Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:54, 6 May 2006

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

9/11 conspiracy theories received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

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

Allegations of insider trading

There's a concise refutation of the allegations of insider trading indicating foreknowledge of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. It's cited and relevant. patsw 22:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Like with almost everything else on the page, people can check the link for themselves - there cannot be a different standard for information inclusion based on what position it supports. The quote is practically meaningless as it is and hardly worth wasting space on the page for. The fact that you were having to boldface a line of it underscores how excessive it is. 198.207.168.65 00:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The quote isn't meaningless, it is a refutation specifically of claims that there was a conspiracy and insider trading, and provides an explanation for the correlation that conspiracy theorists point to as evidence. Thus it is relevant to the article. Instead of deleting the quote, provide some sources who had dissenting opinions.--DCAnderson 00:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

What is specific about it? Nothing. What figures can we look at? None. What firms did they contact? Don't know. We're supposed to 'just trust them.' Your comment about how I'm supposed to refute something that is pure handwaving is ridiculous - the evidence is apparently too 'top secret' to even see, so there is not way to respond. They act as though one firm's newsletter could account for worldwide trading activity -- idiotic at best. The fact that you are deleting as much CT as you can and are openly telling me not to delete a long and laborious quote that tells us nothing but attempts to defend an unseen and unknown 'investigation,' exposes how biased your position is with regard to the information -- one standard for the official story, another for anything that isn't that. 198.207.168.65 01:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The standard (which is applied equally to both sides) is No Original Research. The quote is not original research. What was deleted from the section was a bunch of links to primary sources with the Misplaced Pages article implying causation. Go find people who make these claims and link to them, but don't delete the arguments that hurt your case.--DCAnderson 01:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

You don't actually know anything about what the research is because you are not allowed to see the source information. It's just what the 9/11 decided, and you don't get to ask where they got their numbers. I'll take original research anyday over the 'word' of the Commission. Bov 00:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately that is your personal preference vs. the WikiPedia policy.

Also, just because you don't trust the 9/11 commision, doesn't mean they're not authoritative in the eyes of WikiPedia. Misplaced Pages can not accept a conspiratorial worldview, because it would be impossible to write an artice about anything, because all authorities on a subject would be assumed to be potentially lying.--DCAnderson 00:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages don't need to accept or reject worldviews: Misplaced Pages will (and should) cite all relevant sources specifing who say what and leaving to the reader the decision about what to believe.--Pokipsy76 18:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Which is why we have to cite the 9/11 commision.

Also, what I'm saying is not that Misplaced Pages shouldn't mention the claims of those with a conspiratorial worldview, what I'm saying is that Misplaced Pages itself can't adopt that worldview. (i.e. "the 9/11 commision isn't a valid authority because they're part of the conspiracy")--DCAnderson 18:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that Misplaced Pages cannot adopt *any* worldview and should never say what is a valid authority and what is not.--Pokipsy76 20:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages policy of Reliable sources would disagree with you on that point.--DCAnderson 20:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Obfuscation of Sources

I have noticed in this article statements like this have a tendency to crop up:

• "Some theorists..."
• "Some believe..."
• "Others argue..."

These are Weasel words. Instead of giving vague statements like this, we need to give statements like:

• "Joe Blow of the Institute for Studying Stuff believes..."

Also, I have managed to cull out many of the statements with primary source citations, but we need to also take a serious look at the secondary sources we have. Many of the sites like 911truth.org are seriously questionable when it comes to the Misplaced Pages policy of Reliable Sources. As near as I can tell, Steven E. Jones, AlJazeera, and the article the "HOP level" quote is from are the closest things we've really got.--DCAnderson 04:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Any assertion that relies upon 911truth.org should be removed as a matter of course, as it's a POV-pushing non-reviewed mouthpiece for the conspiracists. Morton devonshire 14:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracism

"Soon afterwards Fox pulled it from its website without explanation." Though 'pull it' is common industry terminology for initiating a controlled demolition, spokesmen for Fox News claim that they just removed the page from the website. John Doe of Fakeytown, Missouri maintains that his computer did in fact explode, a charge ignored by the Bush administration. Researchers note that there is no way the administration can prove that Doe's computer did not explode. Others point to Fox's relationship with members of the current administration as evidence at least suggestive of something funny going on.

How's that? Can I have my own website now? Tom Harrison 13:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

You forgot to mention something that is unrelated, but imply that it is connected without coming right out and saying it:

The Internet was originally created by the US military.

Or even better:

Both George Bush and Ariel Sharon own computers with Internet access. They could have used these computers to view the Fox News article.--DCAnderson 20:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course you are right. Tell you what: We'll both set up websites, then we can cite each other as references. Tom Harrison 00:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

And I'll claim to be a prestigious scientist at an Ivy League University that supports your findings because I did two summers of (published) undergraduate research there. Based on my deep training and publications in mathematics, I conclude that Doe's computer not exploding must have violated the conservation of mass. --Mmx1 14:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Balance and NPOV

Yikes! Could we all settle down for some reflection? If this is a page on 9/11 conspiracy theories, then we should give a fair NPOV exposition of the claims from the leading website articles and books, and then follow those claims with an equal amount of space for refutations. In both cases, we need to cite actual statements from actual people or groups. In either case, uncited claims and Original Research should be removed. 911truth.org may not be a peer review source, but it does represent a significant player in conspiracist circles.

