 9/11 Truth Movement--DCAnderson 15:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

• Again, DCAnderson, with these titles you are assuming objectivity for the official story, which on the locked September 11, 2001 page claims that the events happened as per the incompetence/coincidence theory in the 9/11 Commission Report. Have you read Dr. David Ray Griffin's list of 115 errors in that Report?

In the absence of an independent objective inquiry into the events of 9/11, people will continue to question the official report, which indeed was issued by those in authority (though whether in fact they were "authorities" in the sense of being expert or objective is another matter), until doubts concerning the honesty and motives of those authorities have been investigated and removed by an independent investigation.

Ed Kollin has a good point about the power of the existing establishment to control opinion. Here at Wikipedia, we, the people, have an excellent opportunity to present factual, unbiased information, simply in the hope of achieving democracy based on non-vested interests, and even here it is difficult to achieve neutrality in the approach to this grave matter of 9/ll truth.

The 3 subject headings I proposed above give absolute equality to the reporting of the 3 ways of interpreting 9/11. The most commonly accepted story, which has been advanced by the White House and the media (but not the firemen and police at the scene) belong under "9/11 Attacks: Official Theory". LIHOP's and MIHOP's belong under "9/11 attacks: Alterntive and Conspiracy Theories", because they are theories. Other verified information that does not advance theories but simply asks question that were omitted from the official report belongs under the "9/11 Attacks: Truth Movement and Independent Investigations".

If we can agree on this framework, it would be a good start for promoting objectivity in getting to the truth of the as yet unanswered questions about that horrendous day.--PureLogic 19:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree 100% with PureLogic. He has said exactly what I was arguing about above (Neutral POV section) but much more eloquently. Thank you. Sosij.

The problem is that by changing the titles (especially of the main 9/11 page) you would be inapropriately giving equal validity to minority views as they would then be presented as "just as valid" as the official view because "they're all just theories."

I also find that calling the conspiracy theories anything but conspiracy theories would be inapropriate as titles like "alternative theories" are vague at best and misnomers at worst, and are basically euphemisms being used by the conspiracy theorists to avoid calling a spade a spade because the spades have had a bad track record.

It also would be going against Wikipedia naming conventions as it would not be making the subject of the article clear:

Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.

--DCAnderson 21:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

"Have you read Dr. David Ray Griffin's list of 115 errors in that Report? "

I started skimming the list, and most of them are things that I've read before (many in this article) and that are all easily refuted (many of those refutations are also in this article.)--DCAnderson 21:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

CONSPIRACY B.S

GROW UP AND GET A JOB, THE TERRORISTS ATTACKED US, END OF STORY!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Irish Patriot (talk • contribs)

WP:NPA and WP:Civil--DCAnderson 18:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the terrorists being those in the White House. Archival McTannith 05:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I'm so glad we have this topic.--DCAnderson 05:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Next Inevitable Step of Willie Brown claim

I'm assuming at some point, this will come up, so I'm adressing it now.

After looking for info on the recently added part about Willie Brown I came across this article[5] which has been copied and pasted across the internet and claims that it was Condoleeza Rice who informed Willie Brown.

The article's source on this[6] is a sidebar commentary on the original news story, where the commentator says he heard about this on Pacifica Radio. I checked Pacifica's web page[7] and can not find any info there to corroborate this, and the only other info I can find with a Google search is multiple copies of the aforementioned copied and pasted article.--DCAnderson 00:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Wednesday, September 12, 2001 San Francisco Chronicle[8] SkeenaR 00:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't clear, I allready know about that.

That part is verifiable.

What I'm worried about is that the first thing I noticed when I searched Google for more info was like a milion hits to the article about the "Condoleeza Rice connection."

That's the part that's hard to verify.

(Sorry I'm acting kind of preemptively, I'm assuming someone will try to add add the Rice part later.)--DCAnderson 01:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Yah, just don't worry about it. I think editing this page is making me lose my mind.--DCAnderson 01:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello DCAnderson: You seem to find your work on this page somewhat stressful. Would you please clarify what your relationship to this page is? Have you been appointed by Wikipedia to act as editor for this page? If so, please provide the link that authenticates you. If you are a self-appointed editor, please acknowlegde this fact. Thanks. --PureLogic 05:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes I'm self appointed. But everyone here is. That's what makes Wikipedia work.--DCAnderson 05:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

We are close to Consensus: Let's take a Vote

PureLogic here again. Reading through this page, I see that sosij, Peter Grey, Ed Kollin, and myself, are generally agreed that the 9/11 Commission Report is only one point of view, and not a very complete or reliable one at that.

