Talk:9/11 Truth movement/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Tag link to discussion

If it is not too much trouble is it possible to get a link to the discussion which involved why a tag is on this article? The reason being If i want to fix the issue and get rid of the tag I need greater clarity on why it is there. Any tag restored on personal opinion without support/justification on the talk page will be removed. WP:DETAG, I have no interest in what someone else says is Fringe, and unbalanced, that is subjective. You must demonstrate why the TAG is there. At this rate i could tag anything with any tag and not be accountable to establish evidence for the tag. If you cannot explain it, then there is clearly no need for the tag. --Inayity (talk) 15:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not obvious why the tag is necessary, but it's obvious why it's appropriate. It may be necessary because "Truthers" (pejorative intended) add self-published material justifying the accuracy or prevalence of the claims that the mainstream explanation is not correct. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:59, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
I can't find where the tag was ever discussed, though. Removal seems appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:31, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

"and families"?

Repeated along the article many times is the term "and the families" or "the families and", giving the impression that most of the family members of those lost in the attacks, agree with the truthers, or that that most of the truthers have immediate family or friends killed in the attack, or both. The fact is that they are clearly, till now, a small minority among the families and friends of the people killed, as can be easily seen in all the major memorial events. (And then there are truthers who claim that no one was hurt and the whole thing was staged. So they cannot be from the family and friends, or could they...) פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 23:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia LEAD policy

It is pretty clear WP:LEAD anyone interested can read. But I will repost here for the editors here. The first paragraph should define the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being overly specific. It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it. The official account is already mentioned, that is what they dispute. DETAILS of the official account are not for the lead, for the body, or can be read in the other article. If it is a problem we can request for comments. --Inayity (talk) 22:32, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Having reviewed a few articles NONE of them have a recap of 9/11 official story. It is not in keeping with Wikipedia LEAD policy see Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth or Alex Jones (radio host) you dont just copy and paste a summarized account into every article for every person/article that disputes it.--Inayity (talk) 22:48, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

NPOV Conspiracy theory

If the person adding and WP:EDITWARRING by inserting so-called RS information into the lead of this article has any WP:CONSENSUS for this please the talk page is the place for this. You came and you did not find it in the lead and now you are edit warring to get it in the lead outside of WP:TALK. If you are familiar with RS then you should also be familiar with NPOV. As it relates to RS vs RS, there is no one position that is greater, some call them conspiracy, they deny that (by RS). So we honor NPOV and do not go with one version over another. There is no evidence that all of them are conspiracy theory as the engineers and architects are simply challenging evidence and the commissions finding, I do not think that falls under a conspiracy theory to dispute an official report. --Inayity (talk) 19:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

It is not a violation to call them "conspiracy theorists". Wikipedia is a collection of scholarly opinions. Reliable sources and scholars call them "conspiracy theorists". They are a fringe movement on par with creationists and Moon landing hoax promoters. Fringe movements which offer wildly speculative, implausible or factually incorrect conspiracy theories are typically called "conspiracy theorists".

I do not think that falls under a conspiracy theory to dispute an official report.

They say way more than that. They say that the Towers were brought down by explosives in a controlled demolition, or that there was no plane that hit the Pentagon, but a missile. Or any other fringe theory.

This sort of discussion comes up time and time again on fringe theory pages. See also: Talk:HIV/AIDS_denialism/Archive_12#Fairness

See the following policies:

--Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

No conspiracy just questions [ref ]B/c it seems like you are picking on some aspects of what is a broad movement and Generalizing them. Also mixing in actual 9/11 conspiracy theorist with a movement which is clear in its aims. It is not a monolithic group like HIV denialism which central position is Fringe. It is NOT a fringe theory to challenge the official report. The policy of FRINGE does not apply, maybe to some of them. But the primary argument is they challenge the official report, they want a new investigation. That does not meet the Fringe or Conspiracy theory criteria. And since we like RS, there are RS that say they are not! Hence it is a vio of NPOV to take a side, esp when that is a prejudicial term like conspiracy theorist. --Inayity (talk) 20:40, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

First, reliable sources call them a fringe conspiracy theorist. If reliable sources called them frogs, Wikipedia would call them frogs. You have to convince the academic community first before changing Wikipedia. Wikipedia is all about sources, not our personal opinions. So you must bring forth reliable sources before any change can be made.

Now look right on the main page of the AE for 911 Truth site:

"We made a formal offer of proof based on the evidence — forensic evidence that overwhelmingly and irrefutably shows, by itemization of the key facts and by supplemental video of important witnesses, that the three skyscrapers at the World Trade Center were destroyed on 9/11 as a result of professionally engineered controlled demolition, not by office fires and/or aircraft collision."[Source http://www.ae911truth.org/]

They are doing much more than just asking questions, they are proposing specific pseudo-scientific and fringe theories. WP:FRINGE completely applies to the controlled demolition theory.

--Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I thought I already gave you RS, so it is unclear why you are telling me about my opinion when at no point did i offer one. Also is it policy to declare all theories not in keeping with the US government FRINGE? or Pseudo-scientific. So you see a building coming down like a controlled demolition, you are not allowed to question that and ask for further investigation? I guess I am not allowed to challenge Darwinism or Eurocentrism either. Nice way to debunk everything without any critical challenges.--Inayity (talk) 03:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Is there a reliable source which supports the (I'd say hypothesis, but it isn't even that) that the WTC destruction resembles a "controlled demolition"? I haven't seen any. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

It is NOT a fringe theory to challenge the official report.

I thought I already gave you RS, so it is unclear why you are telling me about my opinion when at no point did i offer one.

AE for 911 Truth are not a reliable source. Far from it. It is common for fringe groups to include huge lists of supposed experts who agree with them. The lists are padded with people who are not experts. Creationists and AIDS deniers have such lists. The AE for 911 Truth list includes anyone with a degree that includes the word "engineer" even if they are not related at all.

