Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories/Archive 38

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

→

Archive 42

What is the purpose of this page?

This page is for discussing specific improvements to the article, not a soapbox for views on fringe theories
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'm just curious as to the point, or purpose of this page. It seems, as I read it, that this page only serves one purpose, to completely flame any 9/11 alternate theories (I refuse to use the word "conspiracy", as the 9/11 NIST commission is just as big a "conspiracy" as any theory that tries to shed light on what really happened to 1, 2, and 7 WTCs) that don't agree with the official NIST/FEMA theory. It would be appreciated if this article was reformed to actually have a base as to claims made, instead of offering theories, then having them shot down, and or discredited. My point being, it seems like this Wikipedia page is monitored and/or edited only those who agree with the FEMA/NIST theory. Another note after reading archived talk pages for this Wikipedia page, it seems that (as I stated above) the only people who edit this page seems to agree with the "official" NIST theory. "There's no reason to mince words, here. It's not the "widely accepted" theory of what happened. It's what actually happened. (And, obviously, we have mounds of sources to support such a statement.)" JoelWhy?(talk) 19:19, 14 August 2013 (UTC) If that is true (the mounds of evidence claim), then why does everything about the subject seem to defy logics? No, I'm not saying use logic as a source (as it would be here-say, and unreliable), but where is the evidence backing the claim that these two Boeing 767s completely destroyed the WTC? A great point in case is that the fire that raged in WTCs 1 and 2 burned, yes it did weaken the steel. What about floors 10 - 60? Those floors were completely untouched (on both buildings) and yet those whole thing came down in it's own footprint, as if the whole structure was weakened. Where is the proof that this would actually happen (on both a logic and scientific scale)? Not to mention the fact that before 9/11, a whole skyscraper coming down due to fire was unheard of, as it was afterwards, because it never seemed to happen again. It just seems like even though the NIST theory claims to be the official events of what happened, both metaphysically, and scientifically, certain facts were obviously omitted or overlooked that makes the whole thing completely discreditable. -Yours truly, 70.90.174.173 (talk) 23:33, 23 October 2014 (UTC) See the FAQ at the top of the page. VQuakr (talk) 01:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC) Ok, I read it, and I still don't understand how Wikipedia can stand by evidence that is only claimed to be scientifically sound (thanks for answering my question yourself, and not directing me towards a preloaded Q&A.) The evidence surrounding the official 9/11 theory is just as controversial any other alternate theory. How can 90 stories collapse in the matter of ten seconds, with all those floors trusses, and beams, etc. The fire did weakened the steel on the floors that were the most heavily damaged, but after all those floors gave way, it collapsed on to steel that was unaffected by the flames and therefore structurally sound, and also still had fire retardant on it (as the fire retardant in the impact zones was blown off). So even with the weight of the collapsing section of the tower falling on to it, the floors below the 70th floor on each tower were 100% structurally sound. The center columns of both buildings were completely in towers. 100% structurally sound and yet the seems to be as weak as the floors damaged by the impacts of the planes. This clearly goes against logic. My point stands that the page for 9/11 alternate theories needs to reformed, so it's not a complete slam page to every theory that discredits, or disagrees with the "official" NIST theory. http://911review.org/WTC/images/_1540044_world_trade_structure300.gif http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/10/08/over-2200-architects-engineers-crush-the-official-911-commission-report/ 70.90.174.173 (talk) 23:50, 24 October 2014 (UTC) Wikipedia is not a forum. Go away. HiLo48 (talk) 00:14, 25 October 2014 (UTC) Nice, how professional. Now I can't even trust what Wikipedia says. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.90.174.173 (talk) 20:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC) These are all your personal opinions. Wikipedia does not operate on the opinions of its users. Neither mine, nor yours. They're all equally invalid. We operate via the views of reliable sources and scholarly opinion. 9-11 controlled demolition theorists have not had a single paper published in an actual scientific journal. Instead, what they have done is create their own low quality fringe journals to purplish their material. They are a fringe minority and should be treated as such. That you disagree with this is immaterial. You'll need reliable sources to support your claims. For the relevant Wikipedia policies see: WP:FRINGE WP:UNDUE WP:NOR For Wikipedia policies on sources see: WP:HISTRS (history reliable sources) WP:RELIABLE (reliable sources in general) WP:SCIRS (reliable sources for natural science) --Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:03, 29 October 2014 (UTC) However, Wikipedia continues to argue for a claim that makes no sense on a logical level. Thus is why I'll never believe anything that Wikipedia offers. Thanks, for nothing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0Q5eZhCPuc --70.90.174.173 (talk) 22:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC) However, Wikipedia continues to argue for a claim that makes no sense on a logical level. Which is your personal opinion. Which is irrelevant. There's lots of people who think that homeopathy makes perfect sense, or that evolution makes claims that are completely logically impossible or that the moon landings were impossible, or that the claim that approximately 6,000,000 jews died in the holocaust was impossible. Their opinions are irrelevant and should not be given undue weight. They are fringe opinions. Wikipedia is a collection of scholarly opinions, and fringe views are given the appropriate weight. Since 9-11 conspiracy theories got cultural importance and attention, they got a Wikipedia page. They are not given this page because their opinions are scientifically valid or convincing. So you have it backwards. What you have to do is convince the scientists and historians first. Then you'd get the views into reliable sources, then you'd change the wikipedia article. If reliable sources change, then our page will change. But you can't change the page before the reliable sources and scientists change. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0Q5eZhCPuc That video is not a reliable source. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Re: Antisemitism in conspiracy theories

I'd like to bring attention to the 'Antisemitism in conspiracy theories' section of this page and detail why I feel that this section is unnecessary, unrelated, and misleading. This section has little to do with actual 9/11 conspiracy theories themselves and seems to be clearly taking sides and pointing fingers. I would say the majority of people who claim Israel was involved, including the most popular leaders in this though paradigm, believe that only a small percentage of top Israeli officials were involved, and would also abhor the racism known as antisemitism. Not many people point the blame at Jews as a race, they place the blame with the Israeli government, who hold self-admitted Zionist ideologies. Claiming that 9/11 was co-sponsored by Israel has nothing to do with race or Jews as a race. Calling this theory anti-Semitic is incorrect, misleading, and slanderous.