DCAnderson, you prefer to look at the prevailing view and to accord it extra weight. This prevailing view has been shaped by a relatively small number of people if you think of society as a whole. Presumably you know that GE, a huge weapons manufacturer, owns NBC. The Bush family has a longtime involvement with another huge weapons investor, Carlyle Group. This power complex is all intertwined and its tendency is to shape public opinion to suit its reason for being, which is profits. As profits grow, it becomes more powerful and controlling. Eisenhower referred to it as the military-industrial complex and strongly warned that in a democracy it must be carefully watched by the citizenry so that it not take over and lead to fascism, as it did in Germany. Military-Industrial Complex Speech, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961

I would like to take a vote here. I propose that equal weight be given to the 3 approaches to interpreting 9/11, and that the 3 sections be renamed as I outlined above:

The most commonly accepted story, which has been advanced by the White House and the media (but not the firemen and police at the scene) belong under "9/11 Attacks: Official Theory". LIHOP's and MIHOP's belong under "9/11 attacks: Alterntive and Conspiracy Theories", because they are theories. Other verified information that does not advance theories but simply asks question that were omitted from the official report belongs under the "9/11 Attacks: Truth Movement and Independent Investigations".

Please enter your vote here:

If we get consensus, we can approach an administrator to make the changes.--PureLogic 16:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry, but consensus can't override a Wikipedia principle, which in this case is Undue weight, a sub-section of the NPOV policy. Giving equal weight to conspiracy theories violates this policy. I also recommend that you submit this issue to WP:RFC to get more outside opinions on the matter. -- MisterHand 16:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Dear MisterHand: * The equal weight policy is not applicable to the point I am making. For one thing, the 3 existing subject headings already have equal weight in that they are full headings rather than subject headings: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories, September 11th Attacks, and 9/11 Truth Movement. They are all equal in weight, but they are not parallel in structure. This is where the skill of librarians comes in. If they are not parallel in structure, then Wikipedia is implying that one incomplete theory, the 9/11 Commission Report (which unfortunately is the official theory), is more persuasive than other verifiable evidence which opposes it -- and this has never been put to the test through an independent investigation. This is illogical and unfair. Good idea, though, regarding WP:RFC -- I will refer the debate to a wider audience.--PureLogic 17:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out that there is no "equal weight" policy. There is however a policy against giving a minority view undue weight--DCAnderson 18:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• I would also like to point out that there was a similar vote on this in the past:[9], and that if you want to change the titles of all these pages, it would probably be best to have the vote take place on the main 9/11 page.--DCAnderson 16:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks DCAnderson. I will suggest it there. --PureLogic 18:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• I am opposed to the proposed change. The fact that conspiracy theorists outnumber official spokesmen does not suggest that the various conspiracy theories are equally valid, plausible, whatever. The article title is sufficiently clear as is. Phiwum 17:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

By all means, include all language that includes the term "ass-covering" -- definitely adds to the credibility of the article. Morton devonshire 17:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• I don't know what 'consensus' you're referring to. Giving "equal weight" to scientific investigation supported by evidence and hysterical conjecture supported by paranoia is obviously beyond consideration.
  • There are legitimate sources besides the 9/11 Commission report (journalists had the basic account figured out within hours of the attacks, long before the 9/11 Commission was even established). No-one is forced to choose between that one report and the conspiracy theory nonsense. For example, if I wanted to understand the dynamics of how the twin towers collapsed, I'd refer to the professional opinion of the engineer who designed the building and analyzed its failure, not a report by a bunch of politicians. Peter Grey 01:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Flight77 video to be released today

FYI the news is that the video behind the 5 frames will be released today, as well as another video. If it's only the 5 frames video then likely nothing will be solved. If it is more than that, than hopefully the debacle of smearing all people who question the official story of 9/11 with "they think a missile hit the Pentagon!" because of In Plane Site, Loose Change and Thierry Meyssan, will finally be put to rest. Stay tuned. 198.207.168.65 18:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

That'll shut y'all up. Morton devonshire 19:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh well, a waste of everyone's time. The 'video' shows pretty much ZERO, which means it was only meant to give a jumpstart to the hoaxsters promoting "no planes." 198.207.168.65 20:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Funny how this video was released sometime ago. Hempeater 03:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The video is being promoted by a right-wing nut, president of Judicial Watch who is currently being sued by the original founders and donors of the very ngo he had highjacked and have stolen money from. They also claim he falsified his university degree. That just shows what sort of people is working for the official conspiracy theory and who is paying all these trolls here fulltime or rather overtime. [[10]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.42.179.208 (talk • contribs)

Here it is

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4987716.stm --JOK3R 19:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Israelis filming 9/11

Should this be in the conspiracy theories article? It seems to have actually happened, and doesn't seem to involve any kind of conspiracy (unless you assume that the Israelis had advance knowledge of the attack). Cadr 20:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

It is trivia related to 9/11, neither a major item nor a conspiracy. If there is a page for trivia you it you can move it there. Else it can be deleted. gidonb 21:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. While the facts involved are neither a major item nor a conspiracy, they do provide circumstantial evidence for one of the most pervasive conspiracy theories here: that Israel knew about or perhaps caused 9/11. If we omit every mention of actual facts which support (however indirectly) the conspiracy theories, then the page will become biased: it will include only groundless claims with no supporting evidence.