How do we help readers become aware of the claims and the refutations in a way that gives them useful information for further research? I am a harsh critic of conspiracy theories, but as an encyclopedia editor where the consensus is to keep this page, my task is to improve the page and its contents.

At the same time, it would be constructive if those favoring conspiracy theories and "skeptics" would stop wasting all of our time by endlessly revisiting issues that have been debated at great length and voted on. Let's leave the page name alone for a few months, and please stop trying to insert conspiracy theories onto the main 9/11 pages. It's just tacky.

If we all make a serious attempt to improve this page, some claims will erode away, others will be stated in more clear and convincing language, the refutations will be paired with the claims, and a few issue will probably emerge as more worthy of serious attention as unanswered questions.--Cberlet 14:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• Regarding "equal amount of space for refutations", I don't think this is necessary to maintain NPOV, since article is dedicated to the conspiracy theories. Refutations should be mentioned, but not necessarily equally. See WP:NPOV#Undue weight and WP:NPOV#Giving_.22equal_validity.22. The reverse, of course, would be true for the main 9/11 articles. -- MisterHand 14:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I hate to burst your bubble, but those two WikiPedia policies are not friendly to CTs. Those are the policies that are used to reign in the CTs, and they actually call for the exact opposite of what you said.

• Undue Weight:"Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority). We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views.
• Giving "equal validity: "Please be clear on one thing: the Misplaced Pages neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them as encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory; from describing the strong moral repugnance that many people feel toward some morally repugnant views; and so forth."--DCAnderson 17:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• You've obviously never seen any of wikipedia's articles on science or religion, where fringe views and "alternative theories" are mandatory, and every science-related-article is forced to carry a mandatory "alternative theory" section to appease the 2 or 3 people who think that the world is flat, and/or 6000 years old, or whatever...--152.163.100.69 20:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Well yah, you have to present the other side. The policies just say you don't have to give them "undue weight" or "equal validity." I'm not saying we shouldn't present these theories (they do exist, and they're worth mentioning) I'm just saying we shouldn't bend over backwards when writing these articles so a bunch of cranks can use WikiPedia as a soapbox.--DCAnderson 20:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

>>"I hate to burst your bubble, but those two WikiPedia policies (See WP:NPOV#Undue weight and WP:NPOV#Giving_.22equal_validity.22)are not friendly to CTs"

Interesting and overt. Pretty much explains how biased wikipedia is, that the official story can receive no questioning on its own page, and any questioning of it which has managed to add up to it's own page has to be labelled pejoratively and immediately 'refuted.' Bov 23:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Bipartisan title

What do you think about this possible new title:

9/11 skepticism and conspiracy theories

It would mention both POV and leave the reader free to judge himself what in the article is a conspiracy theory and what is just sketpticism. What do you think?--Pokipsy76 08:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• The word 'theory' implies that the information presented in the article is uncertain. Lx45803 14:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Conspiracy theories and legitimate criticisms are two separate topics; combining them into a signle article which fails to distinguish between the two would represent a loss of information. Peter Grey 15:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but in the article we speak about a lot of point of views so there will be also "theories". The reader can make his opinion on what in the article is a "theory" and what is justified skepticism about the official account.--Pokipsy76 15:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

This article is called "9/11 conspiracy theories" - it's not an accident that it contains conspiracy theories. Peter Grey 15:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

It contains a lot of things. Some of them are conspiracy theories, other are facts.--Pokipsy76 16:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories are by their very nature a collection of facts. (As a fact is an objective statement of reality.) The thing that makes them CTs is that they then imply causation between these facts.

• Por examplo: all of the sales of stock that happened before 9/11 really happened, and can be verified.

• It becomes a Conspiracy Theory when causation is implied, i.e "insider trading," "prior knowledge."