Further, starting the section titled, 'Israel', with "A conspiracy theory documented by the Anti-Defamation League, Thom Burnett and others," adds a bit more blatant bias into the article. It would make more sense, as is done in the Saudi Arabia section below, to lead the Israel section with the names of the people who have proposed the most popular and influential theories claiming Israel was involved. One particular person I am aware of is Ryan Dawson, and he has produced some YouTube videos documenting his theories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jumpingjunipers (talk • contribs) 00:06, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that section is problematic. It's not about a conspiracy theory, but about a particular group's response to a conspiracy theory. And yes, it does point fingers. We might as well include a section saying that HiLo48 thinks that another group's theory is just nutty. It IS off topic. Should probably be deleted. HiLo48 (talk) 00:16, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

So, how do you propose to soft-pedal the strongly anti-Semitic nature of much of the 2001-2003 conspiracy theories, which proposed that Jews avoided the WTC that day, and that Jews were behind the events of the day? While there were those who claimed that Israel was behind the attacks, the more prevalent canard was that "Jews did it," something we occasionally see to this day in 9/11-related vandalism on WP. After 2003 the emphasis in the West shifted to the Bush administration, with an occasional corollary of Israeli involvement. It has remained fixed on Jews as a whole in the Middle East. That is not to say that the section can't be improved and that opinions can't be appropriately attributed, but to claim that the conspiracy theories were limited to "Israeli officials" is not what happened. Acroterion (talk) 00:25, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you saying that there are more anti-semitic theories that should be documented in the article? HiLo48 (talk) 00:32, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Having just looked it over: yes. There was was the "missing Jews" theory that was floated in the immediate aftermath, and a knee-jerk Jews/Israel response in some circles. I'll have to do a little looking around. As I noted, the events of the 2003 Iraq War shifted views to some extent, and perhaps increased a focus among CTs on Israel specifically. Acroterion (talk) 00:42, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Fine. Add more anti-semitic theories, so long as you can find high quality reliable sources and gain consensus for them. But that's actually off-topic. This discussion is about whether we include a response to a conspiracy theory. That the particular theory that's been responded to happens to be an anti-Israeli government one doesn't justify adding that response. HiLo48 (talk) 00:51, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, this is about a proposal to scale back or remove the "'Antisemitism in conspiracy theories'", according to the OP. As I stated, I'm fine with greater consistency in attribution. I'm not fine with its removal or an attempt to play down the anti-Semitic character of some CTs. Acroterion (talk) 00:55, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that there's any real doubt that conspiracy theories claiming that four thousand Jews stayed home on 9/11 or those involving "international bankers" are anti-Semitic. What exactly is the problem here? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:09, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is, the claims of antisemitism are not a 9/11 conspiracy theory in itself. It is about a particular groups response to a conspiracy theory, and that response happens to be an opinion which is misleading and at time outright fallacious. --Jumpingjunipers (talk) 01:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Several 9/11 CTs have been labelled by reliable sources as being anti-Semitic...all we do is report what the reliable sources say.--MONGO 01:50, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

A belief as to whether these theories are racist is a separate issue. These claims of antisemitism are not a theory regarding 9/11 and don't belong on a page dedicated to 9/11 theories. And your "reliable source" is an extremely bias source who is making unfounded claims. Jumpingjunipers (talk) 02:31, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Please show us those sources. HiLo48 (talk) 02:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

A note: the ADL is not a "biased source" for discussions of conspiracy theories concerning Jews, any more than the NAACP is a biased source concerning African-Americans, provided one is careful about attribution and avoidance of using Wikipedia's voice. As for 9/11 and Jews or Israel, a CBS discussion here [1], Slate [2], the NYT [3]. This is based on a quick check: there is quite a bit out there, but it takes some winnowing to sort out reliable sources from the Internet noise. Acroterion (talk) 02:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• how many do you want--MONGO 02:45, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

You're missing the point. Claims of antisemitism are not a 9/11 theory and do not belong on a page strictly dedicated to 9/11 theories. Jumpingjunipers (talk) 03:01, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I think trying to attribute motives to the conspiracists is still a bad idea, and involves too much OR. We cannot know for sure what motivates nutters. Some hate George W Bush. Some hate Jews. Some hate Muslims. Some hate the government, no matter what brand it is. Some hate the USA. Some just don't trust anybody. But still all nutters. (Even though I might agree with some of those sentiments re governments, etc).) We describe who they are and what they say. The readers can decide what their motives might be and how nutty they are. HiLo48 (talk) 02:51, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

That's a very strange approach to the subject. Motivations are integral to these theories, otherwise they're just pointless pontificating on means of destruction. Anti-Semitism is at the core of at least some of these theories, as is anti-Bush administration in some other cases, or broader anti-government views, or general paranoia, or a technical fascination with constructing scenarios. In the Middle East anti-Semitism is the central feature, as the sources clearly show. I'm not aware of specific attribution of specific means to specific ideologies, nor does the article make such a linkage. There is no OR in noting anti-Semitism as one of several potential motivations. I am against cleansing the article of inconveniently objectionable motivations. Acroterion (talk) 11:40, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Your last sentence is offensive. I object to all attempts to attribute motivations. That should have been obvious from my post. HiLo48 (talk) 11:55, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