I think that the section is relevant to this page and not to some non-existent trivia collection. Phiwum 21:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

It is often cited as evidence of a conspiracy by middle eastern news sources like AlJazeera. I'll look into it.--DCAnderson 21:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Yah the article has a citation of a secondary source suggesting they were connected to Mossad, so yah, it's a conspiracy theory.--DCAnderson 21:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Finally an end

Finaly and end to the conspiracy theories [11]

I haven't Acually seen the video yet. It's Breaking News.--E-Bod 21:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC) [The Vieo]--E-Bod 22:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

It won't shut up the Controlled Demolitions, LIHOP, and Israel did it groups.

And don't worry, the "Pentagate" people will expand their narrative so as to explain why the video is a hoax and/or actually "proves" their case.--DCAnderson 22:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[12] [13] [14] The Video. No further comment. Not as Obvious as i thought.--E-Bod 22:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Yah, the plane is seen for such a short perid of time, I don't think YouTube is going to do it any justice.

They'll probably show it in higher resolution on CNN.--DCAnderson 22:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't matter, it isn't enough for the hoax promoters. The ONE website debunking this stuff strongly was taken out with a DNS attack today. 198.207.168.65 22:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Which site was that? There are a couple of articles on Prison Planet right now. SkeenaR 22:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Doh! I failed to predict the "it's all part of an elaborate straw-man argument to discredit the 'real' conspiracy theories" theory [15]. I knew I forgot something.--DCAnderson 23:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Exactly - or maybe that's what they want you to think. Conspiracy theories are nonfalsifiable. Osama could confess on video tape and they'd say the CIA faked it. Oh, wait... Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Nonfalsifiable like the official theory?

You've got a point Tom, but the strawman thing makes sense, not that it is necessarily true. You guys are going to have to get up pretty early in the morning. Anyway Tom, does that look like Osama to you? Does it? (I don't mean to be tedious)SkeenaR 23:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The first tape does look a lot like what could be a grainy low-res Osama. The second tape is really obviously Osama.--DCAnderson 23:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what the hell happened, but c'mon. This [16] doesn't look anything like Osama to me. You really think that looks like Osama? You're kidding right? SkeenaR 23:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

You know there are two tapes, right? The confession I'm talking about is the one just before the last presidential election. I think we have a link to it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The one that is really obviously Osama is this one: 2004 Osama bin Laden video--DCAnderson 23:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I gotta say, that certainly looks like Osama to me. That particular conspiracy theory is a hard sell in my book.--Deville (Talk) 23:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I won't argue with that. Does this [17], look like Osama to you? Anybody? SkeenaR 23:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

May I ask where that picture came from, btw? The information doesn't explain. Is this a screen grab from the video? Can anyone verify that?--Deville (Talk) 23:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Why doesn't anybody just answer the question? I saw the video that the frame was grabbed from on TV myself. I don't need it verified, that's not what I'm asking. SkeenaR 23:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The first one looks like him. The resolution is bad though, and there are a lot of artifacts in the picture.

I'd say the thing that really makes him look different is that he's grinning. You don't usually see him grinning.

But compare his nose and his beard in the two pictures. They look pretty similar.

Now this is all just my unscientific musings of course.--DCAnderson 23:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't look that much like Osama to me. But you know, maybe there's a conspiracy by the 9/11 Truth guys to get a fake picture of the frame grab on Wikipedia, so this will convince everyone that Osama didn't do it.--Deville (Talk) 23:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Ever see someone gain/lose weight? It'll change their appearance like that. Busted an Army poser who'd lost weight and he looks completely different from his previous photos. --Mmx1 00:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't look like Osama to me either and I don't know what the story behind it is. But I know it's not a "Truth Movement Conspiracy" because I watched it on CBC. Do you have anything to add Tom? SkeenaR 23:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

No; I'm satisfied that the recent comments support my point. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Hate to be the one to piss in everyone's Cheerios here, but we probably shouldn't be taking up the talk page with matters that don't directly pertain to editing the article.--DCAnderson 23:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