Ahmet Iscen

Software Engineer

BS Computer Engineering

David Isham MS Computer Science, Cal Poly SLO

Luis Rivera MS Chemical Engineering

Source: [1]

And so forth. These are not cherry picked examples but the majority of the signatories. It's basically a list of anyone who has a university or college degree who also believes in a particular fringe theory. Which is unremarkable. Similar lists could be produced for any fringe theory. The real question would be, what percentage of actual experts, PHD civil engineers support controlled demolition ideas? The answer is zero or near zero. A viewpoint with such little support from the academic community is the definition of WP:FRINGE. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

David Cameron Comment

Can this be included? http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/10/01/380620/911-uk-activist-hands-himself-in/

It's interesting, but Press TV is not a reliable source. I think it would fit better in "public opinion".... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Press TV is the Iranian News broadcaster and not a reliable source. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:08, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Are details about official 9/11 attack in WP:LEAD

NAC:It doesn't appear to have been entirely clear to the commenting editors what the question was. However, to the extent that there is consensus, it appears to be that the current link to the September 11 attacks article, containing the consensus account, is sufficient. There are other questions raised by other responding editors, but that do not address the question in the RFC. There is no consensus that the lede of the article needs any specific change. Another RFC might be in order with another question, but this one is being closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the Lead revisit and list out the official 9/11 account going into details when already there is a link to the official 9/11 report which is known to most, constantly in the news. This article is about the movement challenging the official account first and foremost. The movement, not the official account. Suffice to say they challenge the official account.--Inayity (talk) 22:41, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Inayity, excuse me, but it seams to me that you oppose adding those details to the lead section. Currently, the lead section does not include any details about the 9/11 attaacks themselves. And I don't see any other user who argues that details should be added. Then, why are we discussing this at all? Vanjagenije (talk) 00:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
The details were recently removed from the lead; I don't object to the removal provided that "official" is also excised from the lead. The phrase "results of official investigation", jargon on the part of the Truth Movement, should be replaced by "mainstream account", "consensus account" (or "accurate account"; however, WP:TRUTH prohibits that.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Vanjagenije, if you look at the edit history a few editors have been adding in that content. This is the second time I have returned to this page this year about this issue. The first time I gave up (you can see the archive). So this time when I saw the content being re-added, I realized the page need non-involved opinions to curb this problem. --Inayity (talk) 08:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
  • No. The lead section of this article should not go into detail about the official/mainstream account of 9/11 attacks. That would be unnecessary and contrary to WP:LEAD. There is a link to "September 11 attacks" in the lead, so anybody can click it and read more there. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:28, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
  • The lead is a mess, because it does not summarize the article itself. Another problem is the assertion of the existence of a "movement" in the article's title. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:55, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
  • (Edited for clarity: yes) Mention of the "official" story is not optional. It must be listed and briefly described within the first paragraph, preferably in the first sentence. This movement is defined by its rejection of the explanation widely accepted by outsiders. You might as well write the pro-life page without mentioning abortion in the lede. Red Slash 00:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The 911 Truth Movement is a fringe group. We need to absolutely mention that their views are rejected by the academic communities. Mentioning that their popular theory of a controlled demoltion has no scientific support is needed as well. This is in line with WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 10:46, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion of the official story. The current version of the lede suffices in its mention of the official version.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 01:49, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment.Agree with Cwobeel. The lead has larger problems, namely asserting that a "movement" exist, which isn't supported by secondary sourcing. Dmrwikiprof (talk) 23:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support the inclusion of the official story. However, I think that maybe the word "mainstream" to maybe something more concrete. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 03:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Internal Critique" needs expansion

"Within the movement, there are alternative theories about what may have happened.[5]"

Such as? 143.167.243.95 (talk) 23:56, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

This is probably referring to different conspiracies theories. Essentially none of the believe the official reports but that doesn't mean they agree with each on who committed the attacks and why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeoStalinist (talkcontribs) 18:49, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Seems this should be expanded or removed. Because yeah reading it, makes some wonder "such as"? It may not be needed in the article though because it's common sense, obviously within such a large movement there are many different theories. And it does say that elsewhere in the article so this section is redundant. Popish Plot (talk) 14:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

9/11 Truth Movement & Dr. Judy Wood

Seeing as Dr. Judy Wood is the only person to have filed her evidence with the courts in pursuit of truth and justice, and also considering that one of her court cases made it all the way to the Supreme Court, I think it is fairly obvious that the following information needs to be included in the 9/11 Truth Movement Wikipedia Page:

1. I think that Dr. Judy Wood's Journal of 9/11 Research & 9/11 Issues needs to be included in the external links section alongside the other Journals of 9/11 Research.

2. I also think that her name needs to be included in the Adherents of the 9/11 Truth Movement, especially considering she is the only person to actually take legal action, in addition to scientific research, in pursuit of 9/11 truth.

3. I also think that her legal efforts, especially the Supreme Court case, needs to be included in the History of the 9/11 Truth Movement, as it was the only court-case ever filed in pursuit of 9/11 Truth, and it made it all the way to the Supreme Court.


In 2007, Dr. Judy Wood filed several legal cases against the National Institute of Standards & Technology's (NIST) contractors for science fraud, and legal requests that NIST’s fraudulent data gets reexamined. [2] The filings in these legal cases included Requests For Corrections (RFC) based on the Data Quality Act [3], and Qui Tam whistle-blower cases. [4] Dr. Wood is the only 9/11 researcher who has submitted evidence to the courts in pursuit of the truth.


These are obviously supposed to be on this Wikipedia page, so I truly question the motives of those who are deleting this information. Her effort speaks for itself, and this information needs to be included in the 9/11 Truth Movement Wikipedia page for the sake of honesty and accuracy.

Please help.

Thank you,

-Abe

'''Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez''' (talk) |}

Couldn't agree more. However wrong they thought her case this article is about the movement so yes I agree. Iheartthestrals (talk) 07:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

This Wiki misrepresents the 9/11 movement

The main argument for the 9/11 movement has always focused on the ridiculousness of the falling of building 7 which didn't get hit by a plane and suffered very little damage, but crumbled down perfectly into itself instead of toppling or showing localized destruction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.98.131.4 (talk) 13:43, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Claims that that's the crux of the movement (which are easily countered by the sources cited at 7_World_Trade_Center#9.2F11_and_collapse) require reliable sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Deletion Review: 'Judy Wood'

Deletion review here. Please discuss in the proper forum. Any discussion of Judy Wood-related material to be included in this article should provide properly-sourced claims for evaluation in a new section on this page.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Please have your say in the discussion. Dr. Judy Wood is the only 9/11 researcher ever to have filed evidence with the courts in pursuit of truth and justice, and one of her cases made it all the way to the Supreme Court. I think she deserves a Wikipedia page. Please comment here: [Deletion Review: Dr. Judy Wood & the 9/11 Truth Movement]

Thank you.