The last line was a comment on the main discussion and the OP's last post, not a response to HiLo48: the OP specifically targeted anti-Semitism and nothing else. See the section header. However, specifically to your comments, I don't understand how you can suggest that well-sourced discussions of motivations for these beliefs should be ignored entirely, leaving the article solely to a discussion of the mechanics, for lack of a better term, of these apparently unmotivated conspiracy theories. Acroterion (talk) 15:09, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Just curious if anyone has addressed my original complaint yet? Claims of antisemitism are not a 9/11 conspiracy theory and do not belong on a page dedicated to 9/11 conspiracies. Maybe I missed it.Jumpingjunipers (talk) 16:39, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

The entire discussion above addresses your proposal. Selective removal of anti-Semitic motivations for the conspiracy theories, which are amply documented in reliable sources, are not appropriate. Acroterion (talk) 16:42, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

My point, which is still not being addressed, is that claims of antisemitism are commentary regarding one of the conspiracy theories -- an opinion. They are not an actual conspiracy theory or part of a conspiracy theory and do not belong on a page dedicated to 9/11 conspiracy theories themselves.Jumpingjunipers (talk) 17:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism is at the root of many the 9/11 conspiracy theories, not just one. The core conspiracy theory is that Jews as part of the "Protocol" set up the attacks so the USA would be coerced to go to war against Muslims. Sub theories such as Jews getting text messages to avoid the WTC that day, stay at home, call in sick all play into a preposterous "Jews Did it" anti-Semitic meme. We can find a plethora of references and even vastly expand on this neonazi anti-Semitic theme if you wish, but we're not going to remove a very basic overview about what is actually a broad aspect of the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11.--MONGO 17:21, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

First of all, that's your opinion, and apparently ADL's opinion -- neither are backed by fact. I could successfully argue that majority of 9/11 conspiracy theories regarding Israel have nothing to do with hatred of Jews, and if you claim that the root of many 9/11 theories is anti-Semitism, I expect that to be backed by fact. Shall we go that route? It's odd that this only focuses on the small minority of theories, some of which are in fact anti-Semitic, but ignores the fact that the majority Israel theories are not anti-Semitic. Simply believing that Israel played a roll in 9/11, or that 4,000 Jews somehow had foreknowledge, is not antisemitic. Secondly, and my main point: this is a page dedicated to strictly outlining the conspiracies themselves. Not a page to include opinions on the theories or to editorialize particular conspiracy theories. The page isn't called "9/11 conspiracy theories and what other people think about them." It's for the objective non-bias reporting of the theories themselves, and instead of laying out the facts of what the theories are regarding Israel, you have chosen to inject the opinion of the ADL. Can you acknowledge that?Jumpingjunipers (talk) 20:06, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

It is pretty clear that many of the conspiracy theories involve anti-Semitism and even if it were not true, the fact that significant observers, such as the ADL, say so means that weight requires us to include them. If anything it is understated since conspiratorial thinking and anti-Semitism are so closely connected. TFD (talk) 20:16, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You're certainly entitled to your own personal opinions, however, that's not how we write articles on Wikipedia. Instead, we write articles based on what WP:reliable sources say about a topic. Reliable sources have described the anti-Semitic nature of some of these conspiracy theories; therefore so should we as well. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:22, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

And again, we're back to the point that no one wants to acknowledge: this specific page is strictly about the 9/11 conspiracy theories, not opinions regarding perceived racism of those theories. Correct? Jumpingjunipers (talk) 20:28, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

No, that's not correct. Reliable sources have described some of these conspiracy theories as anti-Semitic. We report what reliable sources say about a topic. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

You're telling me that this page isn't strictly dedicated to the actual conspiracy theories themselves?Jumpingjunipers (talk) 20:38, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

"Weight" says we should include analysis of these theories provided it is reliably sourced. TFD (talk) 20:40, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

In that case, at the very least, these comments by the ADL should be placed under the criticism section of the wiki.Jumpingjunipers (talk) 20:53, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Policy says we shouldn't have a criticism section either. Let's get some things clear. Blaming the Israeli government is not being anti-Semitic, any more than blaming George W Bush is being anti-all Americans. We must not single out Jewish people as a special target of these nonsense theories. That's not the purpose of this article. It's about ALL the conspiracy theories. Unless you hunt down broader targets for all the theories, it ≃would be completely biased to just mention anti-semitism. And please don't say "it's sourced" again. Being sourced is essential for something to be included here, but it is never sufficient.

(edit conflict) I don't see how the claim that 4000 Jews did not report to work at the Towers cannot be considered anti-Semitic. The claim that Israel is involved is not necessarily technically anti-Semetic, although, if reliable sources state that it is, we should include that. It is not just "opinion"; we should state both what is said about the theories and what is behind them, to the extent found in reliable sources. This does not need to be in a separate criticism section; each theory should be followed by mainstream refutations as well as scholarly comments as to the "reasoning" behind it. (Note grammar: "each" is singular, so takes "it" as pronoun.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:06, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

According to the ADL website, antisemitism is "The belief or behavior hostile toward Jews just because they are Jewish." Simply believing that 4000 Jews didn't report to work is not considered anti-Semitic because holding a conspiratorial belief does not automatically imply the hatred of all Jews. But the ADL will try to imply that simply believing something about the state of Israel, or about 4,000 Jews, equates hatred, which it doesn't. It's a pretty clear logic fail if you ask me, and I would say that the ADL is not the most reliable source on this matter, considering they basically claim anyone who doesn't side with Israel is an anti-Semite. Jumpingjunipers (talk) 22:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Criticism sections should not be used. Although Mossad and Israel have engaged in conspiracies is arguable, the idea that they could pull this off without detection, would require a degree of ability and power that it would mean they are controlling the world. And the idea that they knew who all the Jews were, contacted them, and none of them said anything, implies a massive Jewish conspiracy. TFD (talk) 21:26, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Claims of antisemitism are a blatant criticism of the theory. Why should all other criticisms be placed in the criticism section except for the ADL one? How does that make sense? If this wiki is going to have a criticism section, the ADL claim belongs there. If you don't believe there should be a criticism section at all, then remove it and disperse all the criticisms to their rightful place throughout the article. Jumpingjunipers (talk) 21:51, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