If the sky looks blue but the gov't says it is pink polka dot than it is a ridiculous conspiracy theory to question it. Anyway, this kind of does have to do with how we are going to edit this article because this new pentagon video is going to have to mentioned in here, and an anology between that and the Osama video was drawn. But you are right, this probably could have been more constructive. SkeenaR 00:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The video isn't conclusive at all. That could be anything. Check out how the CBC dismisses conspiracy theorists, though. They say that the same people who question the 9-11 commision report also question whether we landed on the moon. The guy who hosts the conspiracy webstie gets to make a good point before they quickly cut him off. You could cite this under the media's "all conspiracy theorists are nutjobs" label, if you want.(Click on the "watch the video" link.) http://sympaticomsn.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060516/pentagon_video_060516# --Insertrandomname 03:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The link is actually CTV. But I just meant that I saw the Osama video on CBC. Your right though, they played up the wackjob aspect pretty big. Of course, most here will say that it is entirely appropriate. So much for NPOV. SkeenaR 03:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

"We designed the towers to take multiple 707 jet strikes"

I was looking for a citation for how conspiracy theorists incorporate this quote, but then I found this page saying that the quote is falsely attributed to the Yamasaki. Does anyone know who is correct here?--Bill 16:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

It appears that the quote comes from Twin Towers: The Life of New York City's World Trade Center. If someone has the book, could you verify it, and add the citation to the article?

Apparently, Alex Jones said, "Minoru Yamasaki the Architect of the World Trade Center Towers went on record just days after 9-11 and said 'We designed the towers to take multiple jumbo jet strikes, this is not architecturally feasible'" which confused people because Yamasaki died long before 9/11.--Bill 16:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I think I remember there being some quote from way before 9/11 about the building's ability to withstand being hit by an airplane.

I also remember this was assuming a plane that was way smaller than a jet airliner, though.--DCAnderson 17:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

There are only a couple google hits for both versions of the quote (the one on the page and the one from Alex Jones), but none of them come from reliable sources. I'm curious about what the actual quote is and who said it.--Bill 17:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Is PBS a reliable enough source? This is a transcript of an episode of NOVA titled "Why the Towers Fell", which originally aired on April 30, 2002.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2907_wtc.html

It quotes Leslie Robertson (the structural engineer who desgned the WTC towers) as saying:

"We had designed the project for the impact of the largest airplane of its time, the Boeing 707, that is, to take this jet airplane, run it into the building, destroy a lot of structure and still have it stand up."

And...

"With the 707, to the best of my knowledge, the fuel load was not considered in the design. Indeed, I don't know how it could have been considered."

The transcript notes that they wouldn't have been able to model the fuel fire caused by an aircraft strike with the computer resources available in the mid 1960s. I haven't been able to find any reliable pre-9/11 sources for this information, but I believe that these towers were the first ones to consider the impact of a large jet-powered commercial airliner in their design. I would think this would have been touted to potential tenants and customers, and possibly even the public at large. Joel Blanchette 20:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Those would be good to use to replace what's there if it turns out to be false. I hope the quote isn't made up and/or misattributed. Its been on this page for over a year.--Bill 21:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

As I said, I couldn't find any reliable sources for earlier quotes, but it stands to reason that they should exist. The ability to survive an impact from what was then the world's largest passenger plane should have been solid gold as marketing material even before construction started. Especially if nobody else could make similar claims.

Remember that designing for an aircraft impact simply means that after the impact the building could remain standing long enough to be evacuated, which was the case with the World Trade Center towers. Peter Grey 21:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, the WTC towers survived the initial impacts. The impacts didn't even do all that much damage, when you consider that they were caused by ~150 ton aircraft travelling at 490mph and almost 600mph respectively. The buildings swayed violently when they were hit, but they more or less returned to their correct positions. There's no way we can ever really know, but I suspect that without the fires the towers would have stood indefinitely. Joel Blanchette 20:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Loose Change to be shown in British Parliament June 14th

As Shakespeare said, "The truth will out". It is more powerful than all the resistance that can be mustered against it. It is a force of nature like gravity and wind and tides. There will be an international crimes against humanity trial and no one who has been blocking the truth on these Wikipedia pages will be able to stop it.--PureLogic 06:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

This is not the proper place for self-righteous breast-beating and advertising puffery based on febril suspicions rooted in a failure to comprehend the theory and practice of using logic and assembling facts.--Cberlet 12:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

And let me add that none of us who edit Wikipedia should ever imply that other editors are complicit in a coverup of "crimes against humanity" which is the phrase used to describe genocide. How would the onspiracist "skeptics" like to be described as gullible egocentric publicity-seekers gaining visibility by dancing on the graves of the dead victims of 9/11? There should be some recognition of boundaries of accusations against other editors.--Cberlet 13:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree. I think that PureLogic's statement crosses some Wikipedian boundaries. gidonb 17:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry to have crossed Wikipedia boundaries, if indeed I have. Certainly the statement was not directed towards editors who have been seeking in good faith to separate fact from fiction. If no one has been blocking facts then the statement does not apply. But there has been a lot of rude and aggressive censorsship of work presented on this discussion page, and that was what I was referring to. As to dancing on the graves, who would ever want to do that and why would anyone suggest it?--PureLogic 17:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

"I am sorry to have crossed Wikipedia boundaries, if indeed I have."