So yes, many of the statements on this page are "facts."--DCAnderson 16:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

A clarification regarding original research

OK. I have several questions, all of which relate to this article. First, when it comes to "original research", would the citation of facts that have not been cited before in this context count as original research? (I posted it earlier, though it was deleted. It was two contrasting statements (which contradicted each other...) regarding the release of Flight 93 info...) I haven't seen anyone else posting anything about it anywhere, and I am the only one who has put it together. That said, it is based on reliable sources, namely NTSB documents and statements by federal prosecutors. (I posted links to them too...) Oh, and the section regarding "no transcripts being released" needs to be changed in regards to the recordings being played at the Moussaoui trial. Orville Eastland 13:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess the relevant part of the OR policy would be "...any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position." Does that apply to what you are asking about? Tom Harrison 13:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorists' reaction to Debunkers of PM and SA

In the article we say that

Some of these claims have been dismissed as conspiracy theories by a number of journalists and scientists in publications such as Scientific American and Popular Mechanics. However, some of the claims are being further supported by a minority of scientists

I think it would be nice to mention why this "researchers" still support the claims given the "debunking" of PM and SA. So I added this

researchers as Jim Hoffman accused these articles to "misrepresent the skeptic point of view"

But it was deleted as a "poorly referenced statement". Well, it's not difficult to see that the opinions of other researchers about PM's article is more or less the Hoffman's opinion I quoted above (and it's not difficult to believe they had this reaction). You can look for example

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/reply_to_popular_mechanics.htm

http://www.oilempire.us/popular-mechanics.html

http://www.prisonplanet.tv/audio/090305alexresponds.htm

and surely google can give you many other opinion like that. Now what have I to do to make the statement "not poorly referenced"? Have I to mention all this websites and authors? How many of them? --Pokipsy76 15:25, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't object to the number of websites you listed but rather the quality of the source. There's a great article here called Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources. It turns out that personal webpages and partisan websites are not great references. But I see your point of view. You just wanted to show that some people disagree with the mainstream criticism of the conspiracy. On the other hand, should we then add a statement that some people disagree with the some people who disagree with the debunking of the conspiracy theories? We could link to blogs and personal webpages to prove that this is true also.--Bill 15:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

1) In the article we are saying that there have been some rebuttals BUT there are "researchers" that still support the (rubutted?) claims so I can't see any problem if we connect the two fact mentioning what these researchers said about the rebuttals.

2) The source has enough quality to be considered the real POV of these researchers being it an article in the website of one of them and written by one of them (one that is enough important between them to have a wikipedia page). What's the problem about it?

3) I didn't "wanted to show that some people disagree with the mainstream criticism of the conspiracy"!! I wasn't quoting the POV of some people, I was quoting the subject of the phrase (the "researchers questioning the official account...")!!--Pokipsy76 16:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the intro is fine the way it is now. It says there is support for these theories, and gives examples. Then it says that there are criticisms of these theories, and it gives examples. I don't think we really need to fit meta-arguments into the intro. Besides, some of those "rebuttals to the rebuttals" are allready linked to at the bottom of the page.--DCAnderson 17:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. I think that it would be fine to add the quote above. It is unclear at the beginning why the "researchers" still believe the claims and the links would give the motivation before one arrives to the end of the article. It would be a more balanced intro.--Pokipsy76 18:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The links are not to a reliable source, and they are cluttering up the into with a meta-argument. Also, it is allready clear from the intro that though "most" of the claims have been dismissed, "some" are still being supported. That part needs to get the axe.--DCAnderson 21:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

1) What's the problem if I cite as a source of a statement the web site of the author of the statement?

2) What's the problem about "meta-arguments"?

3) The word "most" and the phrase make the reader think that the dismissed claims are representative. This is POV. If You said "some" (as I tried to do) your argument could work. With "most" it become POV.

4) "That part needs to get the axe" is your personal opinion.--Pokipsy76 14:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

By definition none of the CT websites can be considered a reliable source, so your logic doesn't work here. You are saying that the CT rebuttals are unreliable and cluttering, suggesting that the source that's used by the State Dept to demean the CTs is able to be there because it is reliable and does not add clutter. Allowing only links to rebuttals but not CTs themselves in the first paragraph doesn't make sense on a page about CTs. Linking to an internal McKinney page isn't going to provide a response to SciAm or PM. Bov 18:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Article Being Butchered

I added the citation for the term pull. Patsw, I hope adding just one is good enough for you. It was right on this talk page by the way. I am reposting a comment from above here as well.

"that's exactly because the content of the article was outdated and sometimes obsolete, that I first started to rewrite and update the content, hoping to eventually reach a minimum up-to-date quality article. But I gave up after my modification were reverted before I could even finish the job. Seems we have a case of "if they don't know, you can't tell 'em" here. for example people are still reinserting that there is doubt about pulling being a controlled demolition term for pulling a building down, even though it has been widely in use for decades.

(...) such as pre-cutting steel beams and attaching cables to certain columns to "pull" a structure in a given direction. excerpt from the 1960's chapter of "A History of Structural Demolition in America" by author Brent L. Blanchard , or you can hear it here or see it in the howstuffworks article explaining how building implosion works:Blasters may also secure steel cables to support columns in the building, so that they are pulled a certain way as they crumble..