-Abe

'''Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez''' (talk)


External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 9/11 Truth movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Fringe conspiracy theorists

How is wikipedia supposed to be a neutral point of view when you start the article with such a loaded phrase like that? The 9/11 truth movement is hardly fringe, and one day it will likely be the mainstream. Starting the article in such a way shows the authors clear bias against 9/11 truth and in favor of dismissing it out of hand when it's an active area of investigation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.0.26 (talk) 02:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

See WP:GEVAL, WP:FRINGE, WP:NOTPROMO, and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories. We only summarize mainstream academic and journalistic sources. The "bias" is that almost no professionals in any of the relevant fields thinks the "truthers" are on to something, and so our article reflects that reality. If you'd leave the echo chamber for a bit, you'd laugh at the claims that the "truthers" will ever be mainstream. It's not an active area of investigation except for conspiracy theorists. Wikipedia's official stance is that the "truther" movement is wrong. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

This is a waste of my time. Clearly wikipedia is a tight-knit clique not the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Towerseven (talkcontribs) 04:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 9/11 Truth movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:06, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Description of IEEE paper reverted without good reason

I added information on a published paper that challenges the NIST report. (View my edit.) To me it seems relevant, notable, neutral, and properly footnoted. It certainly fits under the heading "NIST Report Reaction". My edit was reverted, with only the dismissive edit summary, "any reason why this should be in here?". A reversion should have a better reason than this! How does my edit make the article worse? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdgboulder (talkcontribs) 19:10, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Really needs non-primary sources to indicate that it's worth including. Otherwise, we'd have every paper by every crank on here, and that's not what we're here for. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:49, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation, Ian. I thought the publication of a dissenting paper, in a respected journal, was a significant event in the history of the controversy which this article describes. Anybody else? Rdgboulder (talk) 13:57, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
There is no way to evaluate if it is a "significant event in the history of the controversy" without secondary sources. VQuakr (talk) 15:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Book->Books, MediaCoverage->Media, re-arrange?

Sections "9 Book" and "8.1 Media Coverage" seem misplaced, currently down there, below Refs and Externals; maybe should be merged into "5.1 Books" and somewhere into "5 Media" ? -- Wda (talk) 09:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Film: "In Plane Sight"

  • [Dave von Kleist's] 911: In Plane Site (2004) [1]

deleted by "The Original Wildbear," who wrote "In Plane Site is conspiracy theory garbage; little or nothing historically correct about it. Leave it off this page, please."

(1) Assuming (at least for the sake of argument) that above judgement/opinion is true, is this a good reason for non-inclusion (as opposed to, say, (properly referenced, of course) addition of this opinion)? Note that the section is not titled "recommendable films..." or some such. As to "conspiracy theory..." - this is how the article starts.

(2) "...garbage; little or nothing historically correct..." seems rather vague (close to name-calling). Can you point out - best by adding to http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0454587/goofs - specific errors/falsehoods?

-- Wda (talk) 07:22, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Wda. Addressing your question (1) from above: The 9/11 Truth movement can mean different things to different people, and sources can be found to define it in different (and opposing) fashions. It can be defined as serious and intelligent people making a serious call for investigation into a criminal matter, or it can be defined as a bunch of conspiracy theory wackos spouting fanciful imaginings, or it can be defined as a mixture of both (which is probably closest to reality). The nonsensical stuff has a tendency to obscure and distract from the serious side of the matter, to the extent that many people are not even aware that a serious side exists. (See current news articles about evidence of high-level Saudi involvement in 9/11 as an example of inadequately investigated matters related to the 9/11 crime; plenty of reliable sources for that are available.) Wikipedia can help its readers understand the difference between serious calls for investigation and fanciful conspiracy theories by directing the matters to the appropriate article. Fanciful conspiracy theories would best be placed in the 9/11 conspiracy theories article. Keeping the nonsensical conspiracy theories to a minimum (or totally absent) from the 9/11 Truth movement article would be appreciated and helpful for readers to understand what the (rather loosely defined) movement is about at its core.
Addressing (2) above: admittedly, declaring 911: In Plane Site to be nonsense is a judgment call, by myself and others who have seen it, some of whom have reviewed it on IMDB. It is hypothetically possible that everything in 911: In Plane Site is true, though I regard that as very improbable. This production does not appear to be consistent with what is known about the event, and rather appears to be catering to those who like to grasp at straws in support of fanciful conspiracy theories; hence it appears to me to be an item better suited for the 9/11 conspiracy theories article, if it has to appear anywhere. Wildbear (talk) 08:18, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi! In Plane Site does seem to meet WP:MOVIE and has its own WP-page. Even if some (or all) of its claims were untrue, it very probably helped put "9/11 Truth" into the minds of many people, esp. since it was on of the earliest attempts. It is thus undoubtedly part of (what i'd consider) the "9/11 Truth Movement". Please name some (of what you consider) "Fanciful conspiracy theories" advanced by this film! -- grts fro VIE Wda (talk) 11:04, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
There is a lot which could be said, but recognizing that this talk page is supposed to be about improving the article and not about the article's topic, I'll try to keep this as brief and direct to the point as possible. It has been a long time since I saw this film - probably more than 10 years, so I will rely on IMDB reviews to jog my memory on some of the "fanciful conspiracy theories" it contains. "Missile hit the Pentagon", "missing debris from the plane that hit the Pentagon", "flashes of light" and "pods under planes" are mentioned. While perhaps not impossible, none of these conjectures appear to be well supported by the known evidence about the matter. The movie may have touched upon some more serious matters, but in associating anything serious with the previous deeply speculative "theories", it has effectively poisoned the well for more serious issues. Some individuals may have taken this as their introduction to the 9/11 Truth movement; my sense from reading the communications of people on this topic (over a decade or more) is that conspiracy theory movies like this one have done more to turn people off to the 9/11 Truth movement than to bring them to it. If my observation is correct, (and I accept that it is contestable) then by being more unhelpful than helpful to the 9/11 Truth movement this movie would be better placed in the 9/11 conspiracy theories article. Wildbear (talk) 05:15, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
In Plane Sight was one of the earlier conspiracy documentaries and IMHO that is one of its few good qualities. Despite being sensationally speculative and semi-exploitative I still believe it deserves mention, as do all of them good and bad - with qualifiers. Some may have low production values or may be tediously long but feature valuable content. Some may be intentionally or unintentionally far fetched and/or misinformation. These issues are not new to controversial subjects and history from JFK to OJ to OKC etc. It seems to me that there must be some sort of system that exists or needs to be developed or a very least tables charting factors and review ratings would be appropriate. Even including or linking to a list of the "rejected" projects would at least present all sides, even those I disagree with. I really wish every wiki page featuring history would have a paragraph on alternative perspectives, perhaps even linking to full articles like this one. JasonCarswell (talk) 10:00, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

References

List Proposals To Discuss

~ JasonCarswell (talk) 13:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

POV ???

much of this page is written in a way i cannot help asking if it is intended to describe the 9/11-Truth-movement, or if it tries to belittle/disparage/&c it.

To pick but one example: "Support for the movement is negligible from professionals in relevant fields, such as civil and aerospace engineering." - Now, if this is "written from a neutral point of view ... representing fairly, proportionately ... all of the significant views" (WP:POV) to describe a movement that -- despite dire threats (like "Who is not with us is with the terrorists.") and dire consequences (like being attacked, insulted, put down, called names, ... by the mass(stupidification)media &c. -- has (like not many other movements, if not uniquely) been endorsed/supported by numerous celebrities and well-renown people (amongst them e.g. (high)judges, MPs, former heads-of-state!), has spread worldwide, has been presented/discussed in Parliaments, has produced a plethora of books, and videos translated into more than 15 languages-- well, if this is NPOV ... then i am the queen of Saba's great-grandmother.