You were kind of on the edge there, but you're okay, I've heard worse.

"Certainly the statement was not directed towards editors who have been seeking in good faith to separate fact from fiction. If no one has been blocking facts then the statement does not apply."

e.g. As long as you don't question the notability or integrity of "alternative research", you're okay.</sarcasm>

But there has been a lot of rude and aggressive censorship of work presented on this discussion page, and that was what I was referring to."

Examples? You've given input, and you've gotten a response. I don't think anything we've said or done is "rude and aggressive censorship," and all the reasons we've given you are supported by Wikipedia policy.

"As to dancing on the graves, who would ever want to do that and why would anyone suggest it?"

An argument could be made that people like Alex Jones are motivated out of a desire to "cash in" on a national tragedy.--DCAnderson 17:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it should just be dropped. An argument could even be made that people are being paid to slant and censor these pages. What I mean is, we could just do nothing but scrap, it's easy to get into here. Lets move on back to the article. SkeenaR 19:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

An argument could be made that people like Alex Jones are motivated out of a desire to "cash in" on a national tragedy.--DCAnderson 17:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC) Really? If you can provide a source, you could start a conspiracy theory. --AmazingRacist 03:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Intro

I don't mind the shortened version, actually, it's the way I put it before. But now is DC and other guys going to start adding to it again? Or can we leave it? Or was the long version better? Let's get this over with. SkeenaR 19:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I like it the way you have it now.--DCAnderson 21:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Jeez you know, Morton really threw the screws to me, because now I'm almost wishing it was the old long version. grr. It's descriptive of the article.

IF anyone cares to participate:

VOTE

Short version-

A number of researchers questioning the official account of 9/11 have expressed skepticism about the official account of events surrounding September 11th and assert the existence of a cover-up in the investigation.

Descriptive Long version-

A number of researchers questioning the official account of 9/11 have expressed skepticism about the official account of events surrounding September 11th. Some have proposed alternative theories and explanations, but many skeptics only seek to prove that the government's story has too many inconsistencies to be true; many of the latter form the 9/11 Truth Movement. Assertions include the involvement of the government and private sector agents; that the government had foreknowledge of the attacks and consciously failed to prevent them; the existence of a cover-up in the investigation, and criticisms of the 9/11 Commission Report. Many of these claims have been dismissed by a number of journalists and scientists in publications such as Scientific American[18] and Popular Mechanics[19]; however, some of these claims are supported by a minority of scientists, military experts, government officials, computer experts, some of the family members of 9/11 victims, and some in the intelligence community, including Rep. Cynthia McKinney, Prof. Steven E. Jones, Robert M. Bowman, and Wayne Madsen.

SkeenaR 21:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Well now that you have them side by side, it's kind of hard to decide.

The long version is nice and descriptive, but was very prone to edit warring over things as minor as a single word.

The short version will avoid that, but it doesn't tell you much. Plus it will probably evolve into something alot like the long version anyway.--DCAnderson 21:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I liked the short version too because there wasn't much to disagree about in it, but it eventually evolved into the long version. After much tit for tat and what not, the long version seemed pretty balanced and nobody was arguing over it. I think now with the short version, we will have to waste time with that all over again. SkeenaR 21:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

So let's just go with the long one then.--DCAnderson 21:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. SkeenaR 21:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the longer version is a good basic introduction that allows people to see both points of view right off the bat, then to proceed to the details beneath it.--PureLogic 04:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

4+ years and this is all you have?

Where is the evidence that any of these theories are true? I keep seeing references to the same 3 sources: Alex Jones, Jim Hoffman, and Steven E. Jones -- if these theories are so compelling, where is the analysis by actual experts? Where are the peer-reviewed journals? Where is the support? Shouldn't the body of evidence for these theories be growing if they are actually true? As USATODAY put it on May 3rd, where is the 9/11 Deep Throat? Morton devonshire 20:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? There is an increasing amount of expert analysis that point holes into the official government story. The Scholars for 9/11 Truth [20] is a website dedicated to expert analysis discussing the many unanswered questions concerning the official report. There is even an MIT Mechanical Engineer by the name of Jeff King who has made an academic lecture which makes a strong case for controlled demolitions as the main cause for the symmetrical collapses. Go watch his academic lecture here:

• http://www.freedomisforeverybody.org/MITEngineer.php

Note: Professor Jeff King even has his own website which discusses the case for controlled demolitions on 9/11 here: http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse%20update/