Thanks to doctor9 and other this has been edited out at least twice before I even finished working on the WTC 7 section. There's not even a link to the building implosion article anymore. Why is it that one has to explain to clueless laymen who don't dare research or read by themselves to justify an inclusion in a wikipedia article ? Do anyone here know that absence of evidence is not evidence and absence and that in absence of evidence a wikipedian should research the evidence instead of deleting and reverting ASAP. izwalito"

Talk about an excercise in redundancy. Actually, I think this is the fourth time I had to edit in that spot. Just me. If anyone still has doubts about that term speak up NOW. --SkeenaR 19:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I suppose a citation is needed for common? Whatever. Everybody knows it is and if they have such a hard-on for citations about they should add it themselves or just put the article up for deletion. SkeenaR 19:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the term "pull" has been used in demolition, and also in firefighting. It really is not fair to dispute that the term "pull" has been used in demolition when the cite documenting this keeps getting deleted. That is not fair. At the same time, we need to point out that the term "pull" also refers to pulling firefighters out of a building to prevent injury or death.--Cberlet 19:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

And in skeet shooting!--Bill 19:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I spoke with experts at Controlled Demolition, Inc. just this morning and asked them about "pull" or "pull it" and they stated that they never use this terminology. Can someone point me to where this terminology is used?--MONGO 00:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Just because you claim that you were told by a particular company that they do not use that term doesn't mean it isn't used like in the other examples here. SkeenaR 03:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

"Gradually they began to develop techniques to increase the efficiency of explosive charges, such as pre-cutting steel beams and attaching cables to certain columns to "pull" a structure in a given direction." and hear it here I love redundancy. Mongo, answer me this-with the base of knowledge you have gained while editing these articles, you have never heard of this term being used? SkeenaR 01:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Look, call them yourself, they won't talk to you since you have no credentials, but you can try and email them......maybe someone from there will chime in at Misplaced Pages and help to qwell all this junk science.--MONGO 01:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Look, I don't think this really matters. The claim was made, we have a source for it. There is a response to it listed with a citation as well. "Pull" is a term that has been used in demolitions.

Though its use in that context is somewhat questionable, "pull" was used to mean literally "pull" the walls down with cables, and not to implode the building. I guess it could maybe be construed as a holdover like "bug in the system" or "pencil lead."

But the argument is kinda obviously silly and loses horribly to Occam's razor (What's more likely? Mr. Silverstein accidentaly mentioned his elaborate plan to blow up his own building or that he was talking about "pulling" the rescue attempt?)

In lieu of another good third party rebuttal to this argument, we have to let it stand. Anything else would be Original Research.--DCAnderson 01:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

From the PBS documentary: "(unidentified construction worker): "Hello? Oh, we're getting ready to pull building six." Luis Mendes, NYC Dept of Design and Construction: "We had to be very careful how we demolished building six. We were worried about the building six coming down and then damaging the slurry walls, so we wanted that particular building to fall within a certain area." so it has been used in the context of implosions.SkeenaR 02:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, your right, it's beside the point because we are not trying to prove anything here, just that it is in the proper spot in the article. I don't understand the strong objections to it. SkeenaR 02:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Well I guess the real issue is whether "pull" is an industry term to talk about an implosion(you hear different things from different places) or if the guy in the article is only claiming it is. It's a subtle difference that requires us to word that section very carefully.

So far we have sources where they seem to imply it can be used to refer to an implosion and other sources that imply it is used to refer to literally "pulling" down a building. The problem is we don't have a reliable source that comes right out and says "Pull is a term to refer to an implosion."--DCAnderson 03:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Or to be more clear, I think we need a "Dictionary of Demolitions Terminology" entry or something. Or at least a glossary entry. Whatever, I say let it stand till we can get something better.--DCAnderson 03:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorists' reaction to Debunkers of PM and SA cont.

What's the need to specify that Jim Hoffman is a software engeneer? Is it some kind of trolling?--Pokipsy76 21:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

It's called citing your sources.--DCAnderson 21:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Why? Don't you think a background in computer programming adds to his credibility on questions of structural engineering? Tom Harrison 21:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I think its highly valuable to know who the source is. There's nothing wrong with being a software engineer. Some of my best friends are software engineers.--Bill 21:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that it's (of course) not relevant in the context. However I know that you are not so stupid and your answer (and those of the other two guys) makes things much more clear: you definitely *are* trolling and in fact you are not here to make a democratic discussion, you are here just to preserve the POV of the article. Good luck.--Pokipsy76 21:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

When I first read the sentence, I didn't know who Jim Hoffman was and I'm sure most people won't either. His area of expertise is relevant because he is being cited as an expert. I believe that I improved the article by saying who the source was. You say its a POV edit, and now we are discussing it.--Bill 21:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Please stop being ridiculous.--Pokipsy76 07:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Pokipsy76, a troll is "someone who comes into an established community such as an online discussion forum, and posts inflammatory, rude or offensive messages designed to annoy and antagonize the existing members or disrupt the flow of discussion." I don't see how that applies here. Tom Harrison 21:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe "persistent unconstructive sarcasm" and "disingenuous and redundant stalling tactics" should be added to the troll definition. SkeenaR 22:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I should have said "vandal"? Thank you very much for your precious and smart contribution to the discussion, Tom. Now you can return to add some other POV to the article.--Pokipsy76 21:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I can see how it applies here ;) --DCAnderson 21:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• The issue is this: Is 'software engineer' the expertise that Jim Hoffman's statements are based on? If he's an expert in a relevant area, then saying software engineer is a bad faith means of diminishing his credibility. If software engineering is his only area of expertise, then it is relevant because this is the background that the statements are based on, and not mentioning the fact would consitute trying to hide information prejudicial to his credibility. (And so far nothing in this discussion give me any clue as to the answer.) Peter Grey 08:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