And i am certainly not the only one to think so. This has e.g. been pointed out by journalists, specifically naming this page as a "Musterbeispiel [textbook-examplar]" (for absurdly slanted POV). For one example (which i happen to have bookmarked; there'd probably be a lot more to find) see "Karl Reitter: Tabuthema 9/11" (2014, in grundrisse, ISSN 1814-3164). --Wda (talk) 22:17, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Celebrities and well-known people are not professionals in relevant fields. The sole source you have presented fails WP:RS; anything else? VQuakr (talk) 00:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Opinions of public figures are not irrelevant. Politicians who are not "us", doctors, or scientists, but always try to tell us what we can and can't do with our bodies as if we're children. Celebrities may not be "us" but they, like politicians, often speak for us who cannot. If we are skeptical, they may voice the skepticism felt by many of the masses. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 01:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
I was pointing out your non sequitur. You started with a quote from the article, then changed subjects mid-paragraph. VQuakr (talk) 01:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
I forgot "or". I rearranged it but it's still an awkward sentence.
Just as there are lists of lists such as lists of atheists organized by profession and surname I'm working on a List of celebrity Truthers which may develop into Lists of Truthers organized into profession, surname, and perhaps their truths and/or skepticisms since there are so many doubts about so many things. It's a big project that could use help and patience. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 13:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
A thorough reading of WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:FRINGE and WP:NOR would be advisable first. Acroterion (talk) 16:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Acroterion, you may have been within rights to delete some material from my user page but you didn't even read it. This television interview quote of a Roseanne Barr and Abby Martin in their own words, voices and images is relevant for a new List of celebrity Truthers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8txXzLdhH8 :
"You know we just have to keep laughing at the scorn and watch it die. It doesn't have any place left to go now. I think now it's like eating its own tail. I mean the whole Saudi Arabia, all royal family, 9-11, Bush [[[Bush family|family]]] - all of it. It's eating its own tail, and everybody's like "Truther!? You're a truther!" You know when idiots are calling brilliant people stupid, you've got a real problem." "I find it amazing this kind of pejorative term "truther" [is] for seeking the truth. And I mean that we've been saying Saudi Arabia was involved from the very beginning. We were called "crazy" and now look at how validated we are." "It's House of Saud morphs with House of Windsor works with the Vatican works with Rothschild. It's all one big friggin mafia scam. I mean I'll probably get assassinated or droned when I'm outta here, but it's all a scam. A tired effin scam."

If I am wrong please let me know how. Thanks. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 17:30, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Also, is there a proper place out of the way before acceptable release to collaborate and gradually build up a proper List of celebrity Truthers? For example, if the List of celebrity Truthers existed at least in title then we could discuss it in Talk:List of celebrity Truthers. Thanks in advance. I'm off to learn Sandbox. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 18:07, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Opinion pieces such as the section you just linked (and quoted with wikilinks for some reason) above are primary sources and unsuitable for contentious information or determining levels of acceptance of a fringe theory. A small embedded list already exists at 9/11 conspiracy theories#Proponents. "Proponent" is more likely to be a palatable name than "Truther" (why are you capitalizing it?), but it seems unlikely that you'll find much support for such a list either way, IMHO. VQuakr (talk) 22:22, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
It was a copy of part of a barely started rough draft. I wasn't sure if the the links were a good idea or not. Roseanne was running for president. I don't know that's worth her opinion. I still have to get through a lot of reading up on how to do this right.
I didn't know that "truther" was capitalized until I saw it on Wikipedia enough to notice, obviously mistakenly now. I wanted to be respectful. "As a christian..." deserves to be "As a Christian..." and no one says "As a religious nut job..." Christian is usually a good title. Truther is still a proudly held title by most of them. Many of them are proud to be skeptics and conspiracy theorists, conspiracy analysts, conspiracy historians, etc. but the word "conspiracy" still has pejorative connotations beyond those circles. "Proponent" is still deflective semantics again. To use "As a proponent..." in most conversations would follow "...of what?" and the answer is "conspiracies" which is not as nice as "truther". Con vs Truth. Criminal vs Saint.
~ JasonCarswell (talk) 00:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)


How Are These Missing?!

Speaking of "negligible from professionals in relevant fields", how are these missing?

Issues with flight paths, speed and turbine limits, Ground effect (aerodynamics), and other stuff I know little about have been raised by professional groups. I knew about the first two and just Googled the others. I haven't read these sites yet but know those first two certainly deserve inclusion. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 00:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

And maybe include:

~ JasonCarswell (talk) 00:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
What reliable, secondary sources cover these groups in enough detail to show that they merit mention as discussed at WP:NFRINGE? VQuakr (talk) 00:34, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
From WP:NFRINGE: "For a fringe theory to be considered notable, and therefore to qualify for a separate article in Wikipedia..."
This is the article where these sources might apply if appropriately vetted and that's why I placed them on this appropriate talk page, if I am not mistaken.
~ JasonCarswell (talk) 00:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Given aspects of a fringe theory still need secondary sources written about them. Primary sourcing is not appropriate here because it doesn't let us judge levels of acceptance. VQuakr (talk) 01:36, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand but I'll try. Maybe this isn't the best example, but if you had a cat named Truther that said he was a cat (if cat's could talk), that wouldn't be acceptable without the veterinarian Dr. FoxNews verifying that it was indeed a cat. And the doctor has to have the highest credentials. Am I close?
Also, how was my stuff above under "Revising "Absent Issues""? It felt like I was on to something. I compiled it out of WP and was lazy so the citations aren't properly formatted but I figured you'd be checking them anyway and I'd fix them if I got a go ahead.
~ JasonCarswell (talk) 23:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theorists" is a pejorative term

Famspear, I see that you have taken a personal interest in my edits. I am sure life as a shill is very rewarding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ripleysnow (talkcontribs) 22:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

See WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Conspiracy theorists is an accurate description for people who advocate conspiracy theories. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:27, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
And also see the arbitration sanctions note I left on your talkpage concerning appropriate conduct before you left the personal attack above and this one [5]. Acroterion (talk) 22:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, Ripleysnow, "conspiracy theorists" is a pejorative term. So what? Wake up!
"Nazi" is a pejorative term, yet it is an accurate description of someone who was a member of the Nazi Party. "Convicted felon" is a pejorative term, yet it is used to describe people who are convicted felons. There is no rule in Wikipedia that prohibits the use material from reliable sources that includes descriptions of people with pejorative terms.
You're new here. I suggest that you read WP:V and WP:NPOV and WP:NOR.
A "shill" is "one who acts as a decoy". Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, p. 1069, G.&C. Merriam Co. (8th ed. 1976). I am not a "shill." See WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Yes, I have taken a personal interest in your edits. I'm an editor here. The whole point of Wikipedia is that anyone can edit anyone else's posts. If you don't want other people to take an interest in your edits, or you don't want your edits removed, then you probably aren't going to be happy here.
As noted by another editor, the term "conspiracy theorist" is an accurate description of someone who advocates conspiracy theories. Pay attention. Read the article. Learn something. Famspear (talk) 00:32, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Absent Issues