<outdent>Claims of anti-Semitism (which are based in fact) are fundamental to the subject. It is not a "criticism" to the basis of the CTs to describe their origins as, in some cases, anti-Semitism. It is a plain statement of fact. Why do you think this may be omitted? Acroterion (talk) 21:59, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Claims of anti-Semitism are not fundamental to the subject. HiLo48 (talk) 22:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Really? It is the mother of all motivations in many Middle Eastern circles. The CT community in the West has made a considerable effort to distance itself from the anti-Semitic voices that promoted the "Jews did it" theory in the 2001-2003 time frame. Acroterion (talk) 22:13, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Believing that Jews did it is not antisemitic. Jumpingjunipers (talk) 22:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

It can be said with even more certainty that believing that the Israeli government did it is definitely not anti-semitic. HiLo48 (talk) 22:39, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

It is and more importantly the literature on 9/11 says so. Because it is implicit that in order to carry out and cover up the attacks, the Jews would have to control the U.S. government, all congressmen and senators and the media, as well as all the mainstream political parties and governments throughout the world. Or do you not think that is anti-Semitism? TFD (talk) 22:50, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

No, it's not. And what you said is actually not implicit whatsoever. Conspiracies can be carried out, and are often carried out, without controlling an entire government, media and world governments. Not many people believe that in order to carry out and cover up 9/11, "the Jews would have to control the U.S. government, all congressmen and senators and the media, as well as all the mainstream political parties and governments throughout the world." To say that is an implicit part is an outright falsehood. Even if by some chance it was implicit, it's still not antisemitic in itself. According to the ADL website, antisemitism is "The belief or behavior hostile toward Jews just because they are Jewish." Simply believing that Israel did 9/11, or that Jews run the world, is not considered anti-Semitic because holding a conspiratorial belief does not automatically imply the hatred of all Jews simply because they are Jews. For something to be antisemitic, it has to be proven that the person or people who believe it believe so simply because of the ethnicity of the involved groups. If you read the source document at the heart of these claims, the ADL has not proven this, and their claims of antisemitism are largely unfounded. Jumpingjunipers (talk) 23:05, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

You are arguing that the generally accepted understanding of anti-Semtism is wrong, and the most respected authorities that track anti-Semitism, such as the ADL, do not know what they are talking about. You are certainly entitled to believe that but it is not a valid argument here because "no original research" says we cannot make up our own definitions. Anti-Semitic people do not have to believe they are anti-Semitic. Lots of them believe they are not. Anyway, the theory Mossad was behind the attacks raises the question why no mainstream observers - U.S. intelligence, the Congress, foreign governments, the media, academics - all were persuaded they had nothing to do with it. And not only do mainstream publishers reject the Mossad theory, they will not even publish articles supporting it. The only possible reason is that they are part of or dupes of a Mossad cover-up conspiracy. TFD (talk) 23:40, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

We're not making up definitions here. I'm going by the ADL's own definition as referenced above. Did you miss the part where I said, "According to the ADL website, antisemitism is "The belief or behavior hostile toward Jews just because they are Jewish." ?? Again, going by the ADL definition, simply believing that Israel did 9/11, or that Jews run the world, is not considered anti-Semitic because holding a conspiratorial belief does not automatically imply the hatred of all Jews simply because they are Jews. Adhering to the ADL's definition, for something to be antisemitic, it has to be proven that the person or people who believe it believe so simply because of the ethnicity of the involved groups. The cited ADL study does not prove such things. This is an issue that I would like to escalate if possible. Jumpingjunipers (talk) 00:07, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I have yet to see you provide a single reliable source that demonstrates that anti-Semitism was not a broad underpinning of a number of the 9/11 CTs. All you mention is some guy who has a YouTube clip! We can add more cites to substanitate the claims if you like...hell I can write numerous paragraphs on the neonazi, anti-Semitic basis for the moronic conspiracy theories. We can go that route if you like.--MONGO 00:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Sources aren't needed because the content isn't needed. HiLo48 (talk) 00:47, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories differ from ordinary disputes over historical facts, and need to be described differently. In conspiracy theories, it is important to mention who promotes them, why they believe them, and how they tie in to their broader understanding of the world, i.e., the view that the world is controlled by evil forces, which is a variation of earlier Jewish conspiracy theories. TFD (talk) 14:55, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

"Semitic" does not mean "Jewish", therefore at most conspiracy theories placing Jewish people at the center of problems (which I believe none actually do, rather they put that on a specific group of Jewish people) are anti-jew and not anti-semitic. 92.40.250.85 (talk) 23:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

"Semitic" does not mean "Jewish"; however, "antisemitic" does mean anti-Jew. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:31, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Just to get back to the OP's point, I may have an answer to what looks (to a casual observer like myself) like a bit of confusion. In scrolling down the page, the heading "Theories" includes the various theories (of course) about 9/11. What's NOT really clear, though, is that some of those sections are actually SUBSECTIONS. This is apparent from the "Contents" table, but is not so obvious to someone just scrolling through the entire page. For instance, "Foreknowledge" is a theory, with "Suspected insider trading," "Air defense stand-down theory," and "Israeli agents" as SUBSECTIONS under the "Foreknowledge" theory. In looking closely at the article, I NOW notice that the "subsections" are headed by a slightly smaller font-size. Honestly, it confused me too. This is what makes "Antisemitism in conspiracy theories" APPEAR to be a section unto itself, instead of a sub-subsection under "Foreign governments," subsection "Israel." This, I think, is a possible source of the OP's objection. I thought it seemed strange also, just in reading for information, for the motivation of antisemitism to appear to be a "theory." I guess this is just the way Wiki formats, but maybe indenting each "sub" (like is done in the "Contents" table) would make the difference more apparent. Maybe make it less readable, though. I don't pretend to know better how to format a page than those who actually do it. I merely offer my two cents on what MAY be the source of the original objection to this (sub-sub) section. FWIW Jororo05 (talk) 20:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your article.Really thank you! Really Great.