See Jim Hoffman. However there's no so much to debate on, Bill's edit was very clearly a vandalish way to neutralize the quote without doing a revert (after his edit the phrase becamed completely ridiculous). Tom Harrison provided the revert deleting eventually some extra older statements he didn't like. This is the way this page is going on.--Pokipsy76 08:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Jim Hoffman is a software engineer who has been researching 9/11 since 2003. He has many publications in scientific journals related to mathematics. His research into 9/11, according to Misplaced Pages, is described on his website . He also co-authored a book about 9/11 with peace-activist Don Paul and has produced a DVD about 9/11. The sentence written about his beliefs linked to two of his essays "Scientific American Lies for the Empire" and "Popular Mechanics Attacks the '9/11 LIES' Straw Man." It was obvious from the context of the sentence that he was a 9/11 researcher/essayist. It was not obvious who he was. Just as we would write "CIA whistleblower Jim Hoffman" or "former-DoD aide Jim Hoffman," we should state what he does. Identifying his occupation didn't necessarily diminish his credibility and it didn't make the phrase "completely ridiculous." It gave the reader a fact and, as has been pointed out numerous times on this page, the readers should be given the facts and allowed to make their own conclusions. I like Al Franken. Al Franken has also written books and essays with specific agendas like Mr. Hoffman has. But if I cite Al Franken, I will write "Comedian Al Franken," because that identifies his primary occupation. You can call it "bad faith," "stupid," "ridiculous," "disingenous," or "vandalish" all you want, but nothing will change the fact that it identified the source of the statement.

In either case, the sentence is gone now because another editor removed it. Not because Hoffman is a software engineer but because the paragraph had already set-up the fact that there are two points of view.--Bill 14:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

But while it is said what the first POV thinks about the second it seems we are not allowed yo say what the second POV thinks about the first. (PS: your add about Hoffman *really* made the phrase ridiculous, don't try to defend it anymore, ask anyone not biased if you don't believe it. You had also to explain why we can say "publications as..." but we cannot say "researchers as..." but it's not important now that your bad faith has became more evident.)--Pokipsy76 16:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

If just naming the source of an argument makes it seem ridiculous, it probably gives you a fairly good idea of how well it holds up to the policy of Reliable Sources.--DCAnderson 16:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

In fact nobody was contesting something like "naming the source". Please make relevant comments.--Pokipsy76 16:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The statement was attributed to Jim Hoffman. If we attribute it to Jim Hoffman we need to mention who he is and what his qualifications are. If the statement seems silly after you mention his qualifications it probably means he isn't really an authority on the subject at all and shouldn't have been mentioned in the first place.--DCAnderson 16:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

• I.e., Jim Hoffman is just another amateur. Peter Grey 04:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The phrase was "researchers as Jim Hoffman": nobody was hiding his activity of *researcher* (the only one that was relevant in the context). There are politicians that are lawyers but if you specify "lawyer" in a phrase about his political activity or if you specify politicians in a phrase about his trials the phrase can become ridiculous (unless the second activity is relevant in the context). These things are so obvious that you must be completely "one sided" to have so many difficulties in understanding.--Pokipsy76 13:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Jim Hoffman is a prominent figure in this field and the target of ad hominem attacks on Misplaced Pages. SkeenaR 04:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

You can say "researchers such as..." In fact, that's the way the paragraph ends now, except that its more specific saying "scientists, government officials, military experts and some in the intelligence community" instead of "researchers." Right now the paragraph is organized like this: 1)Some people believe this. 2)Some people dismiss these beliefs. 3)However, some experts still support the beliefs. There is one sentence in the introduction that dismisses the conspiracy theories. I think its unnecessary to add in another counter-argument in favor of the conspiracy theories. But if we do add it in, at least explain who the source is.--Bill 16:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

So you are saying that you find it "unnecessary" to mention *in the intro* the reaserchers' POV about the debunkers while you find it necessary to mention *in the intro* the debunkers' POV about the researchers?--Pokipsy76 16:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Short answer: yes.