WP:NOTFORUM

Whether one man kills ten people or 19 men kill 3000 people, those are extremist individuals committing crimes. 19 men is not an army. There was no declaration of war by government bodies or standing armies. It was a crime that was spun into two national wars and a global war on terror. Truthers say it was a crime with motives before it was a war of ideologies. Characteristics > Views = The MOTIVES are far too simplistic (war pretext and power consolidation) and/or missing (sooo much wealth was made, derived, moved, and stolen. ( view: The Corbett Report's 9/11 Trillions: Follow The Money http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3xgjxJwedA with documentation reference: https://www.corbettreport.com/episode-308-911-trillions-follow-the-money/ ) The second sin is the COVER UP that continues with Obama refusing to dwell on the past preferring to look forward, something no one would say to a serial killer, mass murderer, or war criminal. If the buildings (especially 7) failed so spectacularly that day then engineering safely laws would need immediate radical revisions yet none were made. I won't go on... While 3000 died that day, three times that number of first responders died yet have been denied the care they deserve. I don't know where that fits in. And lastly missing is the RHYMING HISTORY. History doesn't just repeat in Star Wars. Themes echo throughout political, economic, elite, military, and covert histories. False flag events, Pearl Harbor, Northwoods, Gladio, JFK, Tonkin, 93 WTC bomb, Oklahoma City, and events since 9-11. All of this also applies to 9/11 conspiracy theories. JasonCarswell (talk) 11:51, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Revising "Absent Issues" Muted Views, First Draft FAIL 2016-08-19

I'm not done, but here's a start for today's [2016-07-20] dissection regarding Characteristics > Views > 1st Paragraph >

As is:

Some within the movement who argue that insiders within the United States government were directly responsible for the September 11 attacks often allege that the attacks were planned and executed in order to provide the U.S. with a pretext for going to war in the Middle East, and, by extension, as a means of consolidating and extending the power of the Bush Administration."
With these citations that seem wrong (expired articles link to the homepage):
* Grossman, Lev (September 3, 2006). "Why the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Won't Go Away" . Time.
* Harvey, Adam (September 3, 2006). "9/11 myths busted" . Courier Mail (The Sunday Mail (Qld)).

Revise with:

Some within the movement who argue that insiders within the United States government were directly responsible for the September 11 attacks often allege that the attacks were planned and executed in order to provide the U.S. with a pretext for going to wars for profit and plunder[1] in Afghanistan[2], to purse alleged 9-11 terrorist Osama Bin Ladin[3], Iraq[4] despite no "imminent threat" from Saddam and an unjustified intelligence case[5], and expanded regional turmoil[6][7] rather than Saudi Arabia[8][9][10].
"The disastrous legacy of the Iraq War extends beyond treasure squandered and lives lost or shattered. Central to that legacy has been Washington's decisive and seemingly irrevocable abandonment of any semblance of self-restraint regarding the use of violence as an instrument of statecraft.[11]"

References

  1. ^ Weigley, Samuel (2013-03-10). "10 companies profiting the most from war". USA Today. USA Today. Retrieved 2016-08-19. 
  2. ^ Walsh, Nick Paton (2016-02-25). "Afghanistan war: Just what was the point?". CNN. CNN. Retrieved 2016-08-19. 
  3. ^ Schone, Mark. "9/11 Perpetrators: Where Are They Now?". ABC News. ABC News. Retrieved 2016-08-19. 
  4. ^ Castle, Stephen (2016-07-06). "Analysis: Britain's Iraq War Inquiry". New York Times. New York Times. Retrieved 2016-08-19. 
  5. ^ Hunt, Peter (2016-07-06). "Chilcot report: Tony Blair's Iraq War case not justified". BBC. BBC. Retrieved 2016-08-19. 
  6. ^ Dodge, Toby (2013-03-16). "Decade of regret - Iraq: From War to a New Authoritarianism". The Economist. The Economist. Retrieved 2016-08-19. 
  7. ^ Chulov, Martin (2015-10-25). "Tony Blair is right: without the Iraq war there would be no Islamic State". The Guardian. The Guardian. Retrieved 2016-08-19. 
  8. ^ Scarborough, Rowan (2016-07-19). "Saudi government funded extremism in U.S. mosques and charities: report". The Washington Times. The Washington Times. Retrieved 2016-08-19. 
  9. ^ Cevallos, Danny (2016-08-19). "Suing Saudi Arabia over 9/11?". CNN. CNN. Retrieved 2016-05-26. 
  10. ^ Lionel, Lionel (2016-07-19). "Saudi Arabia's Behind 9/11 So Sue Them!". YouTube. Lionel Nation / Lionel Media. Retrieved 2016-08-19. 
  11. ^ Bacevich, Andrew J.; Boot, Max; Kirkpatrick, Jeane; Ignatieff, Michael; O'Hanion, Michael; Masters, Jonathan (2011-12-15). "Was the Iraq War Worth It?". Council On Foreign Relations. Council On Foreign Relations. Retrieved 2016-08-19. 

~ JasonCarswell (talk) 17:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
I improved this paragraph revision today by incorporating the listed links, a month later with no comment, so I will add it to the main page soon since there are no comments or objections. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 02:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC)


Revising "Absent Issues" Muted Views, Second Attempt PENDING

I finally learned after a month of silence on this talk page before I inserted it, that the above first attempt had a bad case of the synthies WP:SYNTHESIS aka WP:ORIGINALSYN. This revision certainly holds no surprises but, if I understand correctly, this will be tricky because: mainstream media doesn't report well on the truth movement, these common issues need to mentioned in conjunction with the truth movement and/or truthers. So now we need to find which are good and which need better sources. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 07:03, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

The defenders won't help modify so I'm doing this the best I can. Of the three paragraphs below, the first is what is on the page today (2016-08-20). The second is very close to what I proposed a month ago then submitted but was rejected today (2016-08-20). These two as reference may have useful sources. The third is what could be, needing citations, and is open for discussion about it's content, it's precise wording, the sources, etc. On the third, suspicion of other countries involvement such as U.S. allies like Saudi Arabia, Israel, or others may go in another paragraph. The quote from the Council On Foreign Relations seems appropriate. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 07:03, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Characteristics > Views > 1st Paragraph > As is:

Many adherents of the 9/11 Truth movement suspect that United States government insiders played a part in the attacks, or may have known the attacks were imminent, and did nothing to alert others or stop them.[1] Some within the movement who argue that insiders within the United States government were directly responsible for the September 11 attacks often allege that the attacks were planned and executed in order to provide the U.S. with a pretext for going to war in the Middle East, and, by extension, as a means of consolidating and extending the power of the Bush Administration.[2][3]

With these citations that STILL seem to need work:

  1. BAD LINK - "Conspiracy theories: The Speculation" . CBC. October 29, 2003. Retrieved 2009-06-02.
  2. good link - Grossman, Lev (September 3, 2006). "Why the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Won't Go Away" . Time.
  3. BAD LINK - Harvey, Adam (September 3, 2006). "9/11 myths busted" . Courier Mail. The Sunday Mail (Qld).