Im grateful for the post. Fantastic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.193.103.93 (talk) 12:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

"Civil engineering community"

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.

---

The article states that The civil engineering community accepts that the impacts of jet aircraft at high speeds in combination with subsequent fires, not controlled demolition, led to the collapse of the Twin Towers.

Who's the "civil engineering community"? The sources for this sentence only show the opinion of a single person - Bazant. Bazant does not represent "the civil engineering community", nor is able to speak in the name of them. Several members of the "civil engineering community", in fact, are skeptical of the governamental explanations, as well as half of the American population. Several engineers worldwide are also skeptical.

The sentence is false and should be rewritten or removed. Dornicke (talk) 14:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The "skeptical" members of the "civil engineering community" have yet to have anything published in any respectable engineering journal. No know expert in civil engineering supports any of the controlled demolition conspiracy theories. The sentence is factual. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 14:25, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

You're mixing things up. The fact that skeptical engineers have not published in any "respectable" ("respectable" in the opinion of who, BTW?) journal does not mean they endorse the governamental explanations. This is a fallacy. One thing has nothing to do with the other. Bazant is not a representative of the "civil engineering community" to speak in the name of them. If the article wants to state that "the civil engineering community" has an opinion on the subject, it has to present sources proving that. And using the single opinion of a person does not fall under this category. Dornicke (talk) 14:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I see you're back to promote conspiracy theories again. No professional architectural or engineering organization has supported the CTs in any way, and Bazant is the only engineer who's bothered to even comment. The AIA was finally forced to disavow Gage after he used a public meeting room at AIA headquarters to imply AIA association, but only after years of ignoring AE911 in the same manner as ASCE has done. You're exploiting silence on the part of professional organizations to imply doubt. The sentence is not false. Acroterion (talk) 17:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm really not interested in your personal opinion or perceptions. The fact is: the sentence in the text is not supported by the source. Period. As simple as that. Throwing the "conspiracy theory" card and starting acting like a mad dog with rabies won't change that. Dornicke (talk) 14:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I see editors are already trying to censor discussion on a talk page. This is pure whitewhasing and abuse. I've started a new topic on village pump about that. Dornicke (talk) 14:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm "acting like a mad dog with rabies?" I thought I was just disputing your attempt to lend credibility to conspiracy theories. Good luck with the forum shopping. Acroterion (talk) 17:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

BTW - " Bazant is the only engineer who's bothered to even comment" - So... you agree with me that the sentence is false. If "Bazant is the only engineer who's bothered to even comment", than the article can not attribute his opinion as the opinion of the "civil engineering community". I work with several engineers in Brazil. None of them believes in the governamental explanations. Bazant certainly doesn't represent them as well. Dornicke (talk) 14:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The sentence in question (The civil engineering community accepts that the impacts of jet aircraft at high speeds in combination with subsequent fires, not controlled demolition, led to the collapse of the Twin Towers.) is full of problems and disrespects several guidelines of the project:

1 - Wikipedia:No original research - by implying that Bazant represents the whole "civil engineering community", when there's no source saying such a thing, the sentence falls under the category of original research ("Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources.")

2 - Wikipedia:Neutral point of view - according to this guideline we should Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources. That's exactly what this sentence and its sources do. They represent Bazant's opinion of what "the civil engineer community" accepts as a fact and presents such an opinion as Wikipedia's view.

3 - Wikipedia:Verifiability - As I said, the sources do not support the sentence. Dornicke (talk) 15:45, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

You are wrong on all three counts. 1) Bazant is summarizing the views of the civil engineering community. I presume he is considered a RS, so his summary supports the statement as worded. 2) We are stating the fact, as presented in the sources, that it is the opinion of the civil engineering community that what happened is what happened. Wikipedia is not presenting its own opiniont. 3) The sources do support the sentence, as demonstrated by the statements specifically called out in the cite notes. You may not like that common opinion does not support your conspiracy theory, but that does not invalidate common opinion. Resolute 16:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

1 - Bazant is no one claim he's able to summarize "the views of the civil engineering community". He's nobody outside US borders. He's no one in position of summarizing anything. He only speaks for himself. The article could say that "According to Bazant, the civil engineering community bla bla bla". Nothing more than that. Transforming HIS opinion on what the "civil engineering community" thinks into a fact is original research.

2 - You're stating the opinion of a person as a fact. That fails no original research, verifiability and neutral point of view.

3 - No, they don't. They are false sources.

4 - Keep your opinions to yourself. I'm not remotely interested in whatever it is that you think about "common opinion". You're nobody to decide what the "common opinion" is, sorry to tell you that. Dornicke (talk) 16:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Nor are you. The difference between us is that I do not behave like a petulant child when balked. Resolute 17:23, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any problems with this sentence. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Of course you don't. You're one of the editors engaged in tranforming this article into a press release of the US government. Didn't expect any other thing from you. I want to read the opinion of non-biased users. Anyway, I've pointed the problems, you didn't refute any of them, with any kind of arguments, so... I'm still waiting for someone with arguments. Dornicke (talk) 16:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Neither article sourced claims the civil engineering community accepts anything. However both articles state that the structural engineering community is in consensus. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:41, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