The intro says that there are two factions and they don't agree with each other. That's all we need.--DCAnderson 16:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

But it says it in a POV way making the reader believe that one of the faction include scientist that *debunked the claim of the other*. This is not NPOV because the skeptic "faction" says that the debunked claims are in fact not representative of the skeptics. If you don't say this in the intro the intro will never be NPOV.--Pokipsy76 17:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that when the intro say that the two factions "don't agree with each other" it is misleading about *what* is the matter of the disagreement. It seems to say that the disagreement is about the belief of some "dismissed claims", but this is the POV of PM, not that of the researchers (that thinks that the claims over which PM expressed disagreement are not representative of them). So the intro is not NPOV.--Pokipsy76 13:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I am saying that it already mentions their POV. Right now, the intro doesn't explain why the mainstream dismisses these theories. It just says that they do. And it doesn't explain why some people still believe these theories. It just says that they do. And the rest of the article goes into the details.--Bill 16:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

You are assuming that "mainstreams dismissed the theories" (and this is what the intro seems to say) but this is disputed: researchers says that the dismissed claims are not relevant to their theory. You can't justify the intro on the base of POV assumptions.--Pokipsy76 17:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand what is meant by "dismiss."

From Dictionary.com's definition of "Dismiss":

• To stop considering; rid one's mind of; dispel: dismissed all thoughts of running for office.
• To refuse to accept or recognize; reject: dismissed the claim as highly improbable.

Just saying the theories were "dismissed" doesn't imply anything more than that their critics don't accept them. Which is true.

i.e. Dismised doesn't mean they proved them wrong, just they didn't accept them.

In the intro we don't even give an explanation why they're rejected , while we give a whole summary of the theories and their proponents.--DCAnderson 18:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

What you say is irrelevant if you understand what I'm saying. The ambiguity in the intro (that makes it POV) is between *what* is dismissed and *what* is supported by researchers. The intro seems to say that the dismissed claims are (substantially) *the* claims that are supported by the researchers. This is in fact what the article of PM say but this is not what the researchers say: they say that the theories considered by PM are not representative of the skeptic POV. Why should the intro have the POV of a specific part of the debate?--Pokipsy76 13:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Does Jim Hoffman represent all 9/11 researchers? The articles dismissed the most prevalent 9/11 claims. Just because Jim Hoffman makes some claims that aren't covered by SA and PM doesn't mean that they didn't address the major claims. And that is the way it is phrased now, "most" of these claims were dismissed by PM and SA, while "some" are supported.

Look, I have said it once and I have said it again, the Conspiracy Theorists are not monolithic. Some of them don't support the theories covered by those articles, while some do. Saying that Jim Hoffman speaks for all 9/11 "researchers" when he says that PM and SA didn't cover "his" issues, is just plain preposterous.--DCAnderson 16:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think that the parts about dismissal by sciam and pm as well as the parts about it being supported by scientists etc should both go as the paragraph explains the article fine without them. I guess it's as good as it will get for now, and I suppose the word dismissal is adequate. It does fit. SkeenaR 02:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I think they help get across the message "these theories are controversial," without being so vague.--DCAnderson 16:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Another thought I've had. Right now it says:

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

So right now it lists those as general examples of a larger body. So trying to include a specific rebuttal to those two examples is overkill. We don't specifically address anything else in that intro, so why should we specifically address the rebuttal to those two articles?

I would sugest that including specific attacks to a general example in an intro, would in and of itself be an attempt to PUSH A POV.

i.e it would be saying right off the bat "here are a couple of examples, but here is why they're crap. So don't bother with what the other side has to say."--DCAnderson 16:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Wording

"some of the claims are being further supported" I don't understand exactly what this means. Tom Harrison 21:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess we could write it "some of these claims are being supported"--DCAnderson 21:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

This part of the sentence is kind of weird too: "Most of these claims have been dismissed as conspiracy theories by a number of journalists and scientists in the publications Scientific American and Popular Mechanics,"

There are two weird things about it.

First it implies that the claims were dismissed "as conspiracy theories." Wern't they dismissed as "not being true?" I think it would work fine as "Most of these claims have been dismissed by..."

Second it imples that Scientific American and Popular Mechanics are the only places where they have been dismissed, while I'm fairly certain there are more places, and those those two are only being used as examples.--DCAnderson 22:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's right. They didn't say (as I recall), "Those are conspiracy theories, and therefore unworthy of our attention." They examined the assetions of the theories popular at the time, and found them lacking. Of course, the proponents of the theories say they were not found lacking, but weren't fully understood, or were misrepresented. I think it could be better expressed. Tom Harrison 22:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the change from "publications such as..." to "the publications" was done as retaliation for my edit of "researchers such as Jim Hoffman" to "software engineer Jim Hoffman." --Bill 22:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Assume good faith, Bill.--DCAnderson 22:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I changed it to "publications such as" to demonstrate that they are not the only ones disputing the conspiracy theories. SkeenaR 22:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Citation request

Whoever put a request for a citation that most researchers question the put options, a google search shows that this is unnecessary - Results 1 - 10 of about 91,000 for 9/11 and "put options". If you want to cite all the CT websites then go do the work, but it's ridiculous. 24.4.180.197 02:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Well it's not important that we list them all, but we should list the most prominent proponents. Otherwise we are using Weasel Words.--DCAnderson 02:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Millions of people did question the put options when this pattern was first disclosed by the Chicago Board Options Exchange on September 18, 2001. A lazy Google search will continue to find many references to the suspicion the trades were made with foreknowledge until the end of time.