Characteristics > Views > 1st Paragraph > FAILED First Attempt (complete, actually submitted, and slightly different than the draft up this page):

Many adherents of the 9/11 Truth movement suspect that United States government insiders played a part in the attacks, or may have known the attacks were imminent, and did nothing to alert others or stop them.[1] Some within the movement who argue that insiders within the United States government were directly responsible for the September 11 attacks often allege that the attacks were planned and executed in order to shock the public into granting the Bush Administration means of consolidating and extending power[2][3] and providing the U.S. with a pretext for going to wars for profit and plunder[4] in Afghanistan[5], to purse alleged 9-11 terrorist Osama Bin Ladin[6], in Iraq[7] despite no "imminent threat" from Saddam and an unjustified intelligence case[8], and expanded regional turmoil[9][10] rather than Saudi Arabia[11][12][13].
"The disastrous legacy of the Iraq War extends beyond treasure squandered and lives lost or shattered. Central to that legacy has been Washington's decisive and seemingly irrevocable abandonment of any semblance of self-restraint regarding the use of violence as an instrument of statecraft.[14]"

Characteristics > Views > 1st Paragraph > Second Draft (needing citations):

Many adherents of the 9/11 Truth movement suspect that United States government insiders played a part in the attacks, or may have known the attacks were imminent, and did nothing to alert others or stop them.[1][citation needed] Some within the movement who argue that insiders within the United States government were directly responsible for the September 11 attacks often allege that the attacks were planned and executed in order to shock the public into granting the Bush Administration means of consolidating and extending power[2][3][citation needed] and providing the U.S. with a pretext for going to wars for profit and plunder[citation needed] in Afghanistan[citation needed], in Iraq[citation needed] despite no "imminent threat" from Saddam and an unjustified intelligence case[citation needed], and expanded regional turmoil[citation needed]. From a Council On Foreign Relations publication:
"The disastrous legacy of the Iraq War extends beyond treasure squandered and lives lost or shattered. Central to that legacy has been Washington's decisive and seemingly irrevocable abandonment of any semblance of self-restraint regarding the use of violence as an instrument of statecraft.[15]"

References

  1. ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference CBC-Speculation was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference Grossman was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference Harvey was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Weigley, Samuel (2013-03-10). "10 companies profiting the most from war". USA Today. USA Today. Retrieved 2016-08-19. 
  5. ^ Walsh, Nick Paton (2016-02-25). "Afghanistan war: Just what was the point?". CNN. CNN. Retrieved 2016-08-19. 
  6. ^ Schone, Mark. "9/11 Perpetrators: Where Are They Now?". ABC News. ABC News. Retrieved 2016-08-19. 
  7. ^ Castle, Stephen (2016-07-06). "Analysis: Britain's Iraq War Inquiry". New York Times. New York Times. Retrieved 2016-08-19. 
  8. ^ Hunt, Peter (2016-07-06). "Chilcot report: Tony Blair's Iraq War case not justified". BBC. BBC. Retrieved 2016-08-19. 
  9. ^ Dodge, Toby (2013-03-16). "Decade of regret - Iraq: From War to a New Authoritarianism". The Economist. The Economist. Retrieved 2016-08-19. 
  10. ^ Chulov, Martin (2015-10-25). "Tony Blair is right: without the Iraq war there would be no Islamic State". The Guardian. The Guardian. Retrieved 2016-08-19. 
  11. ^ Scarborough, Rowan (2016-07-19). "Saudi government funded extremism in U.S. mosques and charities: report". The Washington Times. The Washington Times. Retrieved 2016-08-19. 
  12. ^ Cevallos, Danny (2016-08-19). "Suing Saudi Arabia over 9/11?". CNN. CNN. Retrieved 2016-05-26. 
  13. ^ Lionel, Lionel (2016-07-19). "Saudi Arabia's Behind 9/11 So Sue Them!". YouTube. Lionel Nation / Lionel Media. Retrieved 2016-08-19. 
  14. ^ Bacevich, Andrew J.; Boot, Max; Kirkpatrick, Jeane; Ignatieff, Michael; O'Hanion, Michael; Masters, Jonathan (2011-12-15). "Was the Iraq War Worth It?". Council On Foreign Relations. Council On Foreign Relations. Retrieved 2016-08-19. 
  15. ^ Bacevich, Andrew J.; Boot, Max; Kirkpatrick, Jeane; Ignatieff, Michael; O'Hanion, Michael; Masters, Jonathan (2011-12-15). "Was the Iraq War Worth It?". Council On Foreign Relations. Council On Foreign Relations. Retrieved 2016-08-19. 

Other "Absent Issues" demanding discussion:

~ JasonCarswell (talk) 02:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

References

How Can "Other Groups" Be Improved?

Because I thought it was low hanging fruit, and obviously a lot of people would like to see these listed I thought if I compacted the list it might not bother Acroterion so much. But he/she reverted it saying "please do not keep spamming links to all sorts of groups without discussion" when he/she has not bothered to discuss it here on this page. If these groups are not valid, we need to know why and/or how so we can or they can legitimize themselves. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 07:03, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Reverted: Other truth groups include: Political leaders for truth, Religious leaders for truth, Commissioned and Non-Commissioned Military Officers for truth, Military, intelligence and government patriots question 9/11, Pilots for truth, Firefighters for truth and unity, Scientists for truth, Lawyers for truth, Medical professionals for truth, and Actors and artists for truth.