Then there is BYU Physics professor Steven E. Jones also making a strong case for controlled demolitions:

• http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=964034652002408586&q=steven+e+jones

Then there is Professor Shi Yongjiu (architect and expert on Steel Structure| Director of Civil Engineering Department, Qinghua University) making a statement in which he believes controlled demolitions was the most likely candidate for the cause of the collapses: According to steel structure's mechanical nature, the towers shouldn't collapse as late as an hour later after the planes slammed into. What's more, it should be in a way to topple over gradually instead of crashing down as seen in videotapes. It looks more like a directional blast in doing the job of destruction, so he feels that huge damages must have been done at the lower part of the towers. http://english.people.com.cn/english/200109/20/eng20010920_80655.html

Then there is structural engineer Matthys Levy who is the Co-Author of Why Buildings Fall Down stating "If you've seen many of the managed demolitions where they implode a building and they cause it to essentially to fall vertically because they cause all of the vertical columns to fail simultaneously, that's exactly what it looked like and that's what happened." http://www.freepressinternational.com/discovery.html Archival McTannith 07:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

We are here to write an encyclopedia article about conspiracy theories, no try and prove if any of them are true. I would suggest a blog for anyone who wantd to try something like that. SkeenaR 21:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't read that way, it reads like an advocacy piece. If it were encyclopedic, it would describe each theory, the elements of each theory, some criticisms of the theory, and maybe something about its adherants and social relevancy. That doesn't happen on this page -- it's just a bunch of strewn-together facts which you are supposed to piece together and believe makes something bigger -- all advocacy all of the time. Morton devonshire 23:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know Mort. There are a lot of counter-arguments for the theories here, I kind of find it hard to see as an advocacy piece unless you find some of the theories convincing. Remember when you suggested we go to the JFK(I think that was it) format? It was after that that there were more rebuttals added to the article when Doctor9 did his big rewrite. This is a hard article to edit, I agree with you there. But this shouldn't involve sociology and other stuff, that's where the Conspiracy theories article comes in. SkeenaR 23:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll grant you the sociological analysis, but what about a bland description of each theory, and what the elements of the theory are? Example: "Controlled Demolition: Controlled demolition is the theory that . . . " Common elements of this theory are (1) . . . (2) . . . (3) . . . and (4) . . . " Just try to make it as descriptive as possible, without any advocacy. I can't follow the logical progression of 99% of what's in this article -- I don't have to believe it, but it helps to understand it. Morton devonshire 23:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I totally agree with you. But we need more editors or something, that's a lot of work. Check out just dealing with the intro. But I totally agree with your format: Example: "Controlled Demolition: Controlled demolition is the theory that . . . " Common elements of this theory are (1) . . . (2) . . . (3) . . . and (4) . . . " SkeenaR 23:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't think this article will EVER be finished. Too much disagreement, conlict. But I think what you suggested is an ideal format. I wonder if it could happen. SkeenaR 23:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Intro

I have made some changes in the introduction because of logical failures. Incredible enough, the September 11, 2001 attacks were not even linked from the intro. Not everything is great now, but it looks somewhat better. gidonb 20:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

"...and some in the intelligence community, including Rep. Cynthia McKinney, Prof. Steven E. Jones, Robert M. Bowman, and Wayne Madsen" Morton devonshire pointed out that this sentence structure makes it sound like the examples are members of the intelligence community (which they are not). I think the sentence should be reworded to keep the examples but remove the misleadingness.--Bill 21:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Madsen is in the intelligence community. SkeenaR 21:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

So wouldn't that mean it should say "a member of the intelligence community"?--DCAnderson 21:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

There are many others. It would be misleading to say that only one person involved in intelligence was a part of this. SkeenaR 21:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Like who?--DCAnderson 21:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, the issue is the wording of the sentence, because it reads as though the four names are examples of members of the intelligence community. I suppose it could be written: "government officials such as McKinney, members of the intelligence community such as Madsen, academics such as Jones" etc., but that is even more awkward.--Bill 22:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Morton devonshire's point was absolutely valid. Please do not just revert but explain on the talk page how these people relate to the intelligence community or any other group of people implied in the sentence. gidonb 22:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

They don't relate to the intelligence community and whoever included them didn't intend it to be read that way. However, reading back over the talk page, you can learn that those examples were put there because of the vague weaselness that is the sentence without them. Perhaps, it should have been discussed here before removing them?--Bill 22:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The edit summary did not say anything, it only reverted a very valid edit as if it was vandalism. I suggest keeping the names out for now because they mislead the reader and compromise Wikipedia's quality. What do you think? gidonb 22:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

It certainly reads better without them.--Bill 22:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Robert Wright Jr [21], Sibel Edmonds, David MacMichael, Mary Schneider [22], Michael Springman [23], Andreas Von Buelow. SkeenaR 22:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Allright, I liked the change of grammar, but let's not take any info out of the intro. It's just going to result in an edit war. We had it nice and balanced before.--DCAnderson 22:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