It's right there in the introduction: "The civil engineering community accepts that the impacts of jet aircraft at high speeds in combination with subsequent fires, not controlled demolition, led to the collapse of the Twin Towers" - Well... I'm just asking a source that proves this. The article presents none. Just the opinion of one single person about what the "civil engineering community" thinks, and falsifies this source to claim this opinion of a single person is a fact. Dornicke (talk) 16:45, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm talking about the articles cited, not our wikipedia article. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok. But both articles are being used as references to support this sentence. That's the problem. Dornicke (talk) 16:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I just don't understand what the debate is. We have a peer-reviewed article that states "Universally though has the foregoing explanation of collapse been accepted by the communities of structural engineers and structural mechanics researchers, some outside critics have nevertheless exploited various unexplained observations to disseminate allegations of controlled demolition." Is it that you want to change "civil engineering community" to "communities of structural engineers and structural mechanics researchers"? (It's a pedantic argument, but I'm fine with that change.) Otherwise, I don't see what there is to dispute about the statement. JoelWhy?(talk) 17:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

We have the opinion of one person alleging to know what "the civil engineering community" thinks being used to say what the civil engineering community thinks. As simple as that. Read the discussion. Bazant doesn't have any evidences and doesn't offer any evidences of what he's saying. It's just an opinion. Dornicke (talk) 17:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

And a reliable one at that. It sounds to me like you're arguing that reliable sources are wrong. Is that what you're saying? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Since these are published in the ASCE, I would say that making a along the lines of "Structural engineers agree" Or "there is consensus among structural engineers" would be something that can be taken at face value. The only qualifier I can think of is that the ASCE is only an US organization, and not an international one. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The "debate" is that we have one editor crying "censorship" because we don't agree with removing information that contradicts his world view. Irony abounds. Resolute 17:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if the source is reliable or not. It's being used to support the article's claim that the "civil engineering community" supports the governamental explanations. But this is just the opinion of an individual being presented as a fact. Bazant is an engineer. He's not on the statistics business, he doesn't have any authority to claim that he knows what the "civil engineering community" thinks. The "civil engineering community" doesn't exist as a factual organization. Thus, it has never published a press release or something stating their position. The best thing you can do with the sources you have in this article is to say "according to Bazant the civil engineering community bla bla bla". To claim that his OPINION is a fact goes against ALL THE POLICIES AND GUIDELINES of this project. It would be the same thing of me finding an opinion of some person published in a reliable source to cite as a fact that "Bush is the best president we ever had" or "Detroit is the most beautiful city in the world". It's quite obvious what the problem is, you'd do the project a favor by stop pretending that you are all blind. Dornicke (talk) 20:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources. - This is our guideline that it's being grossly disrespected under your approval. It has nothing to do with conspiracies, mimimimmi blablabla. So, please, stop using strawman fallacies and start using arguments to explain why this ERROR shouldn't be corrected. Thank you. Dornicke (talk) 20:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Again, peer reviewed article (actually, it's 2 peer reviewed articles) both making a statement of fact in a reliable source. Either provide evidence that meets wiki standard to the contrary, or the debate's over. JoelWhy?(talk) 20:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The fact they are two (could be one thousand) peer reviewed articles doesn't mean we can state opinions as facts. I could say that "grammar teachers community" prefer yellow, the same way Bazant says "the civil engineering community agrees with me". I could only state thas as a fact after I can prove that, by presenting reseraches or something like that. He's just an egineer, he's not a mutant, he can claim as much as he wants that he knows what most engineers think. But we can not state that is a fact. Only an opinion, a personal perception he has. Period. And, I'm sorry, but the "debate is not over" just because you say so, you don't have such authority. Present arguments that allows any editor to disrespect the guideline that was mentioned and you may start having a point. Thanks again. Dornicke (talk) 21:07, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Evidence was already provided. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Not my fault if you ignore the projects guidelines. Dornicke (talk) 21:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not an opinion, it's a fact. That's like saying we can't say that the Earth is round, because golly gee, it might be flat. There is nothing remotely controversial or disputed about any of this. Yes, there are idiots in this world who think the Holocaust never happened, that bigfoot is real, and that aliens crashed at Roswell. But that's why we cite reliable sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

If it's a fact, then it must be simple to prove it. Prove it. Dornicke (talk) 22:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

We already did that. Reliable sources have been provided. I'm not sure what you're looking for. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:48, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Wackos playing with their Tonka trucks in a sandbox aren't civil engineers.--MONGO 23:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

No, you didn't. Present me a peer reviewed research confirming Bazant's opinion. Otherwise, it's just his personal opinion or original research. Either way, inadequate for the project. And, Mongo, I don't know what you're talking about. Who are the "wackos"? What's under discussion here is Bazant's statement that "the civil engineer community" backs his and the government's explanations - which hasn't been proven at any point, by him or any other person. That he doesn't represent the "civil engineer community" is quite clear. He's pretty much irrelevant to the "civil engineer community" outside US borders, barely has wikis, just for a start. What is the "civil engineering community" he says that agree with him? The AMERICAN civil engineering community? Which organizations of the American civil engineering community have endorsed what he says they endorse? Can you provide the links? Dornicke (talk) 23:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I can pretty much guarantee that no organization of the Brazilian civil engineering community has never issued any kind of report saying that they reject or confirm his explanations. So he can't say they represent this. I'm pretty much sure this would apply to most organizations and engineering communities throughout the world. Who's Bazant to say he knows what the "civil engineering community" thinks? How does he know that? Where has this been written? When was it published? Who researched it? Or is he just GUESSING? Oh, yes. He's guessing. Just as much as a I could guess "most cops like donuts". Can I write that in the article about the police, without ANYTHING to back it up? Dornicke (talk) 23:41, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Bazant is peer reviewed research. Are you saying that you want peer-reviewed research to confirm the peer-reviewed research? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