Consensus 9/11: The 9/11 Best Evidence Panel

Why was this section removed? JasonCarswell (talk) 12:45, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Imo it was removed giving a (mostly) er phony reason. I'll re-upload a slightly corrected version. Greetings from Vienna: Wda (talk) 22:13, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I, for one, would consider Consensus911's absence from a page on "The 9/11-Truth-movement" a defect and (certainly not the only one, by far (see "POV ???"); probably not the worst one (just one i do have an idea how to fix); but) definitely a shortcoming.
Ad "no evidence of notability" (1) C~911 may well meet WP:GNG / WP:ORG; (2) WP:N says, "Notability guidelines do not apply to content WITHIN an article [MY caps]"
Ad "POV promotion" - actually, most of my upload is cobbled together/summarized from the 3 refs given - please point out what exactly you consider "POV Promotion," and suggest different wording! --Wda (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I've reworded the inappropriately in-Wikipedia's-voice claims that the site aims prove "the precise points which undoubtedly show that the official version is inconsistent, incomplete or misleading." I've also removed the detailed business about the Delphi method, which strikes me as a tangent, particularly the reference to BMJ which describes the methodology in medicine, not as it relates to 9/11. I'm still unconvinced that the group is notable, particularly if the best reference that can be found is Indybay. At least AE911 knows how to get press - isn't there something better that can be cited? Acroterion (talk) 01:41, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
The Delphi method was illustrative of relevant open scholarly processes over complex issues rather than tinfoil hat speculation. The presentation might be improved and it should be reintroduced. A few more lines are not overly verbose.
~ JasonCarswell (talk) 23:55, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Regarding this: [6], I would argue that Wikipedia itself cannot take a position as to whether some study or another study "proves" or does not "prove" something. Wikipedia can say that the authors of the study assert that such and such a thing is "proved" (if the authors in fact say that), or that such and such an authority asserts that the study "proves" such and such a thing. But, I don't think Wikipedia can take sides. Famspear (talk) 00:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Anti Semantic Edits

@User:Famspear How is:

"with the objective to bring together, in an "Official Claims" vs "Best Evidence" format, to show that the official version is inconsistent, incomplete or misleading. The multi-lingual site limits its work entirely to demonstrating that the official account is false."

better than:

"with the objective to bring together, in an "Official Claims" vs "Best Evidence" format proving the official version is inconsistent, incomplete or misleading. The multi-lingual comprehensive resource site limits its work entirely to demonstrating that the official account is false."

How is the "multi-lingual" description better than the "comprehensive resource" description? Is there a description limit? It's not like I said it was fantastic. To show is to demonstrate or prove. Seeing is believing and I believe this is an effort to dilute by a thousand semantic edits. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 01:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Did you read my comment and Famspear's farther up the page? Please try to keep discussion in one place. And what on earth is an "Anti-Sematic Edit"? Acroterion (talk) 01:17, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Dear JasonCarswell: You're asking the wrong question. The question is not "which version of the text is better?". The question we are discussing is: "How should Wikipedia report what the source says while presenting the source material from a Neutral Point of View?".
Using the word "prove" in this context gives the false impression that Wikipedia itself concludes that the authors of the study have established the truth or validity of what the authors say, by evidence or demonstration. Whether the authors have "proved" anything or not, Wikipedia itself cannot properly claim that the authors have "proved" whatever the authors claim they have proved. Wikipedia itself cannot decide who is right or who is wrong, nor can it decide what has been proven or what has not been proven. Famspear (talk) 03:20, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Here's a possibility:

".....with the objective of showing that the official version is inconsistent, incomplete or misleading. The contributors to the multi-lingual site attempt to demonstrate that the official account is false......"

That verbiage might be better, in that it is less likely to give the impression that Wikipedia itself is rendering a conclusion about whether the source has achieved its objective or proved its case. Famspear (talk) 03:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Backing up further - what reliable, independent sources talk about this particular group? If they exist, what do they? VQuakr (talk) 05:29, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
We were all active on this page simultaneously and I hadn't caught up but I've waited until things calmed down a bit. I apologize for not keeping this within the correct section. I've moved it up. "Anti Semantic Edit" is a pun. I hope you know that. Not just you, I hope everyone gets it.
As Burning Man links to List of regional Burning Man events (not all cited by "mainstream media" yet nonetheless relevant to their "fringe" culture, (my apologies to the Burning Man community for dragging you into this)), it seems a List of 9/11 Truth conferences and a List of 9/11 Truth websites would be good rather than just deleting them.
Firstly, thanks for keeping me on my toes. I'm learning a lot about precision, deflection, diversion, obfuscation, and neutralization. I'm trying to tighten up my act as I learn about the deeper workings, policies and politics of Wikipedia. (I'll try to appropriately re-edit the other #Absent Issues section being "censored" after this.)
You did not answer my question about the comprehensive resource issue. I'd like to learn.
These semantics are important here. I can show a cat. I can prove a cat. I can show a theory. I can prove a theory. They weren't showing a movie, they were proving theories. "Proving to themselves"? "Show" neuters their effort. "with the objective of proving" is far better than "with the objective of showing".
The whole "Consensus 9/11" thing has been removed again. It's important to the 9-11 Truth movement as an event milestone, including the Delphi method, and that's a List of 9/11 Truth conferences is necessary if not here. It can be summarized here and expanded upon there.
Wikipedia can take sides and it does. "needs sourcing outside the conspiracy echo chamber" What about the mainstream echo chamber (media)? Journalistic objectivity is a great ideal that we must strive for but media bias is always present since the medium is the message. (Even essays and documentaries have points of views and agendas.) We know what the difference is between "official" stories which all too often assume and omit "assertions" and this page, why it needs to be "airtight", and whether efforts help or deflect.
Experts of the government-skeptical and counter-mainstream media 9-11 Truth movement are by their very nature outside mainstream media as experts in their own field. A cat is a better expert at knowing what it's like to be a cat than anyone else. Does anyone know, are there other catch-22 examples we can reference, learn from and apply here? "Historical views on expertise" (which does not cite any sources) states "expertise can also be understood as a form of power; that is, experts have the ability to influence others as a result of their defined social status. By a similar token, a fear of experts can arise from fear of an intellectual elite's power." Plato's "Noble Lie", concerns expertise - "In politics, a noble lie is a myth or untruth, often, but not invariably, of a religious nature, knowingly told by an elite to maintain social harmony or to advance an agenda. The noble lie is a concept originated by Plato as described in the Republic."
I hope this is good. I tried to be rational. I hope I didn't miss anything. Please let me know. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 13:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
We write articles based on polices and guidelines such as WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV. Until you can concisely frame your reasoning for a proposed edit in the context of those, you're not going to make much progress here. You may want to review WP:GREATWRONGS as well. VQuakr (talk) 22:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Good to know. My reading list just got longer. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 23:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

This conversation is not over. (Though I seem to be talking to myself.) The whole "Consensus 9/11" thing has been removed without explanation or discussion (which also makes my semantic points moot). No one has adequately answered my questions. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 07:11, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Iron Rich Sphere

Your text for the picture of the "iron rich sphere" leaves a lot more to be explained. Your statement "However, such spheres have been found to form when iron particles are affected by normal fuel fires" is not explained by the source.


1) The particles found at the WTC site were close to 100% iron spheres while those found in fly ash of your source are a combination of iron oxide and amorphous alumino-silicate

as described here: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016236106001906

2) Apparently the iron spheres were formed by being ejected in molten form from the building and were weightless during their free fall to the earth. They cooled enough during this fall to turn back to a solid.