Unless this article is History of 9/11 conspiracy theories, the question for this article in 2006, is how many researchers now dispute the conclusion of the 9/11 Commission that the trades were not connected to anyone with foreknowledge of the September 11, 2001 /11terrorist attacks -- and if these researchers have an explanation for how and why the different organizations (investment banks, the CBOE, the Options Clearing Corporation, SEC, Department of the Treasury, and the FBI) would coordinate a lie to deceive the world.

I've looked for such a researcher but only found those who have looked at the data and conclude that the conclusion of the 9/11 Commission that the trading was innocuous was correct. So, as a matter of fact, I am interested in learning of researchers who after August 2004, continue to hold that there is more than merely suspicion and coincidence, but evidence beyond the question why a graph has a spike in the middle. patsw 03:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

In 2006, we are talking about conspiracy theories. A good place to find out what they are is conspiracy theory sites. Many of them have lots of links too! Or just delete the article, or call it "9/11 Conspiracy Theories All Bullshit". Actually, create that article or another blog and then you can put anything you want.SkeenaR 03:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

But they're primary sources of unverified notability - if I put up a webpage saying the sky is green, should you cite me? We need more stuff like the New York Metro article - articles in the press ABOUT the conspiracy theorists. That's a secondary source about these theories. These conspiracy sites, no. --Mmx1 04:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, look people. These claims have to come from somewhere. Someone has to have made them. We have to name a source for them, because the Conspiracy Theorists have a lot of different views on this, and they are not a united front on these issues.--DCAnderson 03:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The burden to provide a citation is on the editor who adds "Many theorists view..." and provides only external links to a news articles from October 2001 and some commentary from 2001 giving the common reasons for suspicion.

But do these theorists believe this in May 2006? Has any theorist disputed the data made available by the CBOE or and Options Clearing Corporation the conclusion reached by the 9/11 Commission in 2004 and published a refutation of them? If not, the accurate statement becomes "Many theorists viewed..."? patsw

Yeah, it's still disputed Patsw. I'm surprised you are unable to contribute any good material instead of just deleting stuff. I guess I'll have to do it again. SkeenaR 04:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Please add a citation indicating a dispute refuting the findings of the August 2004 9/11 Commission Report to support "Many theorists view..." with regard to the options trading. patsw 04:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah sure. Now do your wordplay thing. SkeenaR 05:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Not only that, but the whole Commission Report is seen by almost all theorists as a completely bogus whitewash, so in this context it's irrelevant what the report says anyway. Do you want a citation for that? Just trying to get this article NPOV.SkeenaR 05:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The linked article "Revealing 9-11 Stock Trades Could Expose The Terrorist Masterminds" on www.globalresearch.ca does nothing more than repeat the suspicion of September and October 2001.

No conspiracy researcher is mentioned in that article refuting the data presented by the groups I mentioned above in 2004, 2005, or 2006. It isn't so much that the 9/11 Commission Report got it wrong but that hundreds or thousands of employees with access to records of different sorts with respect to the questioned options trades and accounts could be brought into a conspiracy to deceive the world regarding who was behind the trades. patsw 05:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Pat, it is fine the way it is. We mention what these theories are, and then we have the rebuttal from the 9/11 commision. It is not our place to judge these theories, just to present them, and present what the critics have said about them. Anything else is Original Research.--DCAnderson 05:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The Report isn't irrelevant to this part of the article (go read my posts above in the section about insider trading). In order to remain NPOV, we need to list a couple of major proponents of the theory i.e. "John Doe of the John Smith foundation says..." and it would probably be best if we listed some quotes along with it. As Skeena pointed out there are plenty of sources still making that claim. The tricky part is trying to figure who is the most prominent and/or reliable of the people making this claim.--DCAnderson 05:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Really, DCAnderson and SkeenaR, I'm looking for a source that is currently making the claim of foreknowledge of 9/11 based on specific evidence other than:

• "The pattern of trading is suspicious." (i.e. what we learned on September 18, 2001)
• "We (i.e. almost all conspiracy theorists) know the 9/11 Commission Report was a whitewash." patsw 05:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

There isn't one. That's the nature of a Conspiracy Theory: these facts I have selected seem to imply a suspicious correlation, and anything that disagrees is "lies" put out by "them."