@Dornicke: You received zero support last year when you raised the exact same issue. Do you have new information to present to this community-based project that justifies reopening discussion? Or are you just wasting everyone's time? VQuakr (talk) 03:53, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Again: it doesn't matter that his work is peer reviewed. He's mentioning something that is just an opinion. Opinions must be cited as opinions, doesn't matter if they are published in a peer reviewed article or not. If you have an article published in a reliable source showing that there is a research proving what "most engineers" think, Bazant and you will have a point. If not... sorry, it's just guessing, and guessing is not fact. Last time I raised the same issue, I did get support, not only on my talk page [5], but also on the discussion. Saying I got "zero support" is a blatant lie [6] and tells a lot about the character of some editors that self procclaimed themselves as owners of this article. One user has even pointed at the occasion that "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but the sentence does not meet an encyclopedic standard. You cherry pick the narrowest possible application of the policies to meet your chosen outcome. Regardless of notability, it is illogical to take one man's statement of opinion as illustrative of the larger community. Moreover, it is not demonstrated via notable sources that "most of the engineering community" has made inquiries into the topic." That's it. So obvious that a rock can see. You chose to ignor his opinion and censor the discussion. As for the guy with the "disruption" card ("I don't have arguments so I'll call you a disruptor"... that's a new one... LOL): if you feel you're waisting your time, ignore the discussion, no one is forcing you to read or to take part in it. So... just put yourself back into your place and remember you're nobody in position to tell me or any other person what we can or can not discuss. I'll discuss whatever I want to discuss whenever I want to discuss wherever I want to discuss. Period. ARGUMENTS people. Enough with the childish name-calling, idiot veiled threats, etc., it makes you look a bunch of irrational Justin Bieber teenager fans outraged by criticism of their god. Pathetic, in fact. Would like to understand what's the problem of editors of pages like this. Dornicke (talk) 11:55, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh my... ha ha ha. Look at this gem: "It's not an opinion, it's a fact. That's like saying we can't say that the Earth is round, because golly gee, it might be flat." - Sorry, but this is a pretty stupid comparison. I can find hundreds of thousands of reliable sources, photographs, etc, etc, etc. to prove that the Earth is round. Because this is a fact - it's easy to prove. You were not able to present ONE, just ONE reliable source/research/proof to corroborate Bazant's opinion... that tells a lot about how "solid" is his statement about "what the civil engineering community" thinks. Just for a start - most people in the civil engineering community don't even know who Bazant is. "Civil engineering community" is a lot of people. The burden of the proof is with Bazant and he didn't offer any kind of explanation of how he came to that conclusion. Thus, it's a mere perception, opinion. Now, it's really sad to discuss project guidelines with people unable to understand the difference between fact and opinion. It's like trying to have a logical discussion with a three year old child talking about fairies and dragons. Dornicke (talk) 12:22, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I was reviewing the old discussion we had about the same topic. Found another interesting opinion I hadn't seen before: "Censoring Dornicke for his reasonable request is illustrative of your weak argument. I suggest flagging this article as biased or controversial. As Dornicke correctly points out, one man's quote is not illustrative of the entire engineering community. Even the title speaks to the inherent bias of this article. Reasonable skeptics can appreciate the logic presented above. Those without the facility of critical thought can cling to their beliefs, but it has no place here. Censoring him for engaging you politely on this talk page only serves to further highlight your biases." - There. Three user (four with me) agreed at that occasion. Other two users agreed that the sentence should be re-written. So much for "zero support" huh... Dornicke (talk) 12:30, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Given the known facts we should probably expand the sentence to be more inclusive. We wouldn't want people to think there's any merit to these conspiracy theories, right? — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 17:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Dornicke is exploiting one of Wikipedia's (many) flaws to assert doubt about a fact that is patently obvious, but difficult to verify, since it requires a positive statement about a negative. The issue is not whether the consensus of engineers and architects think controlled demolition is hooey, which despite AE911's efforts is quite plain, the issue is whether that statement can be cited in the absence of an affirmative statement in a source. Wikipedia's policies on reliable sourcing and verifiability make it theoretically impossible for proponents of conspiracy theories to be taken seriously, but they can also allow such proponents to exploit silence from authorities who can't be bothered to taken obvious fringe theories seriously. By the way, Dornicke, your conduct here and at the Village Pump has been far from exemplary: you've made a habit of describing editors who disagree with you as mentally ill [7] [8] [9]. If you're going to show up here once a year to promote conspiracy theories, you can expect some opposition. That is the difference between Wikipedia, which attracts such behavior and has to deal with it, and professional organizations, academic researchers and scientific journals, which can afford to politely ignore conspiracy theorists. Acroterion (talk) 17:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

1 - LOL. So, the problem is Wikipedia and its guidelines. They are all wrong. You (and Bazant) are right. Got it. It'd be easier to admit the obvious error in attributing the status of fact to an opinion. There's no flaw at all about this, this is how an encyclopedia works. If you want to quote opinions as facts, perhaps you should considering writting to a blog. NEVER an encylopedia.

2 - No, the problem has nothing to do with "exploit silence from authorities who can't be bothered to taken obvious fringe theories seriously". The problem is much simpler than that. The problem is: Bazant said "the engineers think like this", and editors wrote "the engineers think like this", instead of saying "according to Bazant, the engineers think like this". See? The problem lies with the one that wrote that sentence - not with the "conspiracy theorists", "terrorists", "communists", "big foot" or whatever is the following strawman you're going to use.

3 - I'm going to show up here whenever I want and I have no reason to be polite with rude editors or tolerate their rude remarks.