Note lead buckshot was once made this way by being dropped from a high tower, In falling their weightless state caused them to become spheres and to cool during their descent. Lead of course is not used in shotgun shells any more.

3) "Normal fuel fires" is not a good description of the fire in a coal burning electric generating plant where the flames are fanned by huge blowers and the coal is atomized into dust before being burned. see: https://www.duke-energy.com/about-energy/generating-electricity/coal-fired-how.asp

4) Is the magazine skeptical inquirer (your source) a recognized source for Wikipedia? I was under the impression Wikipedia desired per reviewed journals as source material. Please clarify this for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arydberg (talkcontribs) 01:41, 3 September 2016 (UTC) Arydberg (talk) 01:43, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 9/11 Truth movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:49, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Popular Mechanics source enough for claim about professional support?

Hi y'all. I deleted what I felt to be an inappropriate line tonight, and it was immediately restored by another user. Since I'm new, I figured the talk page is the place to discuss whether it should stay or go, rather than just undo the undo.

The line is "Support for the movement is negligible from professionals in relevant fields, such as civil and aerospace engineering.[19]" The source is the infamous Popular Mechanics book with John McCain's foreword.

Firstly, I find the line overly tendentious, being where it is at the last sentence of the introduction, and there being no attempt in it to address other opinions, even though later on in this same article, namely in the "Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth" section, professional support is explicitly acknowledged (though of course that does not provide enough perspective so as to definitely clarify whether such support is "negligible" or not).

Mainly, though, my criticism is that one 10-year-old source—concerning a topic that is only 15 years old—does not justify a sweeping present-tense claim ("IS negligible").

I therefore suggest one of the following four changes: 1) Simply remove the statement. It is not needed in the introduction. 2) The statement should remain the same, but additional and more recent evidence should be supplied that shows that professional support really (still) is so little. 3) The statement should be changed to say that professional opinions differ, offering the Popular Mechanics source as one piece of evidence and, for example, something similar to or from among the sources for the material in the "Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth" section as another. 4) The statement should be changed so as to be a much weaker claim, namely, that, at one point in time, namely in 2006—which predates 2/3 of the time elapsed since 2001—professional support was claimed to be low.

I'm curious to hear arguments for why it should remain as it is now.

Tyler.g.neill (talk) 19:01, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

No professional has published anything in any professional journal that supports any aspect of any of the conspiracy theories. The PM report is more than sufficient. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 05:29, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
I see. Well, on a taboo subject such as this, and in a field where not all professionals necessarily publish, I'm not sure that published work is the only possible metric of such support. For example, not all doctors publish results of clinical studies, but they still may hold a view on a given medical issue. The trouble comes when one tries to make a negative claim about something that is as subtle as "support for a movement"; the suggested proof here is apparently in the form of a lack of proof, given that, besides the outdated example in question (itself being also not a journal but rather a magazine owned by the multinational conglomerate group Hearst), no other demonstration of dissenting professional opinion is being offered, be it an explicit scientific survey of professionals' views or else a published peer-reviewed technical study. Which I think is not responsible writing, which is why I say: just delete the line. On the other hand, I think that being a signatory on the petition of ae911truth (> 2,500 professionals) actually does count as support, and namely support that is more recent than 2006. (Honest question: Has anyone created an equivalent opposing petition that I don't know about yet? If so, it had better have some huge numbers, since swimming with the current as opposed to against it is much less risky and thus much less useful for learning about people's hidden beliefs.) Not that I even think that such a fact should be mentioned at this place in the article, but the point is, it is a controversial statement, and, as-is, an unnecessarily tendentious one too. Further thoughts, those who have weighed in so far, or anyone else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyler.g.neill (talkcontribs) 22:43, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
A proportion of any profession includes people with fringe points of view. AE911 is a fringe group in the A/E community. It's been repudiated by the AIA [7] (there are three pages) and represents less than 1% of licensed architects and engineers, none of them with any specialist knowledge beyond the basic credentials required by their professions. The Architect article specifically mentions Popular Mechanics in case you doubt its continuing relevance. You may also find this from Slate [8] interesting. There are about 105,000 licensed architects and several times that many engineers in the United States. The "movement" is more like a cottage business and hasn't grown or changed in the past decade. This has been discussed before and is covered by WP:FRINGE. Acroterion (talk) 00:34, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 9/11 Truth movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Follow-up on "Popular Mechanics source enough...?"

In reference to Talk:9/11_Truth_movement/Archive_5#Popular_Mechanics_source_enough_for_claim_about_professional_support.3F:

Many thanks for the response, Acroterion, and apologies that it took me a few months to get back. I read the sources you suggest and appreciate the perspective. As for the proposed change, I still favor changing the wording to "Active support" rather than just "Support" so as to avoid the appearance that a Wikipedia article is attempting to speak on behalf of a group of people's unmeasured internal beliefs as opposed to representing actually measurable criteria, such as explicit support or the lack thereof. That is, because "support" often has the connotation of private opinion, the word needs qualification here. I understand the need not to give undue emphasis to this fringe movement, which this certainly is, but it must be possible to go too far in that respect, and I think this line currently does so.

Since I'm relatively new to editing, I'm barred from making this edit myself, due to the semi-protected status of the page. Tyler.g.neill (talk) 13:25, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: You need to provide where you want the change to be made in the article. Also, you will be able to edit the article yourself after you make a couple more edits, please see WP:AUTOCONFIRMED. Aurato (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Documentary listing:

The Documentary section has items that typically only list imdb as sources. This is not enough to establish notability. Neutral third party sources should be found. Documentaries that can't have sources found should be removed from the list. This is so that non-notable documentaries are not added, and that items are added to promote the film itself. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 14:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

changes regarding "commonly accepted" and "officially accepted"

Harizotoh9 wanna discuss this? Signewton (talk) 17:27, 2 March 2017 (UTC)signewton

I think it's important that it's clear that the Truth Movement Does dispute the official Account of the 9/11 events. I want to try to stay clear of any edit war, but I also want to make the sure the article stays bi-partisan and we don't let any sort of personal views sneak into our edits and description of the movements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Signewton (talkcontribs) 17:29, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

It's framing used by Conspiracists, and thus a POV. "Official story" vs. Questioning it. This article and others is not simply just accepting the American government has said unquestioningly. There's countless articles that detail when American governments (or any government) have mislead the public. We go with evidence as reported by reliable sources. The difference between those articles and this one is that the evidence does not support conclusions of a Controlled demolition, or any other claims by the 911 Truth movement.

The Talk:9/11_conspiracy_theories page has a FAQ that covers many of these common objections. It should be posted to this page too. Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:53, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Good PointSignewton (talk) 00:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on 9/11 Truth movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:05, 23 June 2017 (UTC)