That's why the title of the page is 9/11 conspiracy theories.--DCAnderson 05:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not clear to me why this issue of a citations for many theorists on the insider trading is such an issue. Why are people who have no idea of what goes on in the movement, now or historically, deleting information on the page that doesn't fit with their worldview and then insisting on citations but won't look up any information themselves? Bov 17:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't have said it better myself Bov. It almost seems like a method to keep people who would contribute to the article busy running around in circles with frivolous tasks while at the same time calling into question anything else they "don't like"-all without contributing to the article or doing any work themselves. Of course I'm not saying that this is the case. SkeenaR 20:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

pull is industry jargon for planned demolition

Here's two versions of the Paul Watson's theory linked to prison planet

1 On prisonplanet.com, Paul Watson has written the term "pull is industry jargon for planned demolition" and that Silverstein made a reference to his order to destroy 7 World Trade Center by controlled demolition in the above interview.

2 On prisonplanet.com, Paul Watson has suggested that this statement was a Freudian slip where Mr. Silverstein mentioned an order to collapse the building. He suggests because "pull" is a common industry term used at the moment a collapse is triggered

I wrote the first version because Paul Watson doesn't have a cite for "pull is industry jargon for planned demolition." A cite is necessary because I wasn't able to verify Paul Watson's assertion to be factual.

In the meantime it can't be asserted as fact and instead is cited it as his own writing. Note I have quoted his own words from the article. The article doesn't refer to "pull" as "the moment a collapse is triggered".

I wonder what sort of research Watson did on this article. For example, the New York City Fire Deparment is not organized into "brigades" but "companies".

I don't know if "pull is industry jargon for planned demolition." As I wrote in an edit summary adding the {{fact}} template, request citation for "pull" as a standard industry term to demonstate its usage prior to 9/11/2001 in this manner.

According to Watson, Silverstein made a reference (in Watson's words "an apparent admission") to an order to destroy 7 World Trade Center by controlled demolition (that is a "planned demolition" or "pull").

The second version is not an accurate summary of Watson's article: Watson doesn't suggest it was a Freudian slip, slip of the tongue, or carelessness on Silverstein's part. From watching the clip one can see that Silverstein is careful and not careless in recalling this conversation with the FDNY chief on the site.

The second version is ambiguous: "collapse the building" is not Watson's claim at all, it is that Silverstein destroyed the building by ordering its controlled demolition at 5:20 p.m. on Septemer 11, 2001. patsw 02:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

There are enough references where you can easily find them yourself. Some of them are on this page. You can also fix the semantics if you like, but we are not here to verify the credibility of Paul Watson's research into the organizational structure of the FDNY. Change it again if you like and I'll proof-read it for you. SkeenaR 03:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really into how to this works but I just wanted to add some information. There is a (non-conspiracy) documentary about 9/11 where they demolish WTC 6 and the demolition team uses the term "pull".

Another thing that is missing is the WTC North tower fire in 1975 when the building burned for 3 hours.

This is what you are refering to: From the PBS documentary: "(unidentified construction worker): "Hello? Oh, we're getting ready to pull building six." Luis Mendes, NYC Dept of Design and Construction: "We had to be very careful how we demolished building six. We were worried about the building six coming down and then damaging the slurry walls, so we wanted that particular building to fall within a certain area." so it has been used in the context of implosions. It is in their own words while performing the operation. Is this clear enough?SkeenaR 03:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Page Protection

I missed what vandalism prompted this protection, but it's been up for a while now and I'm requesting it be unprotected. BTW, what was the vandalism? SkeenaR 01:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:VAN--MONGO 02:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I remember it being by a sock puppet of some dude who has been banned, and was trying to edit the "Zionist Lies" that Jayjg had put in.(He even mentioned Jayjg by name in his edit summary and called him a Zionist) As near as I can tell, he's had it in for Jayjg for awhile now.--DCAnderson 02:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

How about we fix it now? SkeenaR 03:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the protection is very good for this sort of subject. Registered users can edit, and such a controvercial topic is in lots of danger of being screwed up by anon crack-pots and anti-conspiracy believers alike. Fresheneesz 11:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Unforunately Misplaced Pages's policy on this is that the only thing that can justify locking a page is vandalism that is actually occuring on an ongoig basis or to protect the page from sockpuppets of a banned user. You can't lock a page just because it is controversial. We did have a banned user try to edit, but he only made 2 edits and they seemed to be part of a larger wave of editing across multiple pages. This is an isolated incident, and as near as I can tell doesn't really justify the lock. If he comes back and does it again later, I suppose it will be justified, until then I say we should remove the lock.--DCAnderson 15:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) placed the block to deal with edits by a banned user working from an IP address. You could ask him to unprotect, or you could request unprotection. I expect Jayjg will remove the protection as soon as it's safe to do so. Tom Harrison 16:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Is it safe yet? Bov 17:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

He's pretty persistent. What's the rush in unprotecting? Are there any IPs that really need to edit this article right now? Jayjg 22:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm assuming for example editors like 198.207.168.65 are unable to contribute. He should not be required to register and this article and others will suffer as a result. The protection is a hindrance and I think probably unnecessary as we can kick the troll out any old time if we need to. Perhaps you are right about leaving the protection up though, but for how long? SkeenaR 03:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists
• Old requests for peer review