4 - The "conspiracy theorist shaming" won't work with me, sorry to tell you. I know the establishment in the US has been busy trying to brainwash their citizens into thinking that questioning "official" governamental versions and been skeptical about facts as presented by mainstream sources is a thing for lunatics, and that the reality of the things of the world needs to be approved by self-procclaimed authorities... but, generally, in the rest of the planet, people don't buy this crap - they understand government, newspapers and politicians do lie. Dornicke (talk) 18:58, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

The Laws of Physics will not bend to any man or government. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

"The Laws of Physics will not bend to any man or government." - Agree entirely. Media and their parrots, however, will. Dornicke (talk) 18:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

We simply repeat what reliable sources tell us. If the reliable peer reviewed sources said that Coneheads from the town of Remulak in France used gamma rays to bring down the WTC that is what we would report. Bazant is one of the few engineers to even address the absurdity of the conspiracy theories so we have to go with that. A few wackos over at the truther websites are pretty good at filling the web with moronic notions and fantastic claims because it helps to promote their Chariots of the Gods type of fancruft books.--MONGO 19:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Where are the peer reviewed articles published in reputable Civil Engineering journals proposing the Controlled Demolition Theory? In contrast, there are many, many others that support the mainstream account. This is all that matters.

According to the translation of this article (I can't read the original) the only thing approaching a peer reviewed published paper was published without the editor's knowledge. [10]. This is pretty standard for pseudo-sciences. To gain legitimacy they try to worm their way into reputable papers, but to do so they have to avoid proper review. There was a similar situation with creationists getting a paper published a few years back.

And AE911 is a ridiculous organization, filled with people with Bachelors of science in irrelevant degrees (anything with the name "engineer" in it, like software engineer). Similar lists could be made for any fringe or unfounded belief (creationism, AIDS denial, astrology, etc). 911 Conspiracy theories, especially theories about a Controlled Demolition taking down the towers are the definition of WP:FRINGE. They exist completely outside the relevant scientific community and among the lay population.

Wikipedia is about reproducing the views of scholars. For 911 Truth organizations to have their views represented as real science on Wikipedia, they would have to convince the scientific community first. Until that time they will be treated as a fringe theory. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 13:29, 19 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.

"Terminology" section

The phrasing of the Terminology section seems like exactly how a conspiracy theorists would describe the facts of the attacks. Compare this article with the Obama birth conspiracy article. I like the way the birth conspiracy article is written much better, writing that the conspiracy theorists dispute the facts. Anyone else support this idea? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 22:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2015

Simplified a bit, the first sentence in the Motives section reads like this: "Scholars for 9/11 Truth argued that a group (the PNAC), [...], set on US world dominance and orchestrated the 9/11 attacks ..."

Simplified a bit more, it reads like this: "a group set on US world dominance and orchestrated the 9/11 attacks"

Seems to me it should changed; either to "a group was set on US world dominance and orchestrated the 9/11 attacks" -or- "a group set on US world dominance and orchestrated the 9/11 attacks"

I don't know which... - Delamaran (talk) 05:32, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Using Meacher at Project for the New American Century

His article [11] "This war on terrorism is bogus: The 9/11 attacks gave the US an ideal pretext to use force to secure its global domination " is being used for the statement:

Writing in The Guardian, British MP Michael Meacher, made similar allegations in 2003, stating that Rebuilding America's Defences was "a blueprint for the creation of a global Pax Americana," which had been "drawn up for" key members of the Bush administration.[37][38]

I suggested that using an article specifically about, and subtitled as being about, a 9/11 conspiracy theory was not a superior reliable source for making such allegations about living persons, and that using a guest from the Alex Jones (radio host) show was possibly involving that article into the associated 9/11 conspiracy theory categories.

The person most involved (Ubikwit) says the quote has nothing to do with 9/11, and besides Meacher was a member of Parlianment. ("One aspect of Meacher that I found particularly notable is that he is British, and a Labor member of Parliament", "No the article is not "about his 9/11 truther position", "do not agree with Collect's assertion that the 9-11 material belongs in the article. As described below, the academic sources do not mention it in this context, and as far as I can tell, that is because it is not relevant to the topic", "The assertion that "the entire article is about Meacher's 9/11 conspiracy theory" is your fanciful interpretation, nothing more, but you refuse to listen.")

The queries here are:

Is that article by Meacher directly related to his 9/11 theories? Is the quote about the Bush administration benefitting from PNAC in a conspiracy "drawn up for" them unrelated to 9/11? If that material is used, would the PNAC article then fall into the associated conspiracy categories? And lastly, is the material of sufficient credibility that it ought to be included in the PNAC article? Many thanks! Collect (talk) 15:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

See these Talk threads[12][13]--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

And the editors here are cognizant about the topic of the 9/11 Truthers.

"it is clear the US authorities did little or nothing to pre-empt the events of 9/11. It is known that at least 11 countries provided advance warning to the US of the 9/11 attacks. Two senior Mossad experts were sent to Washington in August 2001 to alert the CIA and FBI to a cell of 200 terrorists said to be preparing a big operation (Daily Telegraph, September 16 2001). The list they provided included the names of four of the 9/11 hijackers, none of whom was arrested." (Meacher's words)

At first glance appear to indicate Meacher was writing about 9/11 and ascribing details which are generally viewed as "conspiracy theory" by editors here. Especially saying the Mossad knew in advance of 9/11,and that we had advance warning from 11 countries. If that is not a "9/11 theory" then I know not what would convince you. Unless, of course, you know for a fact that Mossad was involved? Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:39, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Mossad did warn the U.S. administration about possilbe attacks by al Qaeda, as did U.S. intelligence. While it is speculation that the administration chose to ignore those warnings because they hoped they would happen, that seems to be a very different type of narrative than to claim the U.S. planned and executed the attacks. Are there any sources that say Meacher's position is a conspiracy theory, rather than just an attempt to put the U.S. administration in the worst possible light?

His article btw is an opinion piece and therefore not rs for facts. And it does not present any facts that are not already documented in rs.

TFD (talk) 21:38, 1 March 2015 (UTC)