We had many logical failures in the intro and this was one of them, actually one that I overlooked. Just now I restored deleted information without rationale in the edit summary. By the way, Wikipedia cannot be a reference for Wikipedia per our policies, so I restored the fact tag. gidonb 22:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. But I think Skeena had the right idea. Remove the names of the people and journals and replace with citations (but not a citation to Wikipedia)--Bill 22:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I'm not attemting to spam, but this link is very comprehensive of paragraph statement. SkeenaR 22:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Bleh, let's just stick with this one[24] anything else will result in really awkward language and/or a link farm for prisonplanet.com--DCAnderson 22:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I like it the way it is now, except for maybe the bolded conspiracy theories SkeenaR 23:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

And I can try and find a good link for that other than prison planet if that is going to be a big problem SkeenaR 23:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of any link, because it creates the impression that a specific group owns "THE ONE TRUE CONSPIRACY THEORY". You guy's know about the infighting that goes on among the "researchers".--DCAnderson 23:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

(after conflict) I am not against a cleaner intro, on the contrary. At the same time I would like to entirely get rid of the weasel words. Imho this should be done very differently than by adding names of people. The intro should be about the conspiracy theories themselves, not about their supporters, developers, promoters and about criticism. The theories are the title and should be the subject of the article. There are plenty of other articles about the people behind them and about the doubts. gidonb 23:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's true about he disagreements and stuff, but the pp link isn't bad because it is a list of people, and they don't necessarily agree with each other. The one thing they have in common is a dispute with the official version of events. SkeenaR 23:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, that is not the subject of the article. There are other articles about that. This article is about the conspiracy theories. The intro is entirely mistaken and could be put as is (definitely without the title in it as was before my latest edit) on the top of any of the many alternative 9/11 articles. I just dealt with the logical fallacies so far, but the intro is a mess also with respect to the subject of the article. gidonb 23:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

No, the intro is pretty good. Most of us agree on that. It was insisted on including who disputed the theories, so then people who supported various theories were added for balance and now it is probably better than ever for descriptiveness and balance. Maybe it is other intros that should be more descriptive. SkeenaR 23:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like to hear additional opinions. Please do not remove the title from the intro or change its format. gidonb 23:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

No, we have never discussed this here before. I guess we'll just have to wait till someone comes along, deletes it entirely, and then you can edit war with him. At least that's what Im guessing. SkeenaR 23:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

As far as the title in the intro check WP:Style

If possible, make the title the subject of the first sentence of the article (as opposed to putting it in the predicate). For example, write "This Manual of Style is a style guide" instead of "This style guide is known as the Manual of Style". In any case, the title should appear as early as possible in the article — preferably in the first sentence.

The first time the article mentions the title, put it in bold using three apostrophes — '''article title''' produces article title. For example: "This Manual of Style is a style guide."

--DCAnderson 23:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

That's fair enough, but I don't think it's necessary. I have nothing against it being there, but it does ok without it and it will probably be a source of conflict. Food for thought, that's all. SkeenaR 23:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's try to slowdown a bit. From looking at the history, I think quite a few of us (including me) are technically violating WP:3RR.--DCAnderson 23:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not at Wikipedia for edit wars or other games, but to edit according to the style guides and policies. I have a strong feeling that this article has been taken too much into a alternative 9/11 circuit vanity direction and lost contact with its topic. The bad intro - before the latest interventions logically and still in terms of subject matter- is very symptomatic of this problem. It is up to all of us to solve that problem, regardless of our opinions about the theories themselves. We are here to promote the quality of Wikipedia and the neutral point of view. gidonb 23:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

And again BTW, I agree with what you say about the intro, but it keeps constantly morphing, and between all the people constantly editing trying to repeatedly add POV, whether pro-conspiracy or con, it this seems like about as balanced as we will ever see it, at the expense of the manual of style. SkeenaR 00:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, this is our current alternative. I don't know... If you have any ideas- I'm all for NPOV. But it's hard to keep that way.

Short version-

A number of researchers questioning the official account of 9/11 have expressed skepticism about the official account of events surrounding September 11th and assert the existence of a cover-up in the investigation.

SkeenaR 00:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The way it is now, I would say Keep SkeenaR 00:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

What you suggest is a cyclical intro for researchers questioning the official account of 9/11, i.e. very bad even for that article. We must have an intro here that focuses on the conspiracy theories. Mind you (and everyone else), the article is supposed to be about the 9/11_conspiracy_theories. While I am glad that you agree with yourself, your suggestions do not solve the issues of this article. gidonb 00:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

You don't have to be a smart ass, I'm trying to get some suggestions or maybe a consensus. Do you have any suggestions? Or just disagreement about everything. SkeenaR 00:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Lets keep civility; no need for offensive language. I agree with Morton devonshire's suggestions in the subject above and have made several improvements to the introduction myself. If we agree that the current intro is totally unsuitable, I would be happy to write a new intro that actually deals with the 9/11 conspiracy theories. gidonb 00:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I was only trying to be constructive, and I'm sorry if I violated your "manual of style" after the suggestion that I was talking to myself. Obviously, I don't agree that the intro is totally unsuitable, but you are welcome to post an alternative here that we may all consider. SkeenaR 00:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

New Zogby Poll Shows 42% of Americans Believe a 9/11 Cover Up

This information should be included on the article page.

http://www.911blogger.com/2006/05/overview-of-new-national-zogby-poll-on.html

CB Brooklyn 01:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

If it's going to be presented as a matter of fact, it needs to be cited to a reliable source. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey, guess what

"Big thanks to 911truth.org for sponsoring this poll."

I am completely shocked and surprised. No really, that wasn't sarcasm at all :) --DCAnderson 01:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't find this poll anywhere on zogby.com. 911blogger.com is not a reliable source, as anyone can put up a blog and say anything. That said, 911blogger.com links to 911truth.org (the poll sponsor) and something called "911Truth Zogby Poll Results". The question numbering starts with #23; Where are the first 22 poll questions? Selectively showing just five questions out of 27+ is fishy to me. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 01:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Someone just mentioned this on Talk:American Airlines Flight 77. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is one of the questions from the poll

25. World Trade Center Building 7 is the 47-story skyscraper that was not hit by any planes during the September 11th attacks, but still totally collapsed later the same day. This collapse was not investigated by the 9/11 Commission. Are you aware of this skyscraper's collapse, and if so do you believe that the Commission should have also investigated it? Or do you believe that the Commission was right to only investigate the collapse of the buildings which were directly hit by airplanes?

No, that isn't a leading question at all.--DCAnderson 02:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Here is the question that is cited

24. Some people believe that the US government and its 9/11 Commission concealed or refused to investigate critical evidence that contradicts their official explanation of the September 11th attacks, saying there has been a cover-up. Others say that the 9/11 Commission was a bi-partisan group of honest and well-respected people and that there is no reason they would want to cover-up anything. Who are you more likely to agree with?

That question seems a little suspicious too. I mean come on "Who are you more likely to agree with?" I call shenanigans on this one.--DCAnderson 02:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Zogby is the least respected of the major pollsters in the U.S. Gallup wouldn't even permit questions such as those to be used just because they are leading and ambiguous.--MONGO 02:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if Zogby even wrote the questions. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I love this part:"concealed or refused to investigate critical evidence that contradicts their official explanation".--DCAnderson 02:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's "Did they conceal" and "did they refuse" SkeenaR 05:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

"did the government and its 9/11 Commission conceal or refuse to investigate evidence that contradicts their official story? (only 48% said no)". This sounds like a PR problem for the government if Scholars for 9/11 Truth can pay Zogby to get people to respond to polls like that. SkeenaR 05:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Zogby will publish the information on their website within the next few days, as per 911Blogger.com. 911Blogger.com gives a link to Yahoo as a news source. This is an official scientific Zogby poll. The idea of the results not being reliable is ridiculous. CB Brooklyn 02:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's a press release that's posted on Yahoo! In no way, is this a news story written by Yahoo!, AP, or any other reputable news outlet. I'm still awaiting some reliable source on this that gives the complete, unbiased story and shows all the questions as they were asked. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 02:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess you're right. It is ridiculous to suggest that this poll was designed to skew results by exploiting Joe American's latent distrust of "the man". I apologize ;)--DCAnderson 02:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

What motive would Zogby have to do this? SkeenaR 04:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

911truth hired them to conduct the poll.--DCAnderson 04:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess that leaves room for skepticism. Who hired the 9/11 commission?SkeenaR 05:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

VRWC, but you knew that. Morton devonshire 06:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The poll is good to wake people up to what the actual evidence is (such as the obvious controlled demolition of WTC 7)

Best thing to do probably is wait till Zogby publishes it on their website. Should be up within a couple days hopefully, perhaps in a few hours.. CB Brooklyn 02:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, well WP:RS#Statistics doesn't seem to give any real rules for this, but it seems to say we should be careful when presenting statistical results. We should probably all check out the articles it links to.--DCAnderson 02:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

• "In the past half-decade, meanwhile, numerous Zogby Polls for various special interests have relied on creative phrasing to give the impression of wide public support for the view that the given client is promoting."...[25]...regardless, an opinion poll is just that, an opinion.--MONGO 04